ABSTRACT
Before describing and analyzing the feedback that was gathered from the spectators, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention what I expected their responses to be like. I expected to see a significant difference in how both groups of spectators would interpret their performances. While I hypothesized that they would interpret similar themes, I thought that the two groups of audience members would perceive the intention of the performances differently. I suspected that the ‘affect’ described would vary immensely between the two groups of spectators. I posited that, while the proscenium performance’s audience members would identify to some extent with the character of the Young Woman protagonist, their affinity towards this character would not be as ‘marked’ or as ‘intense’ as the immersive piece’s spectators’ identification with the asylum seekers that they had to embody. I also postulated that spectators from the Immersive Theatre performance would make more journal entries than their proscenium theatre counterparts. These expectations were based on results that I saw in other simulation-based learning scenarios: concrete differences when there is a use of immersive strategies versus when there is not. The reality, then, was surprising because of the far more subtle points of comparison that emerged. The spectators’ responses were surprising in all the avenues that were provided for gathering feedback: in their responses to the written questionnaires, in the ways in which they steered the focus group discussion, in the nature of their entries in their journal, and in how individual audience members interacted with me in the interviews.
