Intercultural Recognitions Through Performative Inquiry (Fels & McGivern, 2002)

This journal article was really amazing and came close the A-ha! Moment I am trying to investigate. The authors discuss performative inquiry – a research and learning mode that invites students to explore imaginary world. In this imaginary world, there are “space-moments of interstanding and intercultural recognitions.”  This is explored through the larger context of critical applied linguistics which recognises the language classroom as the site of struggle with social issues and cultural values.  They talk about how the dominant culture in the classroom is the culture of the target language and this can limit the expression and understanding of the learners if not considered in the learning environment.

Other ways the A-ha moment is expressed by these authors include, embodied presence, the third space of presence and exploration, intertextural realm of social responsibility and intercultural learning, concurrent shared participation and reflection, edge of chaos, endless dance of co-emergence and even simply, “the stop.” (Applebaum, 1995, 15, 16). Applebaum suggests students seek entry to this new linguistic space – a betweenness that is a hinge that belongs to neither one nor the other. Approaching the chaos, or restabilising requires new ways of moving within an embodied language of discontinuity, unfamiliarity, the not yet-known.

Two key activities in process drama that enable performative enquiry are the collective sharing and reflection by the participants following the performative exploration and embodied play. This offers students opportunities for intercultural awareness, dialogue and understanding.

“Performative inquiry is a research methodology that explores possible journey-landscapes, charting space-moments of learning realised through performance” (Fels, 1998)

Understanding Drama Based Education (Wagner 2002)

This article expresses how drama can have a positive influence on the development of all four language skills – reading, listening, writing and speaking. Wagner cites many different studies done that show a greater increase in these four skills when compared to classrooms that don’t use drama. The concept of “undergo” – when we allow our encounters to modify our established conceptions. When we undergo an experience, we ultimately have to change ourselves and our way of looking at the world. This is what true learning  is – a modification of our very selves. Development of community in learning is an important part of creation of this new self. Drama, specifically improvisational drama, by its very nature and use of symbols, icons and creating an urgency to build community, encourages this development of self.

The importance of creating a role that is slightly greater or more experienced than the current level of the student is highlighted in the process drama technique of mantel of the expert. This is exhibited in the language development and imaginative play of children, where they take on a role of an adult or doctor and are forced through the drama to adopt language and vocabulary that is more advanced than their own. This corresponds to Kraschen’s i+1 theory of language input.

Drama improves cognitive growth, such as language skills, problem solving, critical thinking and the effect is lasting. For writing specifically, there is research showing that writing in role and preparing for writing through art, drawing or drama creates empathy and greater awareness of audience and purpose.

Wagner suggests that dramatic inventing is one of the most basic skills – in facts should be included as the fifth skill in language learning after reading, writing, speaking and listening. How bold! This is the matrix through which the other skills emerge.

Drama in education aligns with constructivist theory – that is the notion that humans actively create their own models as to how the world works by dialogue with the world in which they live. Learners are active, goal oriented, hypothesis-generating symbol manipulators.

Drama has a strong emotional component. Participants are more vividly alive at the time of learning and alert to what is expected of them. This is due to the immediacy of the dramatic present and the pressure to respond aptly.

The importance of the use of gesture and body in language learning is highlighted. Gesture is a basic human communication form that allows learners to participate in activities and scenarios that are at higher target level than their current. Gesture leads to drawing and drawing leads to drama. Drama then leads to language. Wagner has labelled these three stages as enactive, iconic and symbolic, suggesting learning move through the stages, and this is heightened in effective drama.

“Drama aids thinking because it has the same goal as that of all cognition – to understand, to gain a larger perspective on, and to engage more profoundly with the world.” P15

Refining of my Actual Data Collection Plan

In recent exploration of the literature in the two key fields of my research – drama process in TESOL and aesthetic engagement in language learning I am expanding out my reach of the research. I believe I have covered most of the research about drama process and language learning. The two main pieces of solid research are Kao & O’Neil (1998) research with Taiwanese students, drama process and amount and quality of interaction judged on discourse analysis, and Swinson & Freebody (2006) research of improvement of oral fluency with Singaporean students involved in drama process. The later used a control group research based design with pre-test and post-test of oral fluency to show learners improved more in the drama process group. This simple design appealed to me and has got me thinking now about how I may simplify the design of my own project. Another case study, although not really a piece of research, discussed the effectiveness of portfolios and reflective journals (Miccoli:2003). I like the idea of a simple 10 week course with pre-test and post-test design, with three randomised groups – a control group studying English, an intervention group studying process drama with low key aesthetic elements and a group studying process drama with high aesthetic elements. Nice simple and sweet. I could also analyse the quality and quantity of the interaction using Kao’s two discourse analysis techniques.

So this has been making me think now, what elements should be brought into the drama process language learning classroom that will increase aesthetic engagement? How do I test presence of aesthetic engagement? How do I test benefits of aesthetic engagement?

If there is already research showing that drama process in TESOL increases oral fluency, quality and quantity of student teacher interaction (Kao & O’Neil:1998; Swinson & Freebody: 2006) then I don’t need to prove this. Although these studies were done with high school students and not done with adult learners of English in Academic Pathways – hint, this could be area for exploring, especially if I am going to use CET or International Students at the University.

This also brings a good point to the forefront. If I chose to have three classes doing 10 weeks of one hour lessons, conducted by recent TESOL teacher trainees in TESOL and Drama, I would need at least 30 student volunteers. They would also be studying at University at the time. I could randomise all the students in the groups, and also in the video analysis. And also do a double blind study where the teachers do not know which is the group with the intervention studied. If I get the two drama processes as close to each other as possible, I can identify the specific elements I am changing to increase aesthetic engagement. Other data gathering would be interviews and portfolios. I would also need to investigate how to actually determine engagement through a validated testing instrument, both self-reported by the student and teachers, but also observed through video and discourse analysis. The control group could study another dramatic technique like Strategic Intervention (di Pietro: 1987) if I wanted to put a drama slant on it, or something like creativity, mindfulness, meditation, etc if I chose to put an aesthetic engagement slant on it. Teachers would need a week of training in the techniques and syllabus.

Ethics would be OK, I can imagine if I choose non-CET teachers and non-CET students, and focus the main lessons during summer and winter school periods of 2012. In fact, if I shortened the period of lesson to two weeks intensive (10 lessons of 4 hours) but doubled the class time, this would be ideal. I could also stick to the DBT design and have the teachers assist in redesigning the programs between summer and winter in 2012. So the dates for classes would be Jan/Feb, for the first reiteration, and then July/Aug for the second reiteration. This fits. All classes would be videoed and conducted at CET, using CET resources. I would also apply for study leave for these periods.

Without referring to specific evidence yet in research, I am predicting that the greater the dramatic tension in the drama process, the greater the aesthetic engagement and emotional commitment and therefore greater the learning. Dramatic tension can be heightened in the same manner as heightening tension in a drama – tension of place, tension of task, tension of character, etc. There is some information in the key research about other contributing the need for a strong pretext,  topics and themes that capture the student’s attention, range of roles to play, teacher in role and mantle of the expert. I would have to start to predict the issues that may come out with a specific group in Australia of adult learners. These would be issues of cross-cultural differences, confidence, embarrassment of performance, resistance to change in power balances in the class and traditional role of teacher. From Bundy’s notion of connectedness, emotion, interaction in her analysis of aesthetic engagement, I can predict these factors affecting aesthetic engagement too.

Looking at the student teacher interactions during drama process

Shin Mei Kao and Cecily O’Neil combine analysis of drama process and SLA into one key study conducted in Taiwan. They looked specifically at the quality of the discourse and the quantity of the discourse in a systematic and empirical way. They conducted a fourteen week communication course using drama with university first year students. They then randomly took four drama process activities – two based on real events and two based on imaginary – and analysed the discourse.

They specifically looked at number of turns in the discourse from the students as compared to the teacher turns and also at the quality of the turns. The quality was measured using Van Lieu’s (1988) notion of taking initiative. This is described in four categories – (1) taking initiative on the topic, (2) taking initiative on self, (3) taking initiative for allocating the turn to another student or teacher, and (4) taking initiative in moving the sequence forward.  Excellent ideas on coding and ways to scientifically validate drama process.

Their key assumptions here are that the drama classroom resembles natural real-life discourse, allowing student to take more turns in the discourse and with a higher quality of turn. They made interesting discussion about the importance of internal tension – both in dynamic tension of the activity format and also tension of the role. They also tested the oral competence of the student before the class and after the class, using a self devised test describing a comic strip. In this test they scored the communication units and the speech clarity and proved that students improved (although not necessarily as a result of drama).

This study has given me ideas on how to measure communicative competence in the drama process and provides a solid way to empirical record the quality and quantity of the student teacher interaction. There is also a theoretical framework which I can follow – van Lier’s idea and categories of learners taking initiative in the classroom. I also liked the idea of teaching a drama process class for a period of time, recording everything with the video and then randomly choosing four episodes to analyse (and thereby eliminating other external factors).

The authors call for more empirical studies which validate drama process in language learning. They also describe a process for designing a language learning course using drama process.  Coming out of this reading I wonder at the possibility of doing a larger scale study in the same format. Or at least using the concept of conducting a program with students and then locating episodes to analyse for the aesthetic moment.

If I can merge Penny Bundy’s concept of the aesthetic experience – namely demonstrations of connection, animation and heightened awareness and Shin-Mei Kao’s theoretical framework and approach to analysis, I think I will be able to further analyse and validate the A-Ha moment.

Capturing the aesthetic moment

The more I talk about what the aesthetic moment is, the more I understand it on an intellectual level. Coming first from a very ethereal and touchy feeling place, I understand the moment from an emotional level and a irrational level. I am beginning to identify solid components that I would like to be able to track and record in a drama process.

Having had the moment many times myself both as a student in the classroom and as a drama practitioner, I intuitively know what it is but need to be able to explain it clearly and academically to other people.

That “A-ha!” moment for the student. There is a subtle shift in the dynamics between the student themselves, the other students, the teacher and the group as a whole. I wonder too about the relationship between their present self and future self. It is a moment characterised by a heightened sense of awareness. Penny Bundy talks about connectedness, emotionality and presence. The students connect more fully to the content, the situation, the relationships and also the language being used. I have a hunch an easier way to identify the moments as an observer is through the proximics and pragmatics – there must be a moment where the physical dynamics of the student and teacher’s eye contact, postures, gestures, openness, tonality, - all voice and movement elements – shift subtly. I want to video this interaction and capture these moments.

Once I have identified the moments through the voice and movement, I can then analyse the discourse and the teacher student interaction. How does the discourse change? Register? Tone? Pragmatics. And I will need to look at this systematically in the classroom environment, using systems analysis and Brofenbrenner’s (1993)  nested ecosystem of analysis. There are so many worlds occurring at that moment and leading up to the moment that are interacting like an ecosystem. The student’s inner world, their external world, the groups’ world and the teacher’s inner and external world.

The next step of the video analysis would be determining what are the triggers or lead up events to these moments that the teacher (and student) can take some control over. What do the teachers need to in the classroom to create more of these moments? What do students need to do?

I feel I have an access point and clear method for tapping into the drama side of it – start with the voice and movement and then identify student teacher interactions. I am still fuzzy on the linguistics component. Some areas for research would be the affective domain (Arnold, J), pragmatics, engagement, alignment between real self and future self, psychology of the language learner and motivation, group dynamics, flow and creativity, the mind gym – use of these activities, Multiple intelligences in EFL. I imagine I need to start with the larger context of affective domain, and then narrow it down to group dynamics and notion of self.

Timeline for my research

The timeline for my research is starting to pan out. My goal for this year is to complete the following in order:

Build community of practitioners – language teachers who are using drama techniques in their adult language learning classrooms. This will be done by inviting practitioners to a professional development night hosted at the Centre for English Teaching. This will be to present a 45 minute workshop on drama methodologies in language learning in preparation for my presentation at the CamTESOL conference end of February. The tentative date will be Wednesday 10 Feb at 6pm. I hope to determine who is interested in participating in research next year, but also to discover what people are actually doing in their classrooms. Ideally I need three to five practitioners who will be able to help develop the toolkit, apply it during their classes and then work with me on re-developing it.

CamTESOL conference 2011 – I will present a workshop on drama techniques in the language learning classroom. This will explore specifically the open end of the continuum of drama activities – specifically exploring drama process. This needs more work, as I only have 45 minutes here and need to combine both theory and practice in the workshop. I hope to connect with people using drama throughout Australasia and look forward to attending workshops and research about the area of applied drama process.

Thesis Proposal and Ethics Approval – the last half of 2011 will be finalising my proposal (15,000 words) and getting ethics approval.

Data Collection – for a concentrated period somewhere in 2012. I was advised that this period should be short and intense and also be a time I take off at work. Ideally this could be an extended workshop, video and analysis, then extended workshop and redesign, then video and analysis.

Data Analysis and Thesis writing – most of the end of 2012 and then 2013. It was also recommended that I take time off for final writing of the thesis – 70,000 words.

Given these parameters, my schedule is starting to look like this:

Thesis Proposal Development

9 Feb 2011 – professional development workshop to build community

27 Feb 2011 – CamTESOL

30 June 2011 – Draft Proposal (requires 600 words per week from 1 March 2011).

30 Sep 2011 – Final Proposal + Ethics Approval

Data Collection

15 – 30 January 2012 – Extended workshop to drama teachers

February – March 2012 – Observation of classes and test phase to video and identify both physicality of aesthetic moment and discourse of student teacher interaction.

Phase one observation goals

·         Student and teacher interviews and surveys to determine when heightened moments actually occurred (by collective agreement on these moments – self analysis of video)

·         Video analysis of moments to document first recognition of physicality of moment, analyse discourse during the moment, and determine triggers or lead up to moment.

Easter 2012 – Extended workshop and redesign

This would be design based research and involve feedback to teachers about the observation of phase one and involvement in redesigning the toolkit to include specific activities conducive to creating the aesthetic moment.

April – May 2012 – Observation of classes and application phase. Use of videos to record same teachers with different sets of students using redesigned toolkit but same drama process to create the aesthetic moments.

Phase two observation goals

·         Record moments and confirm first phase analysis of triggers and indicators of aesthetic experience.

·         Use of student and teacher surveys to analyse connectedness.

June 2012 – Final workshop

Workshop with teacher participants to redesign toolkit and plan for future developments.

Words into Worlds

In reading Words into Worlds by Shin-Mei Kao and Cecily O’Neil, I am recalling a lot of reading and exploration I made during my Masters Degree and while at Model Language Studio in Tokyo, Japan. I studied Process Drama in my drama degree and enjoyed the building of the narrative and taking participants through this process. Techniques such as teacher in role and mantel of the expert were definitively successful in moving the drama forward and engaging participants in the drama. The extended narrative and journey that you take with the students is powerful for both the teacher and the participants. The authors of Word into World (1998) talk about the continuum of open to closed drama activities, starting with the standard role-play at the closed end of the continuum and moving through to process drama at the open end. I was quite surprised at this, as I have been using role-play for a long time in the classroom and I know many teachers use role-play ineffectively thinking they are providing creative opportunities for their students to communicate. In this prescriptive manner, role-plays can be controlling, inappropriate and unreal.

So Drama Process it is going to be the focus of my reading for a while. I am interested in re-immersing myself in this medium and analysing which stages are effective in aesthetic engagement. I will be presenting a workshop in February 2011 at CamTESOL and look forward to receiving feedback about the beginning of the drama toolkit I hope to create. There is a list of key elements in creating effective process drama that O’Neil and Kao (1998) explore and I will include in my toolkit:

1.       Find an effective starting point for the drama, and if necessary, initiate the drama in role. This invites the students to enter the fictitious world of the drama, and inverts the assumptions underlying the traditional pedagogical context (ie teacher handing over power and empowering the students).

2.       Choose themes and topics appropriate for the social and linguistic abilities of the students. (I would suggest some linkage here about aiming the linguistic level to the i+1 level of the students, i.e. aiming the language level just above their current level to promote reach).

3.       Introduce a variety of roles in order to familiarise students with a wide range of language functions.

4.       Understand and foster the operation of tension in the dramatic situation, so that encounters continue to be unpredictable and authentic.

5.       Handle the class as a whole group as well as organising students into pairs and small groups.

6.       Release students from the constraints of language and provide them with fresh opportunities in incorporating non-verbal activities in the process. This is especially important for lower levels.

7.       Negotiate the development of the drama with students, and encourage similar positive interactions among students.

8.       Use a variety of forms of questioning to promote involvement, support students contributions and challenge superficial or inadequate responses.

9.       Reflect on the experience, both in discussion and through eh use of other modes of expression.

10.   Extend the drama experience beyond the limits of the classroom by making connections with society and the student’s own lives.