THE UTILIZATION OF DRAMA IN SCRIPTURE PRESENTATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING PARTICIPANTS' ABILITY TO RECALL, COMPREHEND, AND APPLY PRINCIPLES OF SCRIPTURE TO THEIR LIVES
Loading...
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
The following hypothesis was tested in the thesis study. The presentation of
Scripture through the utilization of literal dramatization of the Scripture will increase
the participant’s comprehension, recall, and application of the Scripture in comparison
with only hearing a formal reading of the Scripture.
A review of the literature included: dramatic events of the Bible, a history of
religious drama, dramatic approaches in historical worship, the impact of media on
learning, effectiveness of the use of drama in the church, effect of the postmodern era
on the impact of drama and on the receptivity to the use of drama in the church, and
research on drama. No research was found on the effectiveness of dramatizing
Scripture in a church service nor on the impact of dramatic approaches on learning.
The first part of the study was conducted with “The Parable of the Prodigal Son”
(Luke 15:11:32) being read at the Lutheran church (the control group) and acted out at
the Episcopal church (the treatment group). The 59 participants completed a pretest
and a post-test questionnaire. There was no significantly valid statistical difference
between the results of the two groups. It was speculated that the Scripture was so
familiar that there was not enough room for improvement.
The second half of the study was changed from “The Parable of the Good
Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37) to “The Parable of the Friend at Midnight’ (Luke 11:1-13),
which was thought to be less familiar. The Lutheran church (the treatment group) saw
a dramatized version, while the Episcopal church (the control group) heard the
Scripture read in the traditional manner. The Lutheran church’s mean score increased
5.25, more than two-and-one-half times greater than the Episcopal church’s mean
score increase of 2.09. The difference was statistically significant (P = .014) and
substantiated the hypothesis.