Berk, R. A., & Trieber, R. H. (2009). Whose classroom is it, anyway? Improvisation
as a teaching tool. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20 (3), 29-60.
29
Whose Classroom Is It, Anyway?
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool
Ronald A. Berk
The Johns Hopkins University
Rosalind H. Trieber
Towson University
Improvisational techniques derived from the experiences in improvisational
theatre can be adapted for the college classroom to
leverage the characteristics of the Net Generation, their multiple
intelligences and learning styles, and the variety of collaborative
learning activities already in place in a learner-centered
environment. When improvisation is reformatted as small-group
collaborative learning exercises, it can be a powerful teaching
tool to promote deep learning. The authors describe the key features
of improvisation along with four generic, easy to execute
exercises applied to real course content: “One Word at a Time/
One Sentence at a Time,” “Speech Tag,” “Freeze Tag,” and
“Gibberish Expert Interview.” An evaluation scale to measure
the effectiveness of classroom applications is also included.
Introduction
“Are you kidding me?” you ask. “I’m no Wayne Brady! I can’t do improvisation.”
Want to bet? Yes, you can! You improvise all of the time; you
may just not be aware of it. And your students can do improvisation with
your guidance and learn a lot from the activities you plan. But that’s not
the point. This article is not about you. Let’s not lose sight of what’s most
important: Effective teaching is not about us; it’s all about the students.
Traditional theatre uses a script to guide everything, from the sets,
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching30
props, and costumes to the choice of actors for the various roles. The
director controls the entire production with no input from the audience.
This is strikingly similar to traditional instructor-centered college teaching,
which is driven by the scripted lecture or PowerPoint®
presentation
and completely controlled by the instructor with little or no discussion
involving the whole class. This model of teaching focuses primarily on
the instructor.
In contrast, improvisational theatre has no script, sets, or costumes,
possibly a few props, the actors play a variety of roles, and the audience
participates by deciding the topic or story line. When improvisation is
reformatted into small-group collaborative learning activities in a learner-centered
environment, it can be a powerful teaching tool. Research
evidence demonstrates that it can promote spontaneity, intuition, interactivity,
inductive discovery, attentive listening, nonverbal communication,
ad-libbing, role-playing, risk-taking, team building, creativity, and critical
thinking (Crossan, 1998; Moshavi, 2001; Sawyer, 2004; Spolin, 1999). These
features are all about the students.
Improvisation has been defined as intuition guiding action in a spontaneous
way (Crossan & Sorrenti, 1997). It is “. . . making the most of what
you have and getting the most out of what you make” (Keefe, 2002, p.
6), a conversational skill that, like other social and interactive skills, can
be taught. When improvisation is used in teaching, students provide
different responses throughout the class session, and the instructor does
not evaluate any given response but instead facilitates the improvisation
process among the students, with the goal of guiding them toward discovery
of their own knowledge (Sawyer, 2003).All students get to express
themselves creatively, to play together, to have their ideas honored, and
to have their mistakes forgiven (Koppett, 2001). Improvisational techniques,
sometimes referred to as activities, exercises, or games, are tools
that can be added to any existing set of teaching strategies. They can
increase students’ awareness of problems and ideas fundamental to their
intellectual development. Disciplined improvisation provides instructors
with a way to conceptualize creative teaching within curricular structures
(Sawyer, 2004).
“Is this for real?” you ask. Absolutely! Improvisation has already
penetrated academe. It has been used to teach communication skills for
physician-patient interaction with first-year medical students (Hoffman,
Utley, & Ciccarone, 2008). Perhaps its best-known use in academe is in The
Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, which has been offering a
course and intensive workshops on business/managerial improvisation
for MBA students for several years. The course and workshops were de-
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 31
veloped in 1999 by adjunct professor Robert Kulhan and Craig Fox (the
latter now at UCLA). The course is designed for students to
•	build trust,
•	foster teamwork and better brainstorming,
•	improve communication and presentation skills,
•	promote creative problem solving,
•	respond quickly and decisively to unanticipated chal-
lenges,
•	think on their feet and recognize opportunities as they
arise,
•	increase their comfort level with change and willingness
to take risks, and
•	manage change and promote a supportive, improvisational
corporate culture.
In the world of business, the metaphor of “swimming with the sharks”
represents the need to learn how to adapt, adjust, listen, observe, agree,
support, trust, and think fast. All of these skills are essential to manage a
profitable business. The inclusion of improvisation as a teaching strategy
provides an excellent opportunity to teach students these necessary skills,
as they increase in their abilities to achieve academic and professional
success. Instructors in any discipline who are willing to use an innovative
teaching strategy such as improvisation will stimulate emotions, attract
attention, encourage meaning making, and create lasting memories of
lessons learned (Wildorf, 2000).
We begin the article by offering a brief explanation of the basic principles
of improvisation followed by a list of four reasons why you should
consider improvisation as a teaching strategy in your classroom, how
improvisation can be applied to teaching, and step-by-step descriptions
of four improvisational techniques used in a mental health and stress
management course.
Principles of Improvisation
There are seven principles of improvisation:
1.	Trust. In order for a group to be successful and productive,
the members of the group, referred to as “players,”
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching32
must to be able to trust one another.
2.	Acceptance. This is the “Golden Rule” of improvisation
(Gesell, 1997). Players must be willing to accept
a new idea in order to explore its possibilities—not
just say “yes,” but have an attitude of “yes, and . . .,”
meaning, “I accept the offer to improvise (using ideas,
words, or movement) and must build on it.” In other
words, players must say yes, accept the offer, build on
it, contribute, and discover new ideas. It is this process
that harnesses the power of collaboration. Each team
member is responsible for contributing to and supporting
the group’s activity. The brainstorming that occurs
can lead to innovative solutions (Koppett, 2001).
3.	Attentive listening. Players must be aware of the partners
with whom they are co-creating in order to increase
their understanding of each other and to be able to communicate
effectively.
4.	Spontaneity. Players co-create in the moment, without
the opportunity to revise. Each player is motivated by
a positive purpose and desire to delight. Spontaneity
allows players to initiate words and actions, building
trust with the other players (Keefe, 2002). Players must
suspend any critical judgment or spirit about what others
say.
5.	Storytelling. Players develop the ability to create a
collaborative narrative that connects their dialogue
through a story. This process often results in memorable
content.
6.	Nonverbal communication. Players use facial expressions
and body language to help communicate attitude,
character, and trustworthiness.
7.	Warm-ups. Warm-ups are structures that provide an opportunity
to develop trust and safe environments, where
the players can feel free to explore through “contentless”
games and structures. It is similar to bantering with students
to develop rapport. Warm-up activities focus on
transitioning individuals into an improvisational mode
to allow them to improvise verbally and physically; be
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 33
spontaneous; “listen” carefully to one another; and use
a sense of humor (adapted from Koppett, 2001, p. 32)
Why Use Improvisation in the Classroom?
Improvisational performance is typically viewed as an alternative to
scripted theatre, but over time it has also taken on a variety of creative
genres, including storytelling, pantomime, music, poetry, and comedy
(Atkins, 1993; Book, 2002; Diggles, 2004; Gwinn & Halpern, 2003; Lynn,
2004; Polsky, 1997; Spolin, 1999). However, the application of the numerous
improvisational exercises and games developed over the past 30 years
has extended far beyond the formal theatre setting to management and
business training (Bergren, Cox, & Detmar, 2002; Crossan, 1998; Crossan
& Sorrenti, 1997; Keefe, 2002; Koppett, 2001; Leigh, 2004; Lowe, 2000;
Moshavi, 2001) and to everyday, real-life challenges (Madson, 2005). A
wide range of theatrical techniques, including, most recently, improvisation,
are also not new to teaching and have been shown to be extremely
effective in the live classroom (Baerhaim & Alraek, 2005; Berk, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2005, 2008a, 2008b; Diamond & Christensen, 2005; Jackson, 1993; Jacobsen,
Baerheim, Lepp, & Schei, 2006; James & Williams, 1981; Millbower,
2003; Newton, 1998; Patterson, McKenna-Cook, & Swick, 2006; Shapiro &
Hunt, 2003; Spolin, 1986; Timpson, Burgoyne, Jones, & Jones, 1997).
There are four major instructional reasons for using improvisation
in the classroom: (1) It is consistent with the characteristics of the current
generation of students, also known as the Net Generation (Carlson, 2005;
Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2006a; Palfrey & Gasser,
2008; Tapscott, 1999, 2009) (aka Millennials [Howe & Strauss, 2000],
born between 1982 and 2003), which has grown up with the technology—
especially their desire to learn by inductive discovery, experientially, their
need for social interaction and collaboration, their emotional openness,
and their limited attention span; (2) it taps into students’ multiple and emotional
intelligences, particularly verbal/linguistic, visual/spatial, bodily/
kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal; (3) it fosters collaborative
learning by helping to build trust, respect, and team spirit as well as listening,
verbal and nonverbal communication, ad-libbing, role-playing,
risk-taking, and storytelling skills; and (4) it promotes deep learning through
the active engagement with new ideas, concepts, or problems; linking
the activities or tasks to prior learning; applying the content to real-life
applications; and evaluating the logic and evidence presented. A further
explanation of each of these reasons follows.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching34
Improvisation’s Consistency With the Net Generation’s Characteristics
The Net Generation has been branded as “digital natives” (Prensky,
2006). They are “native speakers” of the language of computers, video
games, and the Internet. As you observe these students, you will notice
wires coming out of every part of their bodies.Attached to those wires are
MP3 players, iPods, iPhones or smart phones, PCs, and all the other tools
of the digital age (Berk, 2008a, 2008c; Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). Their
experience with the technology has enabled them to master complex tasks
and make decisions rapidly (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007; Prensky, 2006).
Classroom exercises need to extend these capabilities that our students
already possess.
In contrast to these digital natives, most instructors are digital immigrants.
Many of us still have one foot in the past, and “digital” is our
second language; we continue to learn and sometimes struggle with it
on the fly. For example, digital immigrants may still print out an e-mail,
print a document to edit it, or phone someone to see if he or she received
their e-mail. Do you know any colleagues like that?
The Net Geners have certain characteristics that are consistent with the
use of improvisation as a teaching tool:
•	They learn by inductive discovery—that is, by doing rather
than being told what to do. They are experiential, handson,
engaged, constantly connected with first-person
learning, games, simulations, and role playing (Junco
& Mastrodicasa, 2007; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2006b;
Tapscott, 1999). They are what Jenkins (2006) calls a
participatory culture; they are not spectators;
•	They are intuitive visual communicators. They are visually
literate, comfortable in an image-rich rather than a textonly
environment, and able to weave together images,
text, and sound easily and to move between the real
and the virtual instantaneously (Frand, 2000; Manuel,
2002);
•	They crave social face-to face interaction. They gravitate toward
activities that promote and reinforce conversation,
collaboration, and teamwork (Howe & Strauss, 2000;
Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007; Manuel, 2002; Ramaley &
Zia, 2006; Windham, 2005);
•	They are emotionally open. They like to express their
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 35
feelings, meet new people, and experience different cultures;
they are open to diversity, differences, and sharing
personal information with others, whether online in
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Del.icio.us, blogs, or other
social media, or in class (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007;
Lenhart, Rainie, & Lewis, 2001; Oblinger & Oblinger,
2006b);
•	They respond quickly and expect rapid responses in return.
They multitask, moving quickly from one activity or
medium to another, such as using instant messaging
(IM), the cell or smart phone or iPhone, and e-mail all at
once, while surfing the Web and watching TV (Junco &
Mastrodicasa, 2007; Prensky, 2006; Roberts, 2006); and
•	They shift attention rapidly from one task to another. They
have extremely short attention spans, thrive on immediate
gratification, and are accustomed to the rapid,
multitasking, random access, graphics-first, active, connected,
fun, fantasy, quick pay-off world of video games,
MTV, and the Internet (Foreman, 2003; Prensky, 2006).
In summary, the most up-to-date surveys of the Net Geners indicate
they are technology savvy and function at “twitch” speed. Whereas they
can play video games for hours because of their strong interest in these
games, in school, if not kept engaged, they can have the attention span of
goat cheese. They want interactivity in the classroom with their peers, the
instructor, tools, and concepts. Team experiences such as improvisation
provide these students with the active, participatory, visual, collaborative,
fast moving, quick thinking, rapid responding, emotionally freeing,
spontaneous, combustible vehicle they so badly desire.As a teaching tool,
improvisation is a natural fit for these students. The learning environment
must be active, collaborative, social, and learner-centered for these
students. If anything less, they will consider it borrrrrrring.
Improvisation’s Ability to Tap Into Students’
Multiple and Emotional Intelligences
Students possess multiple types of intelligences, and each student has
a unique intelligence profile (Gardner, 1983, 1993, 1999, 2005; Gardner
& Hatch, 1989; Marks-Tarlow, 1995; White, 1998; Williams et al., 1996).
Traditionally, the content faculty teach has been verbal or quantitative in
form. Most often, for example, instructors teach English literature verbally
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching36
and statistics, quantitatively. This seems natural and, perhaps, is easiest for
the instructor. However, learning course content isn’t this simple. Every
student has strengths and weaknesses. For example, if Jerome isn’t strong
in quantitative ability, he will struggle in his statistics courses.
Fortunately, according to the latest research in cognitive psychology,
Jerome has other abilities or intelligences—up to 10 of them. In addition
to the aforementioned verbal/linguistic and quantitative/analytical intelligences,
he also possesses visual/spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, musical/
rhythmic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal (equivalent to Goleman’s [1998]
emotional intelligences), naturalistic, and environmental intelligences. Jerome’s
strengths may lie in the visual/spatial and musical/rhythmic. Just
imagine: If we could teach by drawing on these intelligences and Jerome’s
quantitative ability, how much more effectively could he learn? In fact, if
instructors could adopt this “pluralistic view of the mind” and teach so
that four to six of students’ intelligences are tapped instead of just one
or two, probably every student could learn the material on most topics
without struggling. Such strategies build on students’ strengths rather than
their weaknesses. These strengths are translated into their learning styles
(Conner & Hodgins, 2000; Felder & Soloman, 2000; Honey & Mumford,
1992; Kolb, 2005; Rose, 1985; Schroeder, 1997) with nearly a dozen different
models suggested for higher education (Robotham, 1999).
Learning through improvisation can accomplish this goal. It requires
active discovery, analysis, interpretation, problem-solving, memory,
musical creation, physical activity, and the emotions of the self and others
(Spolin, 1986). This covers six intelligences. Students learn best when
they are engaged, thinking critically, solving problems, have choices to
consider, and are making decisions (Matthews, 1996). Designing activities
that systematically consider students’ multiple intelligences and their different
learning styles is essential for teaching all students effectively.
Improvisation’s Ability to Foster Collaborative Learning
With all that we know about collaborative learning (Barkley, Cross, &
Major, 2005; Dillenbourg, 1999a; Kaplan, 2002) and its super-structured
counterpart, cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Kagan,
1992; Millis & Cottell, 1998), where does improvisation fit? Both collaborative
and cooperative learning are instructional approaches in which
groups of learners work together to solve a problem, complete a task,
or create a product. They share the same philosophical framework with
the following underpinnings: (1) Learning is a naturally occurring social
act and active and constructive process; (2) there must be respect for all
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 37
students and their diversity of backgrounds, intelligences, learning styles,
experiences, and aspirations; and (3) the potential exists for all students
to achieve academic success.
Johnson et al’s. (1991) five elements of cooperative learning are as follows:
(1) positive interdependence; (2) individual accountability; (3) face-to-face
interaction; (4) appropriate use of collaborative skills; and (5) group processing.
These elements intersect with most of the basic principles of improvisation
listed previously. The benefits of the numerous cooperative learning
exercises have been well documented (Felder & Brent, 2001; Goodsell,
Maher, Tinto, Smith, & McGregor, 1992; Johnson et al., 1991; Kagan, 1992;
Millis, 2002; Millis & Cottell, 1998; Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999).
Instructionally then, how do collaborative, cooperative, and improvisation
learning differ?An analysis of the activities and exercises that fall into
these three categories of learning strongly suggest that the differentiating
factors are structure and control. If you could visualize a continuum with
cooperative learning at one extreme and improvisation at the other, that
continuum would represent the potential range of structure and control in
a myriad of combinations in collaborative learning activities. Cooperative
learning has the most structure and improvisation the least.
On one end of the continuum lie fundamentally all possible and potential
forms of collaborative learning. Cooperative activities are structured
and controlled by the instructor to accomplish specific outcomes. Collaborative
activities vary in structure and control by degree from a highly
structured, cooperative system designed to create a product (Dillenbourg,
1999b; Panitz, 1996; Smith & McGregor, 1992) to a less-structured, consensus
building, sharing of responsibility by the group’s members. The
selection, size, composition, task, and interaction of the group may vary
considerably in any given application (Dillenbourg, 1999b; Roschelle &
Teasley, 1995).
Improvisation, at the opposite end of the continuum, involves unscripted,
spontaneous, intuitive, interactive small-group exercises. The
less-structured spontaneity of improvisational activities may be more
palatable introductory collaborative learning exercises for Net Geners
than more structured, formal cooperative learning methods. They actually
can serve as the warm-up or segue to cooperative learning exercises.
In contrast to a cooperative learning exercise, when an improvisational
approach is used in the classroom, the class facilitates the discussion and
synthesizes the information. It is a process for exploring collaboration
and cooperation at its most fundamental level, the co-creation of ideas,
rather than an instructor-directed or scripted group activity. There is no
concept of “right” or “wrong” answers, and actions and solutions are left
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching38
to the students’ judgments (Moshavi, 2001).
Barkley et al. (2005) describe many collaborative learning techniques
that incorporate principles of improvisation, such as the Three-Step Interview,
in which student pairs take turns interviewing each other and then
report to another pair. The topic can be in the form of questions, attitudes,
values, or comprehension of course content. The interviewers must listen
very carefully and pay attention to the interviewee’s responses, and they
are not to impose their opinions or objections. The interviewee is the center
of attention and is encouraged to elaborate on his or her thoughts regarding
the topic. This exchange is not a discussion and, therefore, requires
a personal level of commitment from interviewer and interviewee. The
interviewers must understand and incorporate the information gathered
from their interviewees’ responses at a level deep enough to be able to
summarize and synthesize the responses intuitively and effectively for
other students. Partners then reverse roles and continue the process. This
activity follows the basic principles of improvisation described previously.
It is a technique for improving specific communication skills as well as
“thinking on your feet,” with or without criteria.
Improvisation’s Ability to Promote Deep Learning
All of the characteristics and outcomes of improvisational activities
previously described and their relationships to collaborative and cooperative
learning techniques strongly indicate that improvisation can promote
deep learning (Campbell, 1998; Entwistle, 2004). More than 30 years of
experience and previous research with improvisational exercises, particularly
in the business and management training domain (Crossan, Cunha,
Vera, & Cunha, 2005; Cunha, Cunha, & Kamoche, 1999, 2001; Kamoche,
Cunha, & Cunha, 2002; Minor, Bassoff, & Moorman, 2001; Moorman &
Minor, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2004), demonstrate how they satisfy Rhem’s
(1995) four criteria for deep learning: (1) motivational context, the intrinsic
desire to know, make choices, and take ownership and responsibility
for seeking a solution or making the right decision quickly; (2) learner
activity, the experiential, inductive discovery in collaboration with other
team members to synthesize, problem solve, or create knowledge; (3)
interaction with others, with the spontaneity, intuition, quick thinking,
brainstorming, trust-building, risk-taking, role-playing, and rapid decision
making of improvisational dynamics; and (4) a well-structured knowledge
base, where content is reshaped, synthesized, critiqued, and even created
to demonstrate understanding and comprehension as well as analytical
and evaluative skills.
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 39
Not only does the actual interactive process of improvisational performance
produce deep learning, but the debriefing questions that follow every
exercise penetrate even deeper. The series of questions and discussion
involving the small group with the rest of the class can reach the highest
levels of learning in the analysis and evaluation of the content and experience
observed by all. Applications of the content to real-world situations
can occur during this Q&A session. In this context, research suggests
that the types and levels of questions asked are the keys to eliciting deep
learning from students (Harrison, 2004).
Applications of Improvisation to the College Classroom
Improvisation involves students creating a physical reality through
individual action and emotion while, at the same time, developing a
shared vision with the other students. Spolin (1999) stated that the goal
of improvisation is to “solve a problem.” The power of improvisation lies
in being in the moment at all times. A major concept is that the point of
concentration requires close attention to the problem rather than to the
individuals who are addressing the problem (Spolin, 1999). For example,
in a volleyball game, all players concentrate on the ball; each individual
player, as a member of the team, must focus on the ball and act in collaboration
with their teammates.
There are more than 200 improvisational games or activities described
in the theatre literature (Spolin, 1999). Some are more appropriate than
others as instructional strategies in the college classroom. This section
provides a sample of four generic improvisation activities that are easily
adaptable to most subject matter content: “One Word at a Time/One
Sentence at a Time,” “Speech Tag,” “Freeze Tag,” and “Gibberish Expert
Interview.” These activities are based on classical improvisational exercises
(Gesell, 1997; Koppett, 2001; Spolin, 1986, 1999).
The purposes of the four activities are described first. Then each
activity is demonstrated as it was applied to different content topics
taught in an advanced undergraduate course, “Mental Health and Stress
Management,” with an average of 35 students per course over two years
(2005-2007) at Towson University.
Purposes of Improvisational Activities
Any one of the activities may be used as a warm-up or energy builder.
More important, however, as a teaching tool, the activities can be used
to review, apply, synthesize, or evaluate any content to facilitate learn-
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching40
ing. They are particularly effective with problem-based material, as in
problem-based learning (PBL). Students experience team identity by
creating a unique story and/or unique answers, as each successive student
volunteer contributes without hesitation. Students learn to listen to
one another at all times and let go of the need to figure out the ending or
direct the outcome. Each exercise can serve as a warm-up for students
so they may to begin to trust one another and practice the acceptance
of unexpected ideas and information without objection, ridicule, and
intimidation. It can also increase listening awareness as well as enhance
creative and critical thinking through the debriefing Q&Aat the end. The
examples that follow indicate the types of questions that can be used to
tap deep learning of the content.
These four improv activities involve total engagement, visual-spatial
skills, physical interaction, verbal exchange, and buckets of fun. They
draw especially on the students’ verbal/linguistic, visual/spatial, bodily/
kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligences.
Improvisation Activities: Four Examples
What follows are actual examples of what students said and did when
these four exercises were used in the course “Mental Health and Stress
Management” at Towson University. Depending on the subject taught,
the students, and other variables, results will vary. The first two activities,
“One Word at a Time/One Sentence at a Time” and “Speech Tag,” seem
the least risky to students on first exposure, and the last two, “Freeze Tag”
and “Gibberish Expert Interview,” require slightly more risk.
One Word at a Time/One Sentence at a Time
Topic: “Five Components of Wellness”
Purpose: The purpose is to review material for a quiz. The instructor’s
objective is to see how well the class identifies the specific details associated
with each component of wellness and how students will apply
behavior change concepts to negative and positive wellness situations by
telling a spontaneous story one word at a time.
Time: Allow 5-10 minutes for this activity and 10 minutes for debriefing
questions and discussion.
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 41
Procedure:
1.	The instructor directs students to create 5 columns on
a piece of paper identifying the five components of
wellness (physical health, social health, mental health,
emotional health, and spiritual health). Students do this
individually.
2.	The instructor tells students to list, under the appropriate
column, as many words as possible that they
can associate with each component. For example, for
physical health, these students wrote, fitness, nutrition,
risk factors for disease, diet, body image, and the like. For
emotional health, they wrote, anger control, self-esteem,
self-confidence, trust, love, adjusts to change, sad, happy,
laughs, and so on.
3.	The instructor asks for volunteers (in this case, five), who
stand in line (or in a circle) at the front of the class. The
role of the volunteers is to create a story with a beginning,
middle, and end that focuses on the theme picked
by the class using one word at a time and possibly acting
them out as well. The instructor directs these students to
create a story aloud focusing on the five components of
wellness by collaboratively creating sentences, with each
student contributing one word at a time, that emphasize the
key words students associated with each component.
4.	Speed and eye contact should be encouraged by the
instructor. The instructor tells the volunteers that small
words, including articles such as “a” and “the,” are
acceptable and necessary to the sense of the sentence.
Students should use complete sentences. Most important
is that making mistakes should not be viewed as a
sign of failure.
5.	The class selects the theme of the story, in this example,
“Stressed College Students.”
6.	The story begins with a self-selecting student, who starts
the story’s first sentence with My. The students continue
in turn:
	 A second student says, roommate.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching42
	 A third student says, complains.
	 A fourth student says, constantly.
	 The fifth student begins a new sentence with She.
The students continue the next sentence by offering their spontaneous
responses in turn: says—she—had—too—much—work—and—drinks—beer—
and—eats—pizza—every—day.
The story could possibly end by the team coming up with solutions,
again one word at a time. For example, these students concluded the story
as follows: Your—roommate—needs—a—support—group—exercise—and—
diet—program. Talk—to—your—roommate—and—offer—her—your—help.
No—no—she—needs—to—stop—blaming—everyone—else—for—her—
problems. She—has—to—take—responsibility—for—changing—her—
diet—and—getting—help. She—needs—to—make—an—appointment—
w i t h — a — c o u n s e l o r — a n d — f o c u s — o n — h e r — s t r e n g t h s .
All of this is said rapidly one word at a time or one sentence at a time,
with each member of the team focusing on the context of the story and
pushing the team to succeed in telling all that can be told. This exercise
tends to begin slowly, as students are a little hesitant at first. They are not
sure what’s going to happen. After the first few sentences are completed
and students get the hang of it, however, they become more relaxed,
spontaneous, intuitive, and funny.
Suggested Debriefing Questions:
1.	What new information did you learn from this activ-
ity?
2.	What insights did you learn about letting go of the
result?
3.	How did you handle information that seemed question-
able?
4.	Why are you encouraged to respond quickly?
5.	How is this like teamwork on a job or in class?
6.	Do you have any clarification questions that you would
like to ask in order to understand the behaviors that
contribute to wellness?
The student volunteers answer the debriefing questions while the rest
of the class listens intently, observing the correctness of the answers and
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 43
noting how the group has worked together to make the story successful
by spontaneously incorporating the content from the categories of
wellness. A lively discussion usually ensues. It is during this debriefing
Q&Athat the instructor and students become aware of the benefits of the
improvisational activity as well as their abilities to synthesize the content
at hand.
Small-Group Format Variation:
This variation can be played with two or three students facing each
other, each one offering a sentence, one word or two words at a time. This
is an effective strategy to use with large classes where the room and space
configuration doesn’t permit a lot of movement. It’s an improvisational
spin on Think-Pair-Share. Let’s call it One Word at a Time/Don’t Think-PairShare.
Each pair or triad can have the same title and/or questions or make
up their own based on content. New ideas can then be shared from each
group about their content.
Speech Tag
Topic: “Preventing Coronary Heart Disease”
Purpose: The purpose is to assess student knowledge, attitude, and
skills needed to prevent coronary heart disease following a reading as-
signment.
Time: Allow 10-15 minutes for this activity and 10 minutes for debrief
questions and discussion.
Procedure:
1.	The instructor picks the topic, in this case, “Preventing
Coronary Heart Disease.”
2.	Three to five student volunteers are identified to come
to the front of the class. One student stands in front with
the others behind him or her in a horseshoe shape.
3.	The instructor directs the students to tell a story collaboratively
out loud based on the chosen topic, with the
first student in front beginning. When the student who
is speaking makes a point that another student wishes
to respond to, that student may tag him or her and con-
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching44
tinue the story. The instructor coaches students to tag
in even if they do not know what they are going to say.
They are also encouraged to tag in if they see that their
partner needs relief. Students are to respond intuitively
and “cover each other’s backs” so that everyone will be
successful. It is during the spontaneous responses that
humor usually emerges. For example:
	 Student 1 (the one in the front) begins the story: Physical
exercise needs to be part of a healthy lifestyle. People who are
sedentary are at high risk for developing coronary vascular
disease. When a person participates in 30-60 minutes per day
of a combination of aerobic exercise and resistance training,
blood pressure and cholesterol are usually lowered. Physical
exercise also reduces the risk of heart attack and heart diseases.
You need to get medical approval before you start any kind of
exercise program. Weight reduction. . . .
	 Student 2 tags student 1 on the shoulder, moves to the
front, and continues the story, picking up where the first
student stopped: Yes, and it is enhanced when exercise is
part of the daily plan. Obesity is a major risk factor for heart
disease. But it’s so much fun to supersize with Big Macs®
and
milkshakes.
	 Student 3 tags student 2 on the shoulder and says, Yes,
and forget about supersizing, pass the McDonalds®
and head
for the shrink! You’ve got to know the difference between good
nutrition and emotional eating. It might not be what you are
eating; it might be what’s eating you! Nutrition plays an
important role in reducing the risk of heart disease.
	 Student 2 tags student 3 on the shoulder and says, Yes,
and smoking doesn’t help either. When life is full of stress,
there’s another reason coronary vascular disease has a chance
to develop. Here’s a plan that. . . .
	 Student 1 tags student 2 on the shoulder and begins with
Yes, and any student could follow even living on campus . .
. eat fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean sources of protein
and move into the gym!!
The story may continue, with students tagging each other and responding,
for as long as the instructor feels is appropriate to gain the desired
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 45
learning benefits.
Spontaneity increases as the students randomly self-select and tag each
other, adding information about stress management. (Warning: Make
sure students are told to tag the shoulder only. Tagging other parts of the
anatomy is illegal.) Students accept the ideas of the previous player (not
necessarily agreeing) and continue to add more information and bring out
their most significant understanding and comprehension about preventing
coronary heart disease. The students listen intently to each other as the
entire class listens to them. All are listening for accuracy and the ability
to be spontaneously creative.
Suggested Debriefing Questions:
1. Did the information presented fit the content on coronary
heart disease previously taught?
2. How could this information be used to create a coronary
heart disease prevention program for your family or in
your place of work?
3. When and why did you choose to jump in?
4. When and why did you hesitate?
5. What is the value of creating the story collaborative-
ly?
6. What values or beliefs underpin the behaviors captured
in this activity?
Discussion follows to assess the ability of the group to work as a team
and to help each other to be successful in creating a cohesive story, building
upon each student’s contribution, adding new information, and having
the confidence to “jump in” spontaneously.
This type of exercise was originally used in introductory drama classes
(Spolin, 1999) as an extension of One Word at a Time. Instead of speaking one
word at a time, students speak in sentences, giving them an opportunity to
loosen up and feel safe. This experience gives them the ability to improvise
verbally and physically, to be spontaneous, to listen to themselves and to
others, and to exhibit a natural sense of humor.
Freeze Tag
Topic: “Fight or Flight Stress Management Theory”
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching46
Purpose: To assess students’ knowledge of the multiple physiological
and psychological effects of perceived stressful situations following a
lecture and reading assignment on the topic.
Time: Allow 3-5 minutes for this activity and 10 minutes for debrief
questions and discussion.
Procedure:
1.	The instructor explains to the class that they are going
to explore the physiological and psychological effects
of the “Fight or Flight” stress response theory as they
create reality using information from their body and
emotions rather than from their mind. Students will
focus on intuition rather than fact.
2.	The instructor asks the class for a place where a stressful
situation may occur. Someone in this particular
class said, health clinic. (Other answers might include
“restaurants,” “offices,” “stores,” “hospital,” “doctors’
and dentists’ offices,” and “school.”)
3.	The instructor asks the class, “What would be a relationship
between two people in this stressful situation?”
4.	Another student responded with irate patient and receptionist.
(Other responses in other venues could include
“server-customer,” “salesperson-client,” “supervisoremployee,”
“doctor-patient,” “siblings,” and “school
work/social life.”)
5.	The instructor informs students that they are going to
play a “cryogenic” version of Speech Tag, in which they
will create a storyline based on a situation. One student
begins with a statement, and another student must begin
with “yes . . . and” to accept the offer to continue. At
any given point, a student may jump in and “freeze” the
action in order to take it in another direction. When a
student pops up and shouts “FREEZE!,” he or she may
tag the freezee on the shoulder. This student becomes
the replacement freezee and assumes the exact physical
position of the tagged freezee. The position and the
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 47
emotion of the tagged freezee may trigger ideas for
the replacement freezee. The replacement picks up on
the last words said by that tagged freezee. Then the
replacement can assume different physical positions,
such as hands in the air, hands on their hips, bent over,
legs crossed, or jumping up and down. His or her facial
expressions can convey emotions, such as anger, fear,
or joy.
The improvisation unfolded like this:
	 Student 1 (irate patient) has her hands on her hips and
is yelling at the receptionist: I can’t believe you can treat
a patient like this!
	 Student 2 (receptionist): Yes, and Miss Jones, you are being
treated with respect and calmness even though your appointment
was at 1:00 p.m. today and it’s now 3:00 p.m.
	 Student 1: Yes, and my stomach hurts, my head hurts, and
my insurance has lapsed!
	 Student 2: Yes, and this is a Bummer!
	 Student 3: FREEZE! Student 3 taps Student 1 on the
shoulder and replaces her. Putting her hand around the
patient’s shoulder, Student 3 says, I’d feel the same way if
I were in your situation. Sit down here and let’s talk.
	 Student 2: Thank goodness you are here; my blood pressure
is now sky high!
	 Student 3: Yes, and my company has got just the thing to
help patients coming in here with a lot of anger.
	 Student 2: Hands waving all around, she says, Are you
kidding?
	 Student 3: I’ve got an automatic massage bed; it calms the
mind and body!
	 Student 4: FREEZE! (Student 4 taps Student 2 on the
shoulder and replaces her.)
	 Student 4: What we need is some music to listen to and a
comedy video to watch.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching48
The scene may be allowed to continue for as long as the instructor
thinks is desirable.
Suggested Debriefing Questions:
1. What were the key points of the stress response theory
presented in this activity?
2. What were your biggest fears?
3. At any point did you feel the need to censor yourself?
4. How can this experience change the way you relate to
others in different life situations?
5. How did it feel to have your ideas or offers accepted?
The instructor then reviews the key points of the stress response theory
presented in the exercise and leads a brief discussion of its application to
health improvement in daily living situations. He or she asks the students
to compare and contrast how the theory was (and could be) applied to
the situation highlighted and probe the implications of the different relationships
(for example, coworkers, supervisor-patient-customer, etc.)
presented in the exercise. Student responses to these questions can lead
to greater understanding of the various psychological and physiological
effects of stress. This debriefing exercise is where deep learning occurs.
In the classroom, variations on Freeze Tag can be particularly useful
for reinforcing and applying different theories in basic science and health
courses and specific organizational behavior concepts, such as leadership,
motivation, power, and politics. Moshavi (2001) utilized a variation of this
exercise multiple times in his business management classroom at Montana
State University. It resulted in enhanced class discussion and role play,
teamwork, risk taking, and creativity. This approach to class discussion
involves everyone in the class.
Gibberish Expert Interview
Topic: “Preventing Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)”
Purpose: This activity is used to determine how many key points about
preventing sexually transmitted diseases were understood by the class.
Time: Allow 3-5 minutes for this activity and 10 minutes for debriefing
questions and discussion.
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 49
Procedure:
One student volunteer speaks in a nonsense language as an expert on
the chosen topic. Another student volunteer translates the “gibberish”
into English or English into “gibberish.” Class discussion follows with
debrief questions of clarity and accuracy of the information and translations
through voice and body language. Random members of the class
ask the designated health expert, in this case from a hypothetical foreign
country (played by a student volunteer), specific questions about preventing
sexually transmitted diseases.
For example:
	 Student 1 (asks the expert from Chutzpahsenstein):
How does your country achieve such a low rate of sexually
transmitted diseases, and how do you prevent them?
	 Student 2 (the interviewer/interpreter, speaking in gibberish):
Gweeb! Neeb nop nork fop fob la proo?
	 Student 3 (the expert): Mookulu ladi, or blah de blah. La
gee grab nabble lip quip scrunge la quack. Zar zar far quar
mar nar shellac. Frem oogle oop fing fang. Shlop looble la
ling lang. As the expert is saying these nonsense words,
her arms and hands are moving in different directions,
her hands put up fingers as if to identify a number of
points. She stomps her feet three times and uses facial
expressions that express the non-acceptance of multiple
sex partners.
	 Student 2 (interpreting the expert’s answer): Yes, and
anyone who is sexually active can get an STD. Men and
women of all ages, regions, ethnic backgrounds, and economic
levels can get them. Most STDs are only spread through direct
sexual contact with an infected person. The best way to
prevent getting an STD is to not have sex. If you do decide
to have sex, you should have sex with only one partner who
only has sex with you and who has never injected drugs.
The health expert answers in nonsense language using serious and
exaggerated sounds and body movements. In this particular class, the
expert spoke in such a way that other class members wanted to know
where she learned “that language.” Her body language also demonstrated
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching50
her answers. The student volunteers conversed as if they were making
perfect sense. Following each nonsense answer, the interpreter explained
in English what the health expert had said based on her own understanding
of the expert’s speech inflections and gestures and her knowledge of
preventing STDs. During this process, the entire class was paying attention
to the players, laughing, and listening for the correct understanding of
the material. This activity provides an opportunity for all members of the
class to ask questions, obtain clarity, and increase communication skills
without fear of intimidation.
Suggested Debriefing Questions:
1. What communication cues do we have besides
words?
2. Observers, did the translation match the interpretations
you made in your head?
3. Was fluency or continuity ever achieved? If so, under
what conditions? If not, why not?
4. How do people understand each other if they don’t
speak the same language?
5. How did people contribute to the success?
6. What can this activity teach us about how we view the
unfamiliar?
Team Variation:
There can be teams of four or five players where four of the participants
speak different languages (all gibberish).Again, the conversation between
the gibberish speakers flows through the interpreter(s). At any point the
instructor can call out, “Change!” and one of the gibberish speakers becomes
the interpreter. The interpreter goes back and forth between English
and nonsense language. This exchange continues until everyone has had
an opportunity to be the interpreter. This variation can also be conducted
simultaneously with multiple teams in the class. Each team debriefs itself
and then shares its insights with the entire class.
Conclusions
More than 1000 journal articles and 120 studies on the effectiveness of
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 51
learner-centered teaching and student success (Cornelius-White, 2007)
suggest that college instructors need to leverage all that they know about
the characteristics of the Net Generation, their multiple intelligences and
learning styles, collaborative learning activities, and theatrical approaches
to teaching to create learning environments where every student can succeed.
The four generic, easily adaptable improvisational exercises we have
described in the context of different course content applications focus on
promoting deeper learning through the suggested debriefing questions.
At present the bulk of the research and college-level practice with
improvisational techniques have been in the business and management
training domain. Despite the documented effectiveness of the techniques
in this domain, their potential for application to virtually all other disciplines
has not been realized.
The next step is to conduct research on those activities in all fields
to justify the contributions improvisation can make to learner-centered
teaching. A scale to evaluate the effectiveness of various improvisational
exercises to facilitate data-gathering in any classroom application is provided
in Appendix A. We strongly encourage faculty not only to test out
these activities with their students, but also to collect evidence of their
instructional efficacy.
We hope that improvisation will gain popularity as a form of collaborative
learning among those faculty already employing cooperative-learning
exercises as well as newcomers to these activities who want to break out
of their teaching mold. Improvisation is another versatile tool to put in
our teaching tool belts that the Net Geners will love and Tim “The Toolman”
Taylor will applaud.
The best way to close this article is to answer the question in the title.
Do you remember the title? We don’t either. We got bogged down with
boxes of articles on cooperative learning. Here it is: Whose classroom is it,
anyway? Although our original intent was to parody the title of the amazing
British and American improvisational television shows, Whose Line
Is It, Anyway?, an unanticipated instructional legitimacy emerged. From
the first paragraph of the introduction to this article with the teaching
mantra in italics through the four arguments justifying the use of improvisation
as a college teaching tool, there is only one possible response to
whose classroom it is: It’s Ellen DeGeneres’s. OOPS! Wrong answer. It’s
the STUDENTS’, of course! Improvisation provides an excellent way to
make this transformation happen.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching52
References
Atkins, G. (1993). Improv! A handbook for the actor. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Drama.
Baerheim, A., & Alraek, T. J. (2005). ���������������������������������������Utilizing theatrical tools in consultation
training: A way to facilitate students’ reflection on action? Medical
Teacher, 27 (7), 652-654.
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning
techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bergren, M., Cox, M., & Detmar, J. (2002). Improvise this! How to think on
your feet so you don’t fall on your face. New York: Hyperion.
Berk, R. A. (2001). Using music with demonstrations to trigger laughter
and facilitate learning in multiple intelligences. Journal on Excellence in
College Teaching, 12 (1), 97-107.
Berk, R. A. (2002). Humor as an instructional defibrillator: Evidence-based
techniques in teaching and assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Berk, R. A. (2003). Professors are from Mars®
, Students are from Snickers®
.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Berk, R.A. (2005). Laughterpiece theatre: Humor as a systematic teaching
tool. Teaching Excellence, 17 (2). (Available from www.ronberk.com)
Berk, R. A. (2008a). Humor and the net generation. Thriving in Academe,
25 (4), 5-8.
Berk, R.A. (2008b). Music and music technology in college teaching: Classical
to hip hop across the curriculum. International Journal of Technology
in Teaching and Learning, 4 (1), 45-67.
Berk, R. A. (2008c). Star tech: The net generation. In C. C. Craig & L. F.
Deretchin (Eds.), Teacher education yearbook XVI: Imagining a renaissance
in teacher education (pp. 131-145). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Book, S. (2002). Book on acting: Improvisation technique for the professional
actor in film, theater, and television. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press.
Campbell, E. (1998). Teaching strategies to foster deep versus surface learning.
Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa, Center for University Teaching.
(Available from www.uottawa.ca/academic/cut/options/Nov_98/
TeachingStrategies.)
Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 52 (7), p. A34.
Conner, M., & Hodgins, W. (2000). Learning styles. Retrieved November
9, 2006, from www.learnactivity.com/learningstyles.html
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships
are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77,
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 53
113-143.
Crossan, M. M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9
(5), 593-599.
Crossan, M. M., Cunha, M. P., Vera, D., & Cunha, O. (2005). Time and
organizational improvisation. The Academy of Management Review, 30
(1), 129-145.
Crossan, M. M., & Sorrenti, M. (1997). Making sense of improvisation.
Advances in Strategic Management, 14, 155-180.
Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation:
What, when, how, and why. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 1, 299-341.
Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., & Kamoche, K. (2001). �����������������������Organizational improvisation:An
empirically based exploration of an innovative management
concept. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from http://scholar.google.com/sc
holar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:lOTEF39xrhQJ:www.fiel dsofflow.c
Diamond, M. R., & Christensen, M. H. (2005). Bravo! Do acting games
promote learning in the college classroom? Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 16 (2), 55-67.
Diggles, D. (2004). Improv for actors. New York: Allworth Press.
Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999a). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational
approaches. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999b). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In
P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational
approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Entwistle, N. (2004, June). Teaching-learning environment to support deep
learning in contrasting subject areas. Paper presented at Staffordshire
University, Stafford, UK.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2001). Effective strategies for cooperative
learning. Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10
(2), 69-75.
Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (2000). Learning styles and strategies.
Retrieved July 14, 2006, from www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ilsdir/
styles.html
Foreman, J. (2003, July/August). Next generation: Technology versus the
lecture. RetrievedApril 10, 2007, from www.educause.edu/ir/library/
pdf/erm0340.pdf
Frand, J. (2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and
implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (5), 15-24.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York:
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching54
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st
century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2005, May). Multiple lenses on the mind. Paper presented at
the ExpoGestion Conference, Bogota, Columbia.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational
implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational
Researcher, 18 (8), 4-9.
Gesell, I. (1997). Playing along 37 group learning activities. Duluth, MN:
Whole Person Associates.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. (1992).
Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park,
PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, andAssessment,
Pennsylvania State University.
Gwinn, P., & Halpern, C. (2003). Group improvisation: The manual of ensemble
improv games. Colorado Springs, CO: Meriwether.
Harrison, P. (2004, September). Unleashing deep learning through questioning.
Paper presented at the Education in a Changing Environment Conference,
University of Salford, UK.
Hay, D. B. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface, and nonlearning
outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (1), 39-57.
Hoffman,A., Utley, B., & Ciccarone, D. (2008). Improving medical student
communication skills through improvisational theatre. Medical Education,
35, 225-231.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles (2nd
ed.).
(Available from Peter Honey, Ardingly House, 10 Linden Ave., Maidenhead,
Berks, SL6 6HB, UK.)
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation.
New York: Vintage Books.
James, R., & Williams, P. (1981). A guide to improvisation: A handbook for
teachers. Oxon, UK: Kemble Press.
Jackson, T. (1993). Learning through theatre: New perspectives on theatre in
education. London: Routledge.
Jacobsen, T., Baerheim, A., Lepp, M. R., & Schei, E. (2006). Analysis of
role-play in medical communication training using a theatrical device—
the fourth wall. BMC Medical Education, 6 (51). (Available from www.
biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/51)
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New
York: New York University Press.
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 55
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning:
Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 4). Washington, DC: The George Washington
University School of Education and Human Development.
Junco, R., & Mastrodicasa, J. (2007). Connecting to the net.generation:
What higher education professionals need to know about today’s students.
Washington, DC: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education
(NASPA).
Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources
for Teachers, Inc.
Kamoche, K. N., Cunha, M. P., & Cunha, J. V. (2002). Organizational improvisation:
What, when, how, and why. London: Routledge.
Kaplan, S. (2002). Building communities—Strategies for collaborative
learning. Learning Circuits [On-line]. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from
www.learningcircuits.org/2002/aug2002/kaplan.html
Keefe, J.A. (2002). Improv yourself: Business spontaneity at the speed of thought.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kolb, D.A. (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—version 3.1: Self-scoring
and interpretation booklet. Boston: Hay Resources Direct.
Koppett, K. (2001). Training to imagine: Practical improvisational theatre techniques
to enhance creativity, teamwork, leadership, and learning. Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Leigh,A. (2004). Dramatic success at work: Using theatre skills to improve your
performance and transform your business life. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of
instant-message generation and the Internet’s impact on friendships and family
relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet andAmerican Life Project.
(Also available from www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.
pdf.)
Lowe, R. (2000). Improvisation, inc.: Harnessing spontaneity to engage people
and groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lynn, B. (2004). Improvisation for actors and writers: A guidebook for improv
lessons in comedy. Colorado Springs, CO: Meriwether.
Madson, P. R. (2005). Improv wisdom: Don’t prepare, just show up. New York:
Harmony/Bell Tower.
Manuel, K. (2002). Teaching information literacy to generation Y. New York:
Haworth Press.
Marks-Tarlow, T. (1995). Creativity inside out: Learning through multiple
intelligences. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Matthews, R. S. (1996). Collaborative learning: Creating knowledge with
students. In R. J. Menges, M. E. Weimer, & Associates (Eds.), Teaching
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching56
on solid ground: Using scholarship to improve practice (pp. 101-124). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Millbower, L. (2003). Show biz training. New York:American Management
Association (AMACOM).
Millis, B. J. (2002). Enhancing learning—and more!—Through cooperative
learning (IDEA paper # 38). Manhattan, KS: IDEA Center.
Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G., Jr. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education
faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Minor, A., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation
and learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,
304-337.
Moorman, C., & Minor, A. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational
memory. Academy of Management Review, 23 (4), 698-723.
Moshavi, D. (2001). Yes and . . . : Introducing improvisational theatre
techniques to the management classroom. Journal of Management Education,
25(4), 437-449.
Newton, B. (1998). Improvisation: Use what you know—make up what you
don’t!: Improvisation activities for the classroom. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted
Psychology Press.
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2006a). Is it age or IT: First steps toward
understanding the net generation. In D. C. Oblinger & J .L. Oblinger
(Eds.), Educating the net generation. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved November
14, 2006, from www.educause.edu
Oblinger, D. C., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2006b). Educating the net generation.
EDUCAUSE. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from www.educause.
edu
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation
of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs. cooperative learning.
Retrieved December 1, 2006, from www.city.londonmet.ac.uk/delib-
erations/collab.learning/panitz2.html
Patterson, J., McKenna-Cook, D., & Swick, M. (2006). Theatre in the secondary
school classroom: Methods and strategies for the beginning teacher.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Drama.
Polsky, M. E. (1997). Let’s improvise: Becoming creative, expressive and spontaneous
through drama (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Prensky, M. (2006). “Don’t bother me mom . . . I’m learning.” St. Paul, MN:
Paragon House.
Ramaley, J., & Zia, L. (2006). The real versus the possible: Closing the
gaps in engagement and learning. In D. C. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger
(Eds.), Educating the net generation. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved November
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 57
14, 2006, from www.educause.edu
Rhem, J. (1995). Close-up: Going deep. The National Teaching & Learning
Forum, 5 (1), 4.
Roberts, G. R. (2006). Technology and learning experiences of the net
generation. In D. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net
generation. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from www.
educause.edu
Robotham, D. (1999). The application of learning style theory in higher
education. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from http://www2.glos.ac.uk/
GDN/discuss/kolb2.htm
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge
in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.),
Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-197). Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Rose, C. (1985). Accelerated learning. New York: Dell.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Improvised dialogues: Emergence and creativity in conversation.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined
improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33 (2), 12-20.
Schroeder, C. C. (1997). New students—New learning styles. Retrieved
October 5, 2006, from www.virtualschool.edu/mon/academia/ki-
erseylearningstyles.html
Shapiro, J., & Hunt, L. (2003). All the world’s a stage: The use of theatrical
performance in medical education. Medical Education, 37, 922-927.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In
A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. MacGregor, Collaborative
learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 10-30). University
Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.
Spolin, V. (1986). Theatre games for the classroom: A teacher’s handbook. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.
Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the theatre: A handbook of teaching and
directing techniques (3rd
ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group
learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21-51.
Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Growing up digital: How the net generation is changing
your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching58
Timpson, W. M., Burgoyne, S., Jones, C. S., & Jones, W. (1997). Teaching
and performing. Madison, WI: Magna.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. M. (2004). Theatrical improvisation: Lessons for
organizations. Organizational Studies, 25 (5), 727-749.
White, J. (1998). Do Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences add up? London:
Institute of Education, University of London.
Willdorf, N. (2000). Masters of improvisation. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 46 (37), p. A12.
Williams, W. M., Blythe, T., White, N., Li, J., Sternberg, R. J., & Gardner,
H. (1996). Practical intelligence for school. New York: HarperCollins.
Windham, C. (2005). Father Google and Mother IM: Confessions of a net
gen learner. EDUCAUSE Review, 40 (5), 45-59.
Ronald A. Berk is professor emeritus, biostatistics and measurement, and former assistant
dean for teaching, The Johns Hopkins University. He is the author of 140 journal
articles/book chapters and 13 books, the most recent ones on humor in the classroom and
faculty evaluation strategies. He has given more than 300 keynotes and workshops on using
humor, music, videos, and games as teaching tools for this Net Generation of students.
(For further details, see www.ronberk.com.) Rosalind H. Trieber is a health education
specialist and was an adjunct faculty member in the department of health science at Towson
University. She regularly taught Mental Health and Stress Management, Wellness in a
Diverse Society, and Humor Strategies in Health Education. She has authored two books
on the benefits of laughter as a component of stress management and presented more than
100 keynotes and workshops on using humor and improvisation as teaching and coping
strategies. (For further details, see www.humorfusion.com.)
Improvisation as a Teaching Tool 59
Appendix A
Improvisation Evaluation Scale
Date:_________________
In which Improv Exercise did you participate? (circle one):
Freeze Tag
Speech Tag
One Word/Sentence
Gibberish Expert Interview
Directions: Please respond to each of the outcomes below to evaluate
the improv exercise you just experienced. Your feedback will help me
improve the quality and application of future exercises for specific
course content.
Please indicate the extent to which you experienced each outcome below in
this improv exercise. There are no right or wrong answers. Just respond
truthfully by circling the letters of your choice from among the
following: SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; A = Agree; SA =
Strongly Agree (Note: All responses are anonymous and will remain
confidential).
This exercise:
1. Built trust among students in my
group.
SD D A SA
2. Built mutual respect among the
group members.
SD D A SA
3. Fostered a spirit of teamwork and
collaboration among the members
of my group.
SD D A SA
4. Encouraged the acceptance of each
other’s ideas.
SD D A SA
5. Improved my brainstorming skills. SD D A SA
6. Increased my willingness to take
risks.
SD D A SA
7. Improved my verbal
communication skills.
SD D A SA
8. Improved my nonverbal (e.g., facial,
body language) skills.
SD D A SA
9. Improved my listening skills. SD D A SA
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching60
Appendix A
Improvisation Evaluation Scale (continued)
10. Applied the content to real-life
situations.
SD D A SA
11. Linked activities to my prior
knowledge and experiences.
SD D A SA
12. Promoted my creative problem
solving.
SD D A SA
13. Actively engaged me with new
ideas and concepts.
SD D A SA
14. Increased my ability to ad-lib and
think quickly on my feet.
SD D A SA
15. Promoted a true hands-on learning
experience.
SD D A SA
16. Encouraged me to be spontaneous. SD D A SA
17. Encouraged me to be intuitive in
my responses.
SD D A SA
18. Encouraged me to assess the
credibility of the information
presented.
SD D A SA
19. Increased my ability to respond
quickly and decisively in different
situations.
SD D A SA
20. Facilitated my
a. comprehension of the content.
b.reshaping of the content.
c. synthesizing the content.
d.analyzing the content.
e. evaluation of the content.
SD D A SA
SD D A SA
SD D A SA
SD D A SA
SD D A SA
What did you like best about this exercise?
What did you like least about this exercise?
How could this exercise be improved?