‘Theatre of Diverse Voices’: Utilising Educational Theatre to Foster Empathy and Dialogue in Singapore Secondary Schools' Character and Citizenship Education

Mr Ravi Chandran  [Singapore]

Abstract

As a nation characterised by diverse ethnicities, religions, and cultures, Singapore's Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum bears the core mission of fostering national identity, social harmony, and cross-cultural understanding. However, traditional CCE teaching frequently encounters challenges: student engagement in abstract value discussions remains low; classroom dialogue on sensitive topics such as race and religion tends to be superficial and cautious, struggling to address deeper emotions and biases; Students struggle to practise complex civic skills within a safe environment. To overcome these limitations, this study designed and implemented an innovative teaching approach termed the ‘Theatre of Diverse Voices’. This methodology systematically integrates educational theatre techniques—specifically Forum Theatre, Conscience Lane, and Freeze Frame—into secondary school CCE classrooms to explore topics such as racial prejudice, cyberbullying, national identity, and social equity. By creating virtual yet highly simulated theatrical scenarios, students transition from “bystanders” to “experiencers” and “interveners”. Within this secure environment, they “pre-enact” moral choices, experience behavioural consequences, and trial diverse solutions. This study conducted a semester-long action research project across four CCE classes at a junior college. Findings indicate that the ‘Divergent Voices Theatre’ model significantly enhances students' empathy, perspective-taking abilities, and moral courage; effectively fosters more sincere, profound, and constructive dialogue on sensitive topics; and assists students in internalising civic values as contextually sensitive practical wisdom. This model offers a robust innovative methodology for delivering profound, vivid, and transformative civic education within Singapore's multicultural society.

Keywords: educational theatre; character and citizenship education; empathy; multicultural education; dialogue pedagogy; moral courage; Singapore

Introduction

Research Context: Deep-seated Challenges in Singapore's CCE Education

Singapore's CCE curriculum aims to cultivate citizens who are ‘rooted in our nation, yet open to the world.’ A core task involves fostering understanding, respect, and harmony among diverse communities. However, within a context that highly emphasises social harmony and pragmatism, classroom civic discussions can sometimes become mired in the constraints of ‘political correctness.’ Students may know what they ‘should’ say, yet unexamined biases, confusion, or differing viewpoints remain suppressed due to fears of conflict or offence. When addressing issues genuinely present in students' lives—such as racial humour, religious customs, new immigrant integration, or LGBTQ+ rights—traditional case studies or group discussions often fail to create sufficiently safe, deep psychological spaces for exploring the emotional complexity and moral ambiguity of these topics. Consequently, there is an urgent need for a pedagogy that reduces defences, stimulates emotional engagement, and permits ‘trial and error’.

Theoretical Framework: Educational Theatre as a ‘Moral Laboratory’

Educational theatre does not train actors but employs dramatic techniques and scenarios to facilitate learning. It rests upon a core principle: through ‘role-playing,’ individuals can explore experiences, understand relationships, and rehearse actions. Augusto Boal's ‘Theatre of the Oppressed’ theory provides a crucial foundation for this research. Boal advocates that theatre should serve as a ‘pre-performance’ for people to analyse their circumstances and explore possibilities for change, rather than passive spectatorship. The Forum Theatre technique within this framework allows the audience (the “spect-actors”) to interrupt the performance at any moment, replace the protagonist, and experiment with alternative courses of action, thereby collectively exploring solutions to social issues. Applying educational theatre to CCE essentially creates an “ethical laboratory”. Within this laboratory, students can:

· Experience safely: Engage with conflict, prejudice, and predicaments within fictional scenarios without bearing real-world consequences.

· Deeply empathise: By assuming diverse roles, they are compelled to adopt others' perspectives, transcending self-centredness.

· Courageously intervene: Within Forum Theatre, they practise disrupting plotlines, exercising moral choices under pressure and defending them.

· Collectively reflect: Post-performance discussions focus on ‘What happened?’, ‘Why?’ and ‘What else could have been done?’, fostering collective meaning-making.

Research Purpose and Innovation This study aims to develop and evaluate the efficacy of the ‘Diversity Voices Theatre’ teaching model within secondary school CCE curricula. Specific objectives include:

1. Methodological Development: Adapting professional theatre techniques such as Forum Theatre and Conscience Lane into classroom-ready, teacher-friendly instructional processes.

2. Competency and Affective Outcomes: Assess the model's impact on enhancing students' empathy, moral judgement, intercultural dialogue skills, and courage to confront ethical dilemmas.

3. Classroom Culture Transformation: Examine how theatrical approaches foster a more open, inclusive classroom dialogue culture that encourages exploration of divergent viewpoints.

The innovation of this lesson plan lies in: Firstly, systematically introducing cutting-edge drama therapy methods into mainstream civic education classrooms, representing a breakthrough within Singapore's educational context; Secondly, focusing on ‘intervention’ and ‘pre-performance’, emphasising that civic education is not merely about ‘knowledge’ and “emotion”, but also the practice of ‘action’; Thirdly, its high adaptability to Singapore's diverse societal issues, providing a unique tool for addressing core educational challenges.

Innovative Lesson Plan Design for the ‘Divergent Voices Theatre’

1. Overall Framework and Topic Selection

· Target Learners: Junior College Year 1 students (equivalent to sixth form).

· Curriculum Integration: Aligned with CCE core modules such as ‘Citizenship in a Diverse Society’ and ‘Interpersonal Relationships’.

· Topic Sources: Real-life dilemmas closely relevant to students' lives, e.g.:

Witnessing a friend share racially charged jokes in a group chat.

Observing heated online debates about religious festival customs among users of diverse backgrounds.

Experiencing new immigrant students being isolated due to accent during school orientation.

Encountering disagreements over which cultural performances best ‘represent Singapore’ during national celebration preparations.

·Unit Structure: Each topic spans 3–4 weeks, comprising four progressive workshops.

2 Teaching Objectives

·Knowledge and Understanding:

Comprehend the multidimensional nature and complexity of selected social issues.

Recognise Singapore's relevant laws and social norms upholding racial and religious harmony.

Understand the mechanisms and impacts of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.

·Process and Skills:

Employ theatrical techniques to embody social contexts and interpersonal dynamics.

Deepen emotional engagement and articulate diverse perspectives through role-play.

Demonstrate courageous intervention and propose constructive alternative courses of action within forum theatre.

Participate in guided dialogue, practising deep listening and empathetic responses.

·Emotions, Attitudes and Values:

Develop profound empathy for others' experiences and feelings.

Cultivate openness, respect, and critical thinking amidst diverse viewpoints.

Strengthen willingness and courage to act in alignment with values when facing ethical dilemmas.

Deepen understanding and identification with Singapore's ‘Unity in Diversity’ national identity.

3 Teaching Phases and Activity Details (Using ‘Racially Discriminatory Jokes’ as an Example)

Workshop One: Building Trust and Introducing the Topic (Week 1)

·Activity 1: Establishing a Drama Contract and Safe Space.

Clearly define the fundamental classroom principles: ‘Respect, Confidentiality, Voluntary Participation, Focus on the Present’. Rapidly build group cohesion and physical trust through games such as ‘Trust Falls’ and ‘Mirror Movements’.

·Activity 2: Topic ‘Warm-up’ and Personal Connection. Employ the ‘One-Sentence Story’ exercise: Students form a circle, each describing in one sentence an experience where they felt offended or witnessed someone else being offended (without requiring specific details). The teacher introduces the core issue: How do inappropriate remarks spread and cause harm in the digital age?

·Activity 3: News Case Analysis and Character Network Diagram. Present a simplified news case about local youths investigated for sharing racially discriminatory content. Students form groups to create a ‘Character Network Diagram’, listing all relevant individuals (poster, sharers, friends from the offended group, silent bystanders, teachers, parents, etc.) and hypothesising each character's potential thoughts, feelings, and motivations.

Workshop Two: Scenario Construction and ‘Freeze Frame’ (Week 2)

·Activity 1: Creating the ‘Crucial Moment’. Each group selects a pivotal scene from their network diagram (e.g., the protagonist seeing the offensive content on their phone screen; the protagonist hesitating to speak up in a group chat; the offended friend confronting the protagonist afterwards).

·Activity 2: ‘Freeze Frame’ Sculpting. Group members physically construct a static sculpture of the scene. Each character must adopt expressive poses and facial expressions. Other groups observe as audience, interpreting the relationships, power dynamics, and emotions within the sculpture.

·Activity 3: Thought Tracking and Soliloquy. While the sculpture is frozen, the teacher or an audience member may tap a particular ‘statue’ on the shoulder. The actor portraying that character then voices their inner thoughts in the first person (‘soliloquy’). This externalises internal conflict.

Workshop Three: Forum Theatre Rehearsal (Week 3)

·Activity 1: Developing a Short Play. Select the most tension-filled ‘key moment’ sculpture. The original group or volunteers develop it into a 2-3 minute short play, depicting the escalation from conflict onset to the protagonist's climactic predicament where resolution seems impossible.

·Activity 2: Rule Explanation and ‘Magic Facilitator’. The teacher acts as ‘Facilitator’, explaining Forum Theatre rules: the short play will be repeated; Any audience member who disagrees with the protagonist's approach may shout ‘Stop!’ at any time, take the stage to replace the protagonist (or any other character), and continue the scene in their own way to attempt breaking oppression or resolving the issue.

·Activity 3: Intervention and Rehearsal. After the first performance, the host encourages audience intervention. ‘Perhaps you could try privately contacting the poster to express your discomfort?’ " Perhaps first ask the friend in the group whose cultural background was offended how they feel?‘ Each intervention serves as a ’preview." The group discusses the potential effects, risks, and value of each intervention strategy. There is no single correct answer; the focus lies in exploring the spectrum of possibilities.

Workshop Four: ‘Conscience Lane’ Reflection and Action Commitment (Week 4)

·Activity 1: Guided Reflection. Review the various intervention approaches from the Forum Theatre. The teacher poses a core, unresolved ethical dilemma, such as: ‘Which matters more to you: friendship or upholding principles? Under what circumstances?’

·Activity 2: ‘Alley of Conscience’ Deep Reflection.

Two student volunteers represent opposite ends of the spectrum (e.g., ‘Prioritise friendship, communicate privately’ vs. ‘Prioritise upholding principles, publicly oppose’). They stand at opposite ends of the classroom, forming an ‘alley’. Other students position themselves along the continuum based on their current stance. The teacher interviews students at different positions, asking them to state their reasons. Students are permitted to move positions after listening to others.

Activity 3: Personal Reflection and ‘Micro-Action’ Commitment. Students quietly write in their reflection journals: What moment in this week's workshop resonated most deeply with me? What new insights did I gain about myself or others? Based on this, what specific ‘micro-action’ do I commit to attempting within the coming week? (e.g., paying closer attention to group chat content; practising saying ‘I feel this joke might be inappropriate’ when uncomfortable; learning more about other ethnic festivals.) Anonymously share selected commitments to foster collective support.

Teaching Practice and Effectiveness Analysis

Research Implementation

This study was conducted in four CCE classes (100 students total) at a Singapore polytechnic, employing qualitative research methods. Data included: workshop recordings (focusing on analysing student interventions and dialogue), student reflection journals, teacher observation notes, pre- and post-test empathy scales, and semi-structured interviews with 12 focus students.

Core Findings

1. Deepening empathy from cognition to embodiment. Students consistently reported that by portraying the friend or family member of someone offended, ‘that sense of awkwardness, anger, and helplessness is something no amount of case studies could convey.’ One Chinese student, after portraying a Malay classmate hurt by a joke, wrote: ‘For the first time, I truly felt how a “joke” could be like a tiny thorn lodged in the heart – invisible, yet causing pain whenever recalled.’ This embodied empathy proved far more profound than mere cognitive “understanding”.

2. Moral courage flourished within a “safe risk-taking” environment. Forum theatre provides a ‘safe space for risk-taking.’ Many introverted students, shielded by the drama, ventured to voice dissent in a ‘public setting’ (within the play) for the first time. In reflection, they noted: ‘After trying it in the play, I feel that if I encounter a similar situation in real life, I at least know what I can do and seem to have more courage to act.’ This ‘pre-rehearsal’ significantly lowers the psychological threshold for real-world action.

3. Classroom dialogue evolves from superficial harmony to profound truth-seeking. Within theatre's safe and inclusive atmosphere, students become more willing to share genuine thoughts and vulnerable feelings. Discussions on race and religion cease to merely parrot official narratives, instead delving into personal confusion, familial influences, and cultural misunderstandings. Dialogue quality shifts from ‘We ought to be harmonious’ to ‘How can we achieve genuine harmony amidst our differences?’.

4. The neutral facilitation of teachers as “chairs” proves crucial. The teacher's role transforms from “moral authority” to “process chair” and “thinking facilitator”. Their core task is ensuring process safety and driving deep reflection, rather than providing standard answers. This demands greater facilitation skills and profound subject matter understanding from educators.

Discussion and Reflection

Key Success Factors: Ritual, Safety and Process Orientation

The success of this model hinges on three elements: Firstly, ritual. The theatrical activities themselves possess a ritualistic quality, facilitating students' transition from routine learning modes to deeper reflective modes. Secondly, absolute safety. Clear agreements and an atmosphere of respect form the prerequisite for students to venture forth and expose their genuine thoughts. Third, process orientation: the teaching does not pursue uniform conclusions or ‘correct’ answers, but rather values the process of exploration, dialogue, and reflection itself.

Challenges and Response Strategies

· Student Resistance and Embarrassment: Some students initially feel shy about drama activities. This is mitigated by starting with simple non-verbal activities (such as sculpting), emphasising ‘focus on the task rather than performance,’ and establishing a strong culture of peer support.

·Emotional Management:​ Theatre may provoke intense emotions. Teachers must prepare in advance, allow sufficient time after workshops for debriefing and reorientation, and liaise with school counsellors.

·Time and Curriculum Pressures:​ Workshops require consecutive, uninterrupted lesson periods. CCE timetables must be integrated through coordinated planning, with school management informed of this model's irreplaceable value in achieving CCE's deeper objectives.

Significance for Singaporean Citizenship Education

The ‘Diversity of Voices Theatre’ injects new vitality into Singapore's CCE. It responds to the increasingly complex ethical and social challenges faced by young citizens in an era of globalisation and social media. It demonstrates that civic education must transcend mere knowledge transfer, creating opportunities for students to immerse themselves emotionally, rehearse actions, and engage in confrontational dialogue. This approach cultivates citizens who are not only ‘well-read and well-mannered’ but also possess ‘empathy in heart’ and ‘courage in action’ – individuals capable of authentically embodying the profound essence of “harmony” and ‘respect’ within Singapore's multicultural society.

Conclusion

The “Theatre of Diverse Voices” pedagogical model successfully transforms educational theatre into a potent catalyst for fostering civic growth and cross-cultural understanding among Singaporean youth. Moving beyond traditional didacticism, it enables students to learn citizenship through embodied experience, safe rehearsal, and profound dialogue – learning by doing and feeling. This learning engages not merely the mind, but the heart and body, yielding more enduring and intrinsic transformation. It cultivates the empathy, dialogue skills, and moral agency students require when confronting real-world disagreements – core civic competencies essential for building a truly inclusive and resilient Singaporean society. This model offers an exceptionally insightful Singaporean solution for civic education in diverse societies worldwide.

References

[1]. Singapore Ministry of Education. (2021). Character and Citizenship Education Syllabus (Pre-University). CPDD.

[2]. Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the Oppressed (C. A. McBride & M.-O. Leal McBride, Trans.). Pluto Press.

[3].Heathcote, D., & Bolton, G. (1995). Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote's mantle of the expert approach to education. Heinemann.

[4].Chua, S. K. C. (2015). Fostering the democratic spirit through classroom discussions: A Singapore perspective. Social Education, 79(5), 263-267.

[5].Winston, J. (2012). Second language learning through drama: Practical techniques and applications. Routledge.

[6].Sim, J. B. Y., & Print, M. (2009). The state, teachers and citizenship education in Singapore schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(4), 380-399.

[7]. Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.

[8]. Singapore Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth. (2019). Our Singaporean Values: A Study on Youth Perceptions.