SPEAKING OUT An exploration of process drama and its contribution to oracy Madonna Stinson

The author would like to thank the Research Assistants, Loo Yin Mei, Adrian Wong, Oniatta Effendi, and Nora Kamal for their contributions in the development of the literature review, and the collection and analysis of data for this report.

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT for Project No. CRP 27/04 MS

December 2007

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 Research Background ....................................................................................................... 4 

Drama and Language Learning in the Singapore Context ............................................. 4 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Research Design ........................................................................................................... 7 Professional development provided for the teachers ................................................. 7 The medium: process drama ..................................................................................... 9 The school context ................................................................................................... 11 

Data Sets and Analysis ............................................................................................... 11 Statistical analysis .................................................................................................... 15 Challenges within the research frame ...................................................................... 17 

Discussion and Findings ................................................................................................. 19 Impact on Oral Communication Test Score Results .................................................... 19 Student Responses to the Drama Intervention ............................................................ 19 

Drama classes emphasised the necessity for using “proper” English ...................... 20 Drama contributed to the enjoyment of learning ...................................................... 20 There were emotional and intellectual challenges within the drama frame .............. 21 Working in role contributed towards participation and engagement ......................... 22 Working in role changed the way they operated in more traditionally oriented classes ................................................................................................................................. 22 Drama improved vocabulary, confidence, and the capacity to work together .......... 23 Student/teacher relationships were altered when there was interaction with teacher-in-role ....................................................................................................................... 24 Students found drama beneficial in supporting writing ............................................. 25 

Teacher Responses to the Drama Intervention ........................................................... 25 Drama promotes engaged learners ......................................................................... 25 Drama improves writing ........................................................................................... 26 Drama elicits active response and participation ....................................................... 27 Drama builds confidence ......................................................................................... 28 An increase in the amount of English spoken .......................................................... 29 

Limiting Factors ........................................................................................................... 29 Teacher workload .................................................................................................... 30 Conflicting priorities .................................................................................................. 31 Classroom management concerns .......................................................................... 33 Examinations are a priority ...................................................................................... 34 More time to plan ..................................................................................................... 34 Time and timing ....................................................................................................... 35 

Teacher Resistance ..................................................................................................... 35 Professional Development ........................................................................................... 37 Management Issues .................................................................................................... 38 Relationship between Researchers and Teachers ...................................................... 39 

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 39 Considerations for School-based Intervention Research ............................................. 40 

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 41 References ...................................................................................................................... 41 Appendix: Statistics variables analysis ............................................................................ 44 

Page 2

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Introduction Drama’s connection with language learning and the positive impact of drama on learning in both first and second language contexts has been substantially researched and broadly documented (see, for example, Booth & Neelands, 1998; Catterall, 2002; Crumpler & Jasinski Schneider, 2002; Deasey, 2002; Kao & O'Neill, 1998; Liu, 2002; Miccoli, 2003; Podlozny, 2000; Wagner, 1998) but, apart from the Drama and Oral Language (DOL) project (Stinson & Freebody, 2006a, 2006b) there has been little research into the affordances of drama in language learning in the Singapore context. Following the DOL project mentioned above, one of the principals of a participating school approached the Principal Investigator (PI) to undertake a longer-term research study in her school. She had been impressed with the positive impact the DOL project had on both participating teachers and students and was convinced that developing a similar programme in collaboration with her teachers would be of benefit to the school. In addition her vision for the school included the goal that, “In time to come we will see ourselves as an academic institution which is open to conducting research.” Of concern for this principal was the need for what she termed “urgent” professional development amongst the staff, of whom some were open to newer ways of teaching and others were “cautious to guard their old way of teaching”. She was keen to pursue this research project and the goal of capacity-building for her teachers was the most significant. While she believed in the intrinsic and instrumental value of drama and hoped eventually to introduce it into the curriculum it was, in particular, the potential to improve teacher reflection and capacity through research that held the greatest appeal. My motivation was slightly different. The DOL project had deliberately chosen to use local teachers who had graduated from our Drama Education Diploma (APGD). They had exhibited and maintained a commitment and passion for teaching drama that had lasted through the required satisfactory completion of seven modules, which were offered on a part-time (after school) basis. I was interested to see what sort of, and how much, in-service would provide “non-drama” teachers with sufficient knowledge of and confidence to independently use drama within their regular English language classroom practice. In consultation with the Principal and her Head of Department (English), the Speaking Out research project was conceived. We began with two questions: How does drama impact on oral communication in Secondary One and Secondary Two classes in this Singapore school? and What are the Process Drama requirements for the implementation and ongoing development of such an approach by general EL classroom teachers? Our research team was to work closely with the teachers in the school throughout the school year and record the teachers’ journeys as collaborators in the project. In seeking answers to Question 2 we put into place several ongoing strategies whereby we hoped to gather data about the needs of this teacher group. We chose to use Design Research (Brown, 1992; Alan. Collins, 1992; Alan Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; Kelly, 2004) and as this is an iterative process we used data from each of the strategies to inform and modify the ongoing intervention. From the earliest stages of the project it was understood that teacher preparation and preparedness would be crucial to the success of the intervention. Early discussions considered the possibility of the teachers using the in-service commitment time as part of their 100 hours annual professional development requirement and, for those who wanted

Page 3

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

to do so, the in-service would include assessment leading towards accreditation for one of the modules on the Diploma offered at NIE. The Principal felt the teachers would be resistant to the reading, assessment and accountability of an accreditable in-service sequence, preferring instead to use an “as-needed” model with just-in-time theoretical framing being used as the researchers and teachers collaborated in co-planning and co-teaching. Only two of the eight teachers involved had any pre-service experience in drama or theatre and this was minimal. The research was designed to help us identify the needs of experienced English teachers, working already in an established school context, for professional development in drama. We wanted to know how little or how much time would be effective in preparing them for the introduction of drama strategies in their classes. What amount of time was required before they and their students felt comfortable in working in this way? Of course we knew this would vary from teacher to teacher, but hoped that their collaborative planning sessions and personal reflective journals would provide some insight into the learning journey they had undertaken. In addition we wanted to know what strategies they found easier and were more comfortable with in the early stages of the project, and we sought to discover at what point they began to plan independently, without the “handholding” support of the team. The DOL project had been planned around a series of process dramas planned by very experienced practitioners and implemented by facilitators who had completed a diploma qualification in drama education, so at the core of the enquiry was the question: is it possible to provide quality drama experiences for students with teachers who have no substantial training in the field?

Research Background The Drama and Oral Language research project (CRP8/03MS) showed that the Process Drama intervention produced enhanced results in participating students’ oral communication scores. Furthermore students and teachers identified improvements in the motivation and self-confidence of participants, as well as indications of enhanced inter-group relationships and communications across ethnicities. This research sought to determine the transferability of the approach to a broader school context (in this report – Terang1 Secondary School) and investigate the requirements for teacher preparation to effectively prepare them for teaching using the affordances of drama: its processes, conventions and oral emphases. Research objectives: 1. to provide professional development in the teaching of process drama for the

teachers who elect to participate in this research. These were seen as “seeding” staff who would be able to continue as mentors within the school context.

2. to investigate the impact of drama strategies on the development of oral language proficiency at for all Secondary One and Two classes at Terang Secondary School.

3. to co-develop a structured process drama program for oral language instruction with the English language teachers at Terang Secondary School.

4. to investigate the needs for teacher preparation for this approach with the intention of devising a suitable in-service model for the introduction of drama strategies to oral language teaching in Singapore schools.

Drama and Language Learning in the Singapore Context

Page 4

The Speaking Out research project, undertaken by the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice (CRPP) at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore, was a study into the impact of process drama, when incorporated into English lessons, on the oral communication of students. Singapore offers a valuable opportunity to investigate this area as English is the medium of instruction at all stages of schooling. From school entry all classes (except those for Mother Tongue) are taught in English. The “Speak Good

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

English Movement” was acknowledged in the Prime Minister’s address to the nation (17 August, 2003) when he reinforced the importance of this to Singapore’s future economic growth and significance in the region. The strong emphasis on English Language proficiency is further indicated by the fact that all aspiring teacher-education students at NIE, the only teacher-preparation institution in Singapore, must sit for an English Language Proficiency Test (including an oral component) to secure a place in the programme. The issue of students’ limited participation is amplified in bilingual contexts, and countries with English-medium schooling such as Singapore, because not only are students expected to learn the grammatical structure and correct usage of the English Language, they are also expected to learn through English as well (Gibbons, 1998). The Ministry of Education (MOE) expects that, by the end of their secondary education, students will be able to: • speak, write and make presentations in internationally acceptable English that is

grammatical, fluent and appropriate for purpose, audience, context and culture; and • interactive effectively with people from their own or different cultures (Ministry of

Education, 2001). The Ministry of Education’s new English syllabus (2001) sees a departure from the 1991 syllabus in its shift towards literacy development rather than just linguistic proficiency (Cheah, 2002) where the “fundamental premise of the 2001 English language syllabus is that Singapore’s school leavers must become “better learners, creators and communicators” (Gopinathan, 2005, p. 7). It reflects awareness of the greater trends of globalization and was lauded to have “literacy development at the heart of the English language instructional programme with the emphasis on language learning, literacy skills and communication skills” (Gopinathan, 2004, p. 18). Central to this Gopinathan (2004) also argued that, in order for Singapore’s future citizens to creatively use the language to build human and social capital, there is a need for an affective affiliation with the language such that students would see “English as invested with power to alter their lives, to extend and shape their dreams, to think with the language” (p. 21). He went on to urge teachers to “model appropriate language use and learning behaviours themselves, and to create open and interactive language classrooms” (p. 21). Language is one of the nine elements of drama (Haseman & O'Toole, 1986; O'Toole, 1992) and is both developed and applied in dramatic contexts. Process Drama offers an ideal vehicle to develop the communication and literacy skills that Gopinathan promotes because intrinsic to the structure of process drama is teacher modeling and “open and interactive” language use. (See p. 9 of this report for information about Process Drama.) At the time of writing, oral communication is formally tested at Primary Six and Secondary Four, as part of the Singapore-wide examination system. Informal interviews with Secondary English Language teachers provided the information that the teaching of oral communication was integrated into their regular classes via teacher/student modeling, explicit teaching of pronunciation and correction of mispronunciation, and offering opportunities for group work and oral presentations. What are the key areas in classroom practice therefore that need revisiting to reflect changes in globalisation? How can teachers create and manage more open and interactive environments? In the light of these concerns, the question this research sought to answer was whether Process Drama, as an alternative to traditional forms of teaching, impacted positively on students’ oral communication skills.

Page 5

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Methodology The research project followed Design Experiment research methodology, drawing on the expertise of Professor Eamonn Kelly who advised on the development of the research proposal. The term “design experiments” (now often used interchangeably with design research or design-based research) was introduced in 1992 in articles by Ann Brown (1992) and Allan Collins (1992). The methodology derives from the experimental processes used in the engineering sciences and has developed as a way to carry out research which aimed to test and refine educational designs based on principles derived from prior research (Collins et al., 2004). Design Experiments are both hypothesis testing and framework generating therefore contributing to model formulations (Kelly, 2004). They are interventionist and aim to result in the production of models of practice, teaching artefacts, and theories on learning and teaching. They have dual goals, i.e. to refine both theory and practice. The stages of a design experiment involve: 1. scanning the field, including both the specific context as well as documentation of

similar studies; 2. setting a key conceptual goal; 3. designing an intervention; mapping the conceptual journey for researchers, teachers

and students; 4. implementing the intervention, “perturbing” the field; 5. assessing, refining, iterating; considering the learning trajectories; identifying

indicators; honing tasks; and 6. product development; report generation. Design Studies are generally large-scale, long-term and take place in naturalistic settings, focusing on understanding the messiness of real-world practice. The context of the study is core, rather than being regarded as an unavoidable variable. Drawing on ethnographic methods the context is richly delineated. In schools the researchers and teachers collaborate as co-researchers, often with “expert” input by a leading academic or practitioner in the field. As such these studies remain “open to the vicissitudes of the actors [sic], their behaviours and the complexity of the current context, in other words, the raw material is Design Study is inescapably contingent: one action begets the next, and so on, often in unpredictable (and perhaps unrepeatable) ways” (Kelly, 2004, p. 125). Participant actions and input require frequent and ongoing discussion about how to proceed. Thus the “end-users” contribute to the research. Formative and progressive assessment and intervention strategies focus on instructional methods and student artefacts to create and refine theory. The goal of Design Experimentation is to expose the completed design and resultant implementation in a way that provides insight into the local dynamics. Thus, not only is the designed artefact (teaching materials, model of practice, etc.) shared, but rich descriptions of the specific context explicate the guiding and emerging theory. Since resulting claims are based on researcher-influenced contexts they may not be generalisable to other implementations where the researcher does not so directly influence the context (Barab & Squire, 2004). However the research can generate evidence-based claims about learning which may be transferable to similar contexts. Because Design Experiments consider the role of context within the study, they have the potential to produce products, programs and theory that can be adopted elsewhere with similar contexts, and these products of the research become validated through their use and refinement during the research process.

Page 6

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Research Design In line with ethical research protocols the names of the schools and individuals involved in this project have been changed to protect anonymity. Informed consent was gained from all participants (teachers, students, parents, and school administrators) and documents verifying this have been kept in the research project archives. The research team worked with eight teachers (of Secondary One and Secondary Two English classes – 12 classes of up to 40 students in each class) at the intervention school to provide professional development and ongoing support. Professional Development (See Table 1) workshops in drama pedagogy were held at the beginning of the project and any interested teachers were invited to participate in these, though only the teachers of Secondary One and Two English classes had ongoing support for planning and implementation. A comparison school, selected on the basis of proximity of location and school ranking but with no drama (e.g., no drama CCA) was chosen for statistical comparison. Professional development provided for the teachers

Initially the research team proposed that participating teachers would participate in the first module of the APGD (Drama) offered at NIE. The researchers could teach and assess the module at the school so no travel was required. This suggestion was found untenable by the school administration who believed that commitment to such study (particularly the assessment) would be unacceptable to the teachers. A total of five workshops were conducted with the teachers to equip them with some basic knowledge about drama conventions and process drama, to prepare them for teaching in the classroom, infusing English lessons with drama, and for the co-teaching of a process drama during the drama camp. The Principal Investigator led the first four workshops, during which the teachers were involved as participants and were asked to think about the purpose and applications of the conventions to students’ learning and English acquisition. At times she would step aside from the drama to discuss and share with the teacher-participants strategies for classroom management, the management of conventions, the purposes and importance of signing, enrolling, building belief and establishing the drama contract. No readings or assessment was undertaken. In addition the research team participated in the school drama camp. For two days in March, three of the researchers taught all classes in Secondary One as a model of best-practice. The teachers worked alongside the researchers as co-teachers (if they felt comfortable in doing so) or observers as the researchers worked with the students. For the remainder of the year individual researchers worked alongside each teacher as a co-planner and/or co-teacher when desired. A further 3 hour workshop was offered in August at the request of the teachers (see Table 1 for details and timing of workshops).

Table 1. Professional development offered during 2005

Date Focus Timing Hours 10 Jan. Research briefing 8:30 – 9:30 1 27 Jan. Teacher workshop 1 – Introduction to simple conventions 2 – 5 3 17 Feb. Teacher workshop 2 – additional conventions 2 – 5 3 24 Feb. Teacher workshop 3 – “Putting it together”: planning 2 – 5 3 9 Mar. Teacher workshop 4 – briefing & prep. for drama camp 3 – 5 2 23 Mar. Drama Camp (with students) teachers to observe/assist 8 – 2 6 24 Mar. Drama Camp (with students) teachers to observe/assist 8 – 2 6 21 July Teacher workshop 5 (classroom management) 2:30 – 5:30 3 18 Aug. Research update 8 – 9 1 Total hours 28

Page 7

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Teachers were encouraged but not forced to apply drama strategies in their regular planned English classes. It was hoped that they would use the strategies they had experienced in the workshops, and with which they felt comfortable, in their classes when the strategy suited the learning context. As time progressed, teachers were supported by being able to access the research team expertise for assistance in planning. Following the initial professional development sessions one member of the research team was partnered with individual teachers to provide professional support with planning and implementation of drama/English lessons to suit the context of each specific class and the “comfort” level of individual teachers. Each professional development session was recorded, as were the co-planning sessions.

Table 2. Schedule for co-planning and co-teaching

Co-planning Co-teaching

Teacher

Total no. of hours

Semester one:

No. of sessions

Semester two:

No. of sessions

Total no. of hours

Semester one:

No. of lessons

Semester two:

No. of lessons

Mr Lim (A) 7.15 1 *6 2.6 nil 2 Tang (O) 3.5 1 1 1.4 nil 1 Anna (Ym) 2.5 1 3 1 nil 1 PeiShan(YM 6.75 1 *5 2.5 nil 2 Devi (O) 7 1 4 1.4 nil 1 Aminah (O) 3.33 1 2 0 nil 0 Chan (YM) 4.75 2 *3 5.8 3 2 Suhailah (A) 6.05 1 5 1.3 nil 1 * Includes a co-planning session where all three teachers were involved.

The amount of time spent on co-planning and co-teaching as well as the number of reported periods (40 minutes per period) of lessons conducted may not be indicative of the quality of the drama lessons conducted. During co-planning, the researchers shared knowledge about the planning for and management of drama lessons, the drama conventions and their variations, how to sequence drama conventions and the considerations that were entailed, and the links that could be made to language learning (oral and written). For semester two, the planning process was assisted by the provision of a planning template that asked the teachers to consider the following in their lessons: • Curriculum focus • Language focus • Thematic focus • Measures of learning • Choice of pre-text • Choice of warm-up activity • Setting up the use of the pre-text During the co-planning sessions most teachers (four out of the five with recorded co-planning) relied heavily on the researchers to help them plan the lessons, with little or no substantial input into the process, or little explicit questioning of the thinking process / knowledge behind the choices made or proposed. Video records were made of two classes led by the intervention school teachers (Term 1 and Term 3). These were coded and formed the basis of analysis by the research team. The teachers were given the opportunity to contribute a “talk aloud” reflection on the second video-recording, as we sought data on their responses to the “planned” and “lived” curriculum experience.

Page 8

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Both the teachers and the researchers kept personal reflective journals throughout the project. Each teacher was provided with a thumb-drive so that their reflections could be collected and uploaded by the team.

Table 3. Teacher reported number lessons in which drama was used

Includes lessons co-taught with researchers

Teacher Express Normal

Academic Normal

Technical Total Mr Lim (A) 2E2 : 16 2A1 : 10 2T1 : 7 33 Tang (O) - - 1T2 : 8 8 Anna (Ym) 1E1 : 9 1A2 : 2 - 11

Tan Pei Shan (YM) 2E3 : 10 2E5 : 13 - - 23

Devi (O) 1E2 : 24 - - 24 Aminah (O) - - 1T1 : 20 20 Chan (YM) 2E1 : 16 - - 16 Suhailah (A) 1E3 : 2 - - 2

More drama lessons were conducted in semester two as the researchers spent more time co-planning with the teachers. However, some teachers chose to have more drama lessons with certain classes than others, mainly due to perceptions about student behavior, and this is evident in the number of recorded drama lessons and noticeable from the students’ responses. The medium: process drama

Process Drama differs from traditional conceptions of drama in that it provides a medium of instruction that employs the dramatic art form as a vehicle that frames learning both within drama itself and across other areas of the curriculum. The term has been increasingly used in contemporary drama pedagogy (see, for example, Ackroyd, 2004; Bowell & Heap, 2001; O'Neill, 1995; O'Toole & Dunn, 2002; Taylor, 1995) to describe the means by which a dramatic context is used to frame learning. The drama learning experience is structured by the teacher, and activities include the application of drama conventions (Neelands & Goode, 2000) to shape an interrogative learning experience. Within the drama, students (and the teacher) work within designated roles to solve problems and investigate issues highlighting the complexity of the human condition in a particular context. Unlike more traditional drama teaching approaches which concentrate on preparing students to perform text and which are often exercise-based, the approach taken by process drama is art-form based, i.e. the students are operating in the enactive mode (Robinson, 1990) as though they are inside the play and, while in role, they deal with events and interactions as they unfold. The structure for planning a Process Drama provided to the teachers was: 1. Establishing the pretext. The pretext is the starting point for any process drama. It

may be a story, extract from a text, a photograph or other visual text, a piece of music or an artifact. Pretexts should contain a “puzzlement” that entices the students into the drama as well as the potential for the creation of a dramatic “world” (or context) in which the drama takes place.

2. Enrolling. In this stage the roles that the students and the teacher will take during the drama are established. In most cases the students take on a purposeful and “expert” role (such as journalists, counselors, explorers etc.) and a range of enrolling conventions are implied. At this stage the drama contract is made, either implicitly or explicitly, to ensure the students agree to “suspend their disbelief” while in the drama.

Page 9

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

3. Building belief. A range of conventions are applied to deepen commitment to the drama.

4. Establishing the narrative. By this stage the students should be deep within the drama and conventions and strategies, chosen by the teacher, allow for deep understanding, recognition of complexity and diverse points of view, and problem solving as the story of the drama unfolds.

5. Adding a complication. This is usually provided by the teacher and equates to the climax of the play. The aim of the complication phase is to challenge pre-conceptions and, often, to move students to a still deeper level of commitment and engagement. It also serves to ensure that the problem to be solved is not done so easily.

6. Resolving the narrative. Similar to the denouement of a play, this phase allows the group to tie up the threads of the dramatic situation until a resolution which is satisfactory to the participants is reached.

7. Reflection and debriefing. This phase focuses on the preceding experiences and identifies what has been learnt through the process.

As can be seen by this structure, planning Process Drama requires both understanding of drama and considerable thought. While the teachers were provided with the structure and had opportunities to engage in Process Dramas during the professional development sessions, the research team suggested that they delayed full engagement with a Process Drama until both they and their students were comfortable and familiar with some common drama conventions. The conventions that were taught during the professional development session at the beginning of the year included: • Teacher-in-role • Hot seating • Pair- and small-group roleplay • Circle role • Reenactment • Gossip mill • Freeze frames • Teacher narration • Blanket role • Mantle of the expert • Group meeting • Documentary These were seen to be within the comfort zone of most of the teachers and were manageable within the context of the large classes and limited access to suitable spaces for drama work within the school. As individual teachers attempted to use these conventions in class they became more comfortable with using them and contingent behavior management strategies. Further conventions were introduced on a one-by-one basis as teachers needed or requested them. The hope was that we would gradually see teachers: moving from drama that is: to drama that is:

• short-term • exercise-based • teacher-controlled • closed activities

e.g. script, scripted role-play, readers’ theatre, language games

• extended • context-based • student input • complex & open

e.g. unscripted role-play/ improvisation, playbuilding, process drama

Page 10

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

The school context

The participating school was a secondary neighbourhood school with a cohort of 1390 students, mostly from lower-middle income families. According to the Principal, the school with a history of 11 years strives hard through mostly “drill and practice” to raise students’ academic performance. When asked to describe her school, she highlighted the need for urgent professional development amongst the staff and indicated that some teachers were open to newer ways of teaching and others were cautious to “guard their old way of teaching”. None of the lower secondary English teachers which the research team worked with had no previous background in drama pedagogy. Two had studied some theatre as part of their B.A. at university level but the emphasis was on performance studies rather than teaching and curriculum. Teacher preparation in this project therefore did not include any formal theoretical assessment. The research team however made efforts to facilitate the skill transfer of teachers in the drama pedagogy and to provide support for the daily use of drama in the classroom. Data Sets and Analysis To prepare the teacher-researchers and the team to work together we were conscious that we had to establish and maintain a positive relationship between the school staff and the research team. To this end we consulted with the Principal and HOD regularly throughout the year and asked them to advise us on the needs and concerns of the teacher-researchers. We had hoped to have a room allocated at the school where we could locate an on-site research office, believing the location and the ease of access to and for the team would help us be part of the school community. The school space requirements made this impossible but we were each given staff access cards and wore these when on the school campus. Measures taken to assist in the development of teacher capacity and data gathering process included: Research briefings: 10 January & 18 August. The first of these followed the briefing by the HOD and principal where they informed the staff the nature of the research project and the school’s commitment to it. At this briefing we explained the timeline for the research, the purpose of each of the data collection methods and made it clear that the teacher-researchers were under no compulsion to participate in the research and were free to withdraw at any time. The second was a “touch-base” briefing where we talked about the progress of the research to date and held an open forum with the school administration team and the staff so that all were free to raise any concerns. Workshops: These were led by the Principal Investigator (PI) and were held after school for around 2 ½ hours each. At each of these practical workshops a number of drama strategies were introduced and explained in terms of the learning to which they might contribute. The timing was chosen with two intents: one, so that the teacher-researchers would not be overloaded with time commitments after school; and two, in order for them to be able to try out some of the strategies in their classes in the intervening weeks and gain confidence in the practice of drama. An additional workshop was provided, at the teachers’ requests, on 21 July. This workshop focused, in particular, on planning in an attempt to connect the drama activities to the Schemes of Work that were written for the English program. Drama camp: The school held a “drama camp” for two days in March (23-24). The research team volunteered to teach on the camp as a way of modelling practice for and with the teacher-researchers and students. We modelled a pre-planned 4-hour drama workshop which was repeated on the second day and offered as a co-teaching possibility

Page 11

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

for those teacher-researchers who wanted to attempt to implement some strategies in a supported frame. Readings: Very few readings were given as there was considerable resistance by the teacher-researchers to any heavy reading or to engaging with theoretical understanding. The readings that we shared were records of the workshops or short articles providing advice in response to teacher concerns and requests. Consultation, co-planning and co-teaching: From the beginning of the project the team members were in the school two or three times a week to meet with the teacher-researchers and assist in lesson planning. The regular consultations were offered in the spirit of collegiality, to talk about behaviour management, or resource ideas, or how to introduce a new strategy. Co-planning followed a more formal process. We asked that the teacher-researchers use at least one drama strategy in one lesson per week in the hope that the students and the teacher-researchers would become more relaxed and confident because of this regularity. Consequently either one of the informal consultations or a more formal planning session was used to plan the lesson into which the drama would be integrated. Co-teaching was a strategy used in an attempt to assist the teacher-researchers gain confidence and facility with the strategies in their own class and with their own students. The intention was to co-teach (which usually involved a member of the research team leading the drama activity) at the teacher’s request in the first two terms so that, by Term 3, the researchers would be assisting with planning only, and the teacher-researchers would implement the planned lessons independently. Teacher viewing of videos of their own practice: This was an attempt to focus on the curriculum gap (Stenhouse, 1975) between the planned and the enacted curriculum. Using “talk-aloud reflection” we asked the teacher-researchers to view one of their videoed lessons and “talk-aloud” into a digital recorder, making clear both the intent and their response to the lived experience of the lesson. Data sets included: • documentation of the professional development workshops; • teacher reflections; • researcher reflections; • artefacts (Schemes of Work, lesson plans, video records, samples of student writing); • Oral recordings of tests (15 student per class, randomly selected) – 4 times a year for

the intervention school and twice for the comparison school. Each set of recordings were made within the same week to minimise the impact of time and timing on the collection of data sets;

• Individual interviews (x2) with each of the eight teachers, the Head of Department, and the school Principal;

• Transcripts of focus group interviews with students (randomly selected) and, a single focus group interview, with parents of children involved in the intervention classes.

The visit of our research consultant, Professor John O’Toole, at the beginning of 2006 assisted the research team in closely scrutinising the data and the following sub-questions of the research were identified during his two-week visit.

Page 12

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Table 4. Questions and sub-questions of the research

Page 13

1. How does process drama impact on oral communication in Secondary One and

Two classes in a Singapore school context?

1.1. What do we need to know from the data that will help us identify the impact of

drama? 1.1.1. What were the student responses to the project? 1.1.2. What were the students’ results on their oral tests compared to the control

classes who took no drama? 1.1.3. What were the teachers’ perceptions? 1.1.4. What were the parents’ perceptions? 1.1.5. What were the school administration officials’ perceptions? 1.1.6. What were the research team’s perceptions?

1.2. What factors might account for this diversity. 1.2.1. Was the particular teacher significant? 1.2.2. Was process drama as a new pedagogy significant? 1.2.3. Was the students’ level of English significant? 1.2.4. Was their attitude to the researchers, who co-taught some sessions with

the class teacher significant?’ 1.2.5. Was the ethos or demographic of the particular class significant? 1.2.6. Was the stream of the class significant 1.2.7. Was the ethos or demographic of the school significant? 1.2.8. Were the externals of the lessons (location of class, time of day, prior

activity, interruptions...) significant? 1.2.9. Was previous drama experience by the students significant? 1.2.10. Was gender significant? 1.2.11. Was the ethnicity or mother tongue of the students significant? 1.2.12. Was particular peer pressure or response of the students significant? 1.2.13. Was the varying time lag between process drama classes significant?

2. What are the Process Drama requirements for the implementation and ongoing development of such an approach by general EL classroom teachers?

2.1. What are the Process Drama requirements for the implementation of such an

approach by general EL classroom teachers? 2.1.1. What knowledge/pedagogy/skills/thinking processes/educational beliefs

and concepts/positioning of learners/reflective capacity do the teachers need?

2.1.2. What knowledge/pedagogy/skills/thinking processes do the teachers have? 2.1.3. What is their philosophy / educational beliefs and concepts / background

and experience / positioning of learners? 2.1.4. What reflective capacity did they have? 2.1.5. What confidence do the teachers have in implementing process drama?

2.1.5.1. What are the factors which contribute to teachers’ confidence in the implementation of process drama? 2.1.5.1.1. Teachers’ perception of their knowledge/skills 2.1.5.1.2. Teachers’ perception of R.A.’s/research team’s roles 2.1.5.1.3. Teachers’ perception of pedagogy 2.1.5.1.4. Teachers’ perception of students/students’ learning

2.1.6. How comfortable were the teachers in implementing process drama in their classrooms? 2.1.6.1. What characteristics/attributes of the

pedagogy/teachers/teachers’ perception of students’ learning contribute to the teachers’ comfort level?

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

2.1.6.1.1. Process drama (e.g. social roles of teachers, learner autonomy, etc…)

2.1.6.1.2. Teachers (personality/characteristics, etc) 2.1.6.1.3. Teachers’ perception of students

(positioning/learning/ability) 2.1.6.1.4. Rapport with the class

2.1.7. What ownership did they have in the project? 2.1.7.1. What was/were the teachers’ motivation level? 2.1.7.2. What stakes/incentives did the teachers have in the project?

(negative and positive) 2.1.7.3. Accountability (to students, to department, to school, to parents,

to society?) 2.1.7.4. Work review (EPMS – performance appraisal) 2.1.7.5. Agency

2.1.8. What opportunities did they have to influence (the school and the research team) and change the project?

2.1.9. Were they able to speak out/feedback this to the team and the school? 2.1.10. What organisational resources and support did they have

(practical/logistical) from: 2.1.10.1. the institution? 2.1.10.2. the research team? 2.1.10.3. the parents? 2.1.10.4. others?

2.1.11. What emotional/psychological support for change were they given? 2.1.12. What norms had to be changed?

2.1.12.1. How able and willing were they able to change these norms? 2.1.12.2. What opportunity did they have to influence (the school and the

research team) and change the project? 2.1.12.3. Where they able to speak out/feedback this to the team and the

school? 2.1.13. How much collaboration/support/competition did they give or get from each

other? 2.1.14. What were the micro-political structures/relationships amongst the teachers

in the department/in the school? 2.2. What are the Process Drama requirements for the ongoing development of such an

approach by general EL classroom teachers? 2.2.1. Who would be the ones in school ensuring the sustainable practice of

Process Drama? 2.2.2. How would they be going about it? 2.2.3. What sort of continuing support from the school/professional

bodies/community do they need? 2.2.4. Who would be giving feedback on their progress and effectiveness?

For each sub-sub-sub-question the research team cross-checked that there were at least three different data sources. As only one focus group interview was recorded with parents, that question was eliminated from further analysis as it was deemed that a single interview was insufficient to provide authentic data. Each data set was scrutinised with the above questions in mind. All interviews were transcribed and coded with the intention of seeking answers to the above questions. The oral tests were scored individually by researchers at the time of the test, and then the scores were checked/moderated within the research team. For the group moderation each recording was played through a set of speakers designed for good quality voice reproduction and marking was undertaken first individually, and then moderated until a group consensus was reached. As the researchers had undertaken prior training in the

Page 14

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

marking criteria, there was very little disagreement between the initial marks awarded by the examiner and the final moderated scores, both on each individual measure and on the overall scores. The final moderated scores were used for the statistical analysis. Teacher reflections were collected twice per term and uploaded into the database. Researcher reflections were uploaded continuously throughout the project. Statistical analysis

The results of oral communication examinations, modelled on those held by the MOE, were analysed using data from the intervention classes (those with drama pedagogy supported by the research team), comparison classes within the school (those without drama pedagogy supported by the research team, but where some overflow was possible), and comparison classes at a neighbourhood school matched by school ranking (without drama pedagogy). Overall scores were used to make comparison between groups (See Appendix A for an explanation of this). The intervention school data was mapped following four tests (one each term) as we were looking to document time-related changes in student scores. Two tests (Term 1 and Term 4) were recorded at the comparison school. Statistical analysis sought to determine whether there was any differentiation on the basis of gender, race, school, and, within the intervention school, by teacher and class. A sample of the analysis for Normal Technical students is provided below: Normal Technical Sample (Comparison School – no drama) ( 14n = ) The means and standard deviations of the components scored for the sample of Normal Technical students in the Control School over the two tests are shown in the following table.

Table 5. Comparison school – no drama

Test 1 Test 2

Component Mean ( X ) Standard

Deviation (SD) Mean ( X ) Standard

Deviation (SD) Clarity 1.57 0.646 1.64 0.842 Vocabulary 1.29 0.469 1.36 0.633 Relevance 2.07 0.267 2.00 0.679 Effectiveness of Interaction 1.43 0.646 1.43 0.756 Prompting 1.36 0.497 1.07 0.616 Overall Score (over 15 marks) 7.71 1.939 7.50 2.955 (Intervention School – with drama) ( 14n = ) The means and standard deviations of the components scored for the sample of Normal Technical students in the Treatment School over the two tests are shown in the following table.

Page 15

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Table 6. Intervention school – with drama

Test 1 Test 2

Component Mean ( X ) Standard

Deviation (SD) Mean ( X ) Standard

Deviation (SD) Clarity 1.50 0.941 2.14 0.663 Vocabulary 1.43 0.852 2.14 0.864 Relevance 2.00 0.961 2.50 0.650 Effectiveness of Interaction 1.57 0.756 2.00 0.679 Prompting 1.43 0.852 1.43 0.646 Overall Score (over 15 marks) 7.93 4.047 10.21 3.191 The following table shows the F-ratios and p-values obtained for each of the components between the two schools, using a repeated-measures analysis of variance.

Table 7. F-ratios and p-values obtained for each of the components between the two schools

Component F-ratio p-value (Sig.)

Clarity 3.014 0.094 Vocabulary 6.603 0.016 Relevance 3.130 0.089 Effectiveness of Interaction 6.820 0.015 Prompting 2.138 0.156 Overall Score (over 15 marks) 4.517 0.043

The repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed that there are significant differences for the components “Vocabulary” and “Effectiveness of Interaction” between the two schools from test 1 to test 2. Overall, there is also significant difference in the students’ oral abilities between the two schools from test 1 to test 2. The following graph plots show the differences in the estimated marginal means for each significant component from test 1 to test 2 between the two schools: Vocabulary

21

Test Number

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

Estim

ated

Mar

gina

l Mea

ns

School ID (Comparison versus Intervention Group) ________ Comparison - - - - - - - - Intervention Group

Figure 1. Estimated marginal means of vocabulary

Page 16

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Effectiveness of Interaction

21

Test Number

2

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

Estim

ated

Mar

gina

l Mea

ns

School ID (Comparison versus Intervention Group) ________ Comparison - - - - - - - - Intervention Group

Figure 2. Estimated marginal means of effectiveness of interaction Overall Score

21

Test Number

10.5

10

9.5

9

8.5

8

7.5

Estim

ated

Mar

gina

l Mea

ns

School ID (Comparison versus Intervention Group) ________ Comparison - - - - - - - - Intervention Group

Figure 3. Estimated marginal means of overall score (total of 15 marks) In this case there is clear evidence of the positive impact of drama on the results of the NT students at the intervention school as compared to NT students at the comparison school Challenges within the research frame

As others have pointed out (Brown, 1992; Collins et al., 2004) one of the challenges in Design Experiment research is the huge amount of data collected. This was certainly true

Page 17

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

of this project and it is proposed that additional time is allowed for the data to be mined for significant insights. In addition a number of other challenges were faced within the timeframe of this research: 1. research assistants – It proved difficult to employ research assistants with sufficient

expertise in both data collection and drama pedagogy. Consequently time was required to upskill in these areas. The research design was reliant upon the ongoing relationship between individual researchers (as co-planners etc.) and changes within the research team due to the late employment of one member and the maternity leave of another (which required a replacement) negatively impacted on the implementation;

2. teachers – While the team had been assured that the teachers within the school were enthusiastic volunteers this proved to be far from the case, and the project encountered various forms of resistance (rarely overt) to the intervention;

3. changes to teaching staff – Two teachers who had undergone the initial training left the school in the first term. The replacement teachers were not able to access the Process Drama offered and their classes were used as internal comparison classes.

4. time – This challenge has several levels. a. Planning. The teachers protested at the amount of additional time that was

required for planning to include drama and this was directly linked to their inexperience with the pedagogy. Planning time had been promised by the school administration but was constantly eroded by competing school demands.

b. Teaching. A considerable amount of time was spent in exam preparation and examinations. No drama planning or implementation was undertaken when classes were in “exam-prep” or examination phases. A scan of the weeks when classes were taught reveals that only around 23 of the 40 weeks of the school year was spent on teaching, with the remainder spent on examinations or preparation for same.

c. Analysing. The large amount of data meant that it was difficult to complete analysis while the funding for employment of the research assistants was available, and here again consistency and continuity of employment was problematic. Although the analysis of each set of data was completed by the end of the project (2006), there was insufficient time for writing up, and this was therefore left to the PI. Other professional commitments (teaching, research and the completion of her PhD in 2007) has left little time for further detailed analysis and writing. It is anticipated that this situation will be remedied in 2008.

5. Contamination of comparison school data. As mentioned earlier, the comparison school was chosen to match as closely as possible with the school and school clientele of the intervention school but was to have NO drama within the school programme. Unbeknown to the research team, the two teachers of the Express and Normal Academic classes used in the oral language tests, independently enrolled in the Advanced Post-Graduate Diploma in Drama and Drama Education at NIE. This was not discovered until towards the end of the calendar year and following our final testing of students in both schools. A brief phone check with the teachers of the comparison school classes revealed that they had been applying what they had learnt in their drama course within their English teaching. Hence, the statistical comparison data was unable to be used. The only class for which we can be sure there was no drama pedagogy used was the NT sample described earlier. Hence, while there is evidence that student results on the oral communication examinations improved (in both schools except for the NT class at the comparison school) the intention to identify the impact of drama across the two schools is not possible, except in one class only as shown in the example above.

Page 18

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Discussion and Findings The questions delineated above provided the framework for analysis. An expert in statistics was hired to undertake the statistical analysis and provide a report, extracts from which are included in this report. Records of planning and co-teaching were transcribed and analysed for development of drama understanding. All interviews and “talk-aloud” reflections were transcribed and analysed using the research team’s question framework. Representative quotes were filed under the related question. Artefacts of teacher planning were compared and analysed to identify common strengths and problems. Impact on Oral Communication Test Score Results Because of the problems indicated earlier with regard to the “drama-free” comparison school and the drama intervention school it is difficult to verify the impact of drama on the results of students according to the statistical analysis. However there are indications that the application of drama in English language classes had a positive effect on the student examination results. There was a measurable improvement across the board in pre- and post-tests for oral communication except for the NT class at the comparison school, which had no drama at all. Hence in all classes where drama was used there are indications of improved oral communication results. In no cases of the statistical analysis are the results as robust as they were in the Drama and Oral Language project. This implies a link between the quality of teacher knowledge of drama pedagogy and student results in English oral communication scores. One of the interesting findings on the Drama and Oral Language study was that the students (in well planned drama classes, taught by experienced drama teachers) “got the hang of” the work after about six hours of instruction. In this project few of the teachers were able to offer quality drama work on a sufficiently regular basis for a similar time/intensity to be reached. Again, the implication is that there is a link between the amount of time allowed for student learning in drama and related oral communication results. This report will go on to consider student and teacher responses to the research intervention. Student Responses to the Drama Intervention The analysis of student responses were based on the interview transcripts of interviews one and two (five randomly selected students from each class), conducted in April and October 2005 respectively. Other data including teachers’ records of drama lessons taught and total number of co-planning and co-teaching sessions and hours were analysed to substantiate the students’ statements about the number of lessons taught. The circumstances surrounding the interviews were also highlighted to shed light on the context of some of the statements made by the students as well as the analysis. From the analysis of student responses, it is clear that the students found the drama lessons engaging and they felt that they were learning English and improving in their oracy through drama. Some were cognitively challenged during drama and felt a greater connection with issues that arose during the lessons. The responses also suggest that the quality of the drama lessons has a significant impact on the students’ attitudes towards drama. Most Secondary One students were able to recall, even in October 2005, the details of the drama “The Identification”, which was taught during the drama camp, as well as games which were conducted during their Drama Camp on the 23rd and 24th of March that same year. This suggests that a high quality drama, written by an expert in Process Drama, taught by experienced teachers had a major impact on the students’ drama experience, or at least their attitude towards drama.

Page 19

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Interestingly, students’ responses from interview one, conducted in early April a few weeks after the camp, did not yield as much recall as the second interview. The details offered for the second interview in October were significantly more substantial and personal than compared to the lessons conducted by the teachers, even those co-planned and co-taught with the researchers. In the following section I will use representative samples from student interviews to highlight key findings. These quotes were taken from the large number of interviews taken throughout the project. Drama classes emphasised the necessity for using “proper” English

S2 Um, basically in other subjects, you can always speak Singlish to the teachers.

I Really? S2 And the teachers will reply you back in Singlish. I Really? S2 But as for the drama, you have to speak in proper English Language.

The students reported more internal motivation to speak in English and speak well. Students wanted to speak well in front of their classmates because (i) they wanted to be understood during drama, (ii) they wanted their classmates of other ethnic groups to understand them, (iii) they did not want to embarrass themselves and (iv) the demands of the drama and the roles that were undertaken required them to speak well. Such internal motivation came from being involved in the drama. Though some students reported that they still felt more comfortable discussing in Singlish or Mother Tongue even during presentations in drama, more were speaking English because they felt the need to do so and not because they were instructed by their teacher. Drama contributed to the enjoyment of learning

I Do you think drama is helpful in your English class? S4 Yes. I Any reasons you want to share with me? S4 Because it makes our English class more fun. I Fun? There is an element of excitement there? S4 Yeah um during recess when we have drama class after recess, my

friends will like always “I’m so excited”, you know. I Is that right? Is it this class or from other classes? S4 This class because we really enjoyed the classes. I That’s good. What else besides it’s fun and exciting? Anybody at all? S1 Nobody is left alone in the drama camp, everybody must be together,

everybody must work together to achieve (?) and this boosts up our team spirit and helps us to instead of being one person, all of us work together and know each other more and learn more new English words.

Many students reported that the incorporation of drama strategies made lessons more interesting and enjoyable.

S1 It’s better to use drama because if the teacher just talk, talk, talk, many students will fall asleep.

I Ah! S6 Drama is more interesting.

Page 20

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

There were emotional and intellectual challenges within the drama frame

I Was there something that was difficult? S3 Playing the reporter part. S5 Yeah. Playing the reporter part. I Why? S2 Because we don’t really know what kind of questions we were suppose to

ask. I Hmm but you all had to think right, what to ask? All Yeah. Yes. (laughter) I Ok ok can you repeat what you said? S1 I don’t like thinking? I Ok but why? It’s alright you can be honest about the fact that hmm about

what you said. But can you tell me why it is difficult to think like a reporter?

S5 I think it’s because we are students. I Ok one at a time first. Let her finish first. S2 We don’t have experience as I As a? S2 As a reporter. I Ok. Then what about you? S6 Because we don’t have experience as a reporter we don’t really know

what to say and we really don’t have the experience so sometimes we might ask

S2 Wrong questions S6 The wrong questions and it might not seem hurtful but it may be hurtful to

the person that we are interviewing. I Can you give me an example in which something you have said might

hurt the person that you are interviewing? S6 Like huh indirectly you ask the person whose dad has just passed away.

How long have you heh sorry. How often do you spend time with your dad? It might be quite hurtful to the person cos the person really really likes, loves his or her dad.

I I see. So you are not sure if something if you said might hurt the person right?

S6 Yes I And so that comes with practise and asking the right questions. Hmm I

understand what you mean now- it’s a very good thing that you learn. Talking to people may not be easy huh? You’ve got to be careful in what you say. Ok tell me, that’s one thing that you learn but what about the rest of you? What did you learn in drama lesson.

S1 The problems that teenagers face. I Is that another drama lesson? S1 Yeah. On the second day. We find that teenagers we they are angered

they can do something wrong. They can’t control them because of their anger inside them.

I I see. Ok, so it’s not easy being a teenager. S1 Yeah. I Huh huh what else did you learn? S1 You learn how to act better. We now truly understand about teenager

anger. The taking on of roles which required the students to act as if they were “other” than themselves forced them to consider the situation and their interactions in a new light. The taking on of a high status role such as a reporter who is questioning a vulnerable parent whose child is injured, so some similar situation necessitates the careful selection of

Page 21

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

vocabulary and language register. In this mode students are operating in a state of metaxis (Bolton, 1979, 1984; O'Toole, 1992) where they hold both the real and the fictional world in mind and engage cognitively, affectively, and physically with the learning opportunity. Working in role contributed towards participation and engagement

S1 Coz when we do role-play our brain will start working better I (laughs) what do you mean by the brain will start working better? S4 Because on normal lesson we will just sleep and slack I And just let the teacher talk? S4 Yah and just let the teacher copy and then we copy S2 Then we all there ooh…ooh I (laughs) ok so during drama lesson, what do you have to do? S2 More focus into S4 The acting, anything what we are I Because you are not yourself what. S4 Yeah. I You all cannot sit down there, you all have to be someone else, so you all

have to think about what it means to be someone else? S2 Because everybody can participate what, … in the lesson, only the

teacher A number of classes had dramas where the convention of Mantle of the Expert was used in conjunction with those of Teacher-In-Role or Student-In-Role who were hot-seated at some point. The students in such classes reported a higher level of cognitive challenge in interviewing the characters. These challenges were not just cognitive but linguistic as well, as the students reported that they had to read the context, select the appropriate tone, register, vocabulary and questions in order to be effective in their tasks.

S3 Sometimes it’s really in normal class we anyhow- ‘Cher how to do this, ‘Cher how to do that? (laughter) So in a way very professional, lah. We ask it in a very professional way, lah.

I Professional journalists is it? Ok! Working in role changed the way they operated in more traditionally oriented classes

S2 We were more alert. I You were more alert? S2 Because usually in class we take down notes but just because we are

pretending to be reporters we act more alert. I I see. Hmm ok. So you’ve got the professional image of a journalist to live

up to huh? But then it has something to do with the way you all listen also. You all had a mission if I am not mistaken. You were taking notes right? But how- I mean what kind of notes do you take? As you all listen and as you write- what goes through your mind? What makes you say that you are more alert? What do you listen to?

S2 Because we know that this topic is important and therefore we are alert lah. In addition, some of the students reported that they felt challenged because they have to generate ideas amongst themselves and present them in freeze frames or other ways in a short period of time. The practices they were experiencing were different from what they were used to in their usual lessons.

Page 22

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Drama improved vocabulary, confidence, and the capacity to work together

S4 Um, how to be more confident, to speak properly. I Oh to speak properly? Well done. You think you learn to speak better or

are you still S4 Um probably um I know some other words that I have not known before

(laughs) but still lah it’s probably just a little higher than what I’ve been. Because Process Drama required them to speak and respond in role, the demands of the dramatic context forced them to use appropriate language and language registers:

S3 Ok. For the captain we are supposed to speak in proper English because for the captain’s sake, of course he wouldn’t speak in Singlish because he’s not in Singapore, of course, and we have to speak in proper English so that we are in the real drama.

I So the captain was not a Singapore captain? S3 He was from England. I From England? S4 To be more realistic.

The reliance on collaborative processes within the drama contributed to student capacity to cooperate in order to reach shared goals:

S6 I learned how to work with others and … I Besides working with others, anything else you’ve learnt? S1 Hmm I learned I learned from these lessons that hmm we have to speak

up. Because if one person is quiet, then everyone would be quiet. We have to take the initiative to speak ot the class or no one would do it and I also learned a lot of new words that will fill up my vocabulary. I learned to be more confident and also to be more like …… said to be more open with my friends because at the beginning of the year we were not that close and we were not really open to each other. So this has helped a lot.

I Good.. S4 Hmm I learned to be more serious huh. (laughter) and learned to

cooperate with the opposite sex, lah. I Hmm that’s great. S5 I learned how to act huh I learned how to cooperate with my friends and I

learned new words. Hmm (1) (2) I learned to be more confident. That’s all. I ……..? S3 I made new friends during this drama. Huh from my primary school I only

know …….., then come here I only know him and not much people so during this drama camp I get to know each others. Huh I find that all of us have one talent. My friend …… can write up the thing but he’s not good at acting. While my friend …… can act out but not good at writing.

I So you find some strengths that are different within the group. Great. S6 I have learned to be more closer to my friends because everybody say

starting of the year we are not so close and we are showing our drama talent so that’s what I learned.

Page 23

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Student/teacher relationships were altered when there was interaction with teacher-in-role

I I see, so when you mention a captain, I mean, in what ways was this story a drama lesson?

S1 Ah, our teacher, Ms Tan right, she she put on the role as the captain, then she talk to us ah.

I Was she dressed her usual way? S1 No, no. I No? S1 I think she wore a jacket and a cap I A jacket and a cap? S1 Yeah. I To represent herself as a captain? S1 Yes. I Ok. And then what did she … S1 Then she … S2 Then she … S1 Spoke to us with authority. I With authority! (laughs) What, did her voice change or something? S1 Yes. I Really? S1 She wasn’t her usual … I Ms Tan is very sweet so she became um like a captain. S1 Yeah. I Ok, alright. S2 The students were expected to give opinions on how to survive. I The students, that means you all? S2 Yeah. I So she came in as a captain to talk to students …? S1 No, as crew members. S2 We act as a crew member. I I see. S1 We put on the role as crew members. I I see. Ok ok, so what did you all talk about? S1 Then after that she took out the role then she talk to us as teacher and she

told us that we are supposed to go into different groups and in that groups that’ll be a captain and the rest of them will be crew so the crew members will be asking the captain questions on how to survive, coz the captain is the leader so he will have the ideas how to survive and everything. He will make the main decision.

For the teachers to shed their usual persona in the classroom and take on roles for the purpose of students’ learning through drama was an interesting and memorable experience for the students. The classes reported that it was unexpected, and they saw their teachers in a different light. In this instance, though the teacher was still adopting a high status role as the Captain of the crew the fact that she was in role and leading the students’ learning through drama showed alternative possibilities for the teacher-student relationship.

Page 24

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Students found drama beneficial in supporting writing

S2 Writing in drama is more exciting, you can see people act, then I And then you all write? S2 Yeah, we’ll write. I Are these notes your notes or is it, some of it are the teacher’s notes? S2 Both. S5 It’s a mixture. I It’s a mixture? S2 Yeah. I Ah then ok so what have you noticed about yourself, I mean during the

drama lesson, are you all more S1 More engrossed in the lesson. I Engrossed ah? Engrossed is a very big word, what do you mean by

“engrossed”? S1 Like normal normal lesson you are like, it’s the same old lesson, it’s like

the same old lesson. S2 At least we can go to somewhere else. I No no no let him finish first wait ah S1 So when you are in the drama you are like more happy, you are like into

the lesson lah. Makes you more exciting, writing … writing. The students’ belief that drama helped them write better has been borne out by a large number of studies (Booth & Neelands, 1998; Livermore, 1998/2003; McNaughton, 1997; Wagner, 1998). More research is needed in relation to this in the Singapore context. Teacher Responses to the Drama Intervention The shift in teaching style was a major challenge for most of the teachers. The desire for change is a tension when it conflicts with established practices within a school culture. This group of teachers were, for the most part, experienced and had established comfortable and familiar ways of working. Drama offered a particular challenge to familiar practices. “Drama is like reversing everything” claimed one teacher who was particularly challenged by the thought of making changes to familiar practice. Despite varying degrees of resistance in their responses, all the teachers found something of value in the use of drama strategies. Drama promotes engaged learners

All eight teachers placed a high degree of importance on students’ engagement in learning during lessons, although what it meant to be “engaged” ranged from being “attentive”, to being “interested and involved” and “participating actively” in class. They felt that in order to maintain this engagement, a variety of teaching methods needed to be used. This is where teachers felt that drama could play a part in keeping students interested because, as Chan2 explained, drama was seen as being “activity-based” and not “textbook-bound” giving him “more avenue to try out different ways of teaching the lesson or teaching the students”. Mr Lim echoed this sentiment when he said that “sometimes it is good to have something that is not related to the textbook” which the students had had “enough” of. Anna pointed out that having variety in classroom teaching makes the lesson “more alive” while Aminah felt that an “English lesson can be more than just a chalk board teaching” with drama incorporated in it. As Suhailah put it, through drama, students “learn things in a fun and creative way”. Tang reiterated this point by agreeing that drama “takes away the monotony of the lesson”.

Page 25

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Tan Pei Shan:

Usually it’s very, it’s just direct teaching you know. There’s not so much of the play element. It’s more of a worksheet kind of classroom … I feel for my classroom. Only once in a while we will have some games and some activities. Yeah, so after we have come into contact with process drama I find myself trying to use more of these strategies and it’s a livelier classroom?

and

Devi: …a usual English lesson will just be more teacher focused, yeah and lesser on the student interaction. So I think [in the] drama lesson there’s more on student interaction, more student communication. Yeah and there’s a lot of movement so its not only just sit and do work but rather they’re always moving around the time to explore issues and everything. Something that might not be done well if it’s just a normal English lesson you know where they sit down and have a discussion.

The view that using drama strategies in the classroom as a means of engaging students was supported by what teachers witnessed in their own classrooms when drama strategies were employed. In a co-planning session, Suhailah noted the high level of students’ engagement during one of the lessons.

I could tell they were engaged because I didn’t have to call on the students, they volunteered and they were like interacting amongst themselves. So, I was just there as a facilitator really. I was there just watching the whole thing.

Describing a similar experience, Tan Pei Shan wrote:

I used conscience alley to lead the pupils into reading this article. We took a mere 5 to 8 minutes to complete the conscience alley and we had a short discussion about the issue. Pupils were able to generate ideas. I feel that they were more engaged in reading the article than if I were to just read it with them. The interest was there as they were keen to read about other people’s views about the issue at hand and to find out if their views concurred with their own.

Other teachers also noticed how engaged the students were in their learning in lessons where drama was incorporated. Chan observed how his students “spoke animatedly, loudly and unceasingly throughout” the lesson when before they were “unwilling to share”. Anna remarked that her students were so engaged in “throwing questions” during a role-play that “some of them weren’t waiting their turn” to talk. Drama improves writing

Many teachers looked to drama as a way of helping students to write more maturely and with depth. This was because they felt that drama allowed their students to explore issues from many different perspectives and more importantly, discover learning through their own personal involvement. This is explained by Suhailah in her journal:

Most importantly, I thought that the students were given an opportunity to examine a situation from different angles and come to logical conclusions by themselves. To be honest, this is something that is really rare.

Pei Shan supported this when she noted that students were able to give more in-depth responses from being in role as they were emotionally involved and could see the issue

Page 26

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

from the character’s point of view, other than their own. This she felt was more effective than just generating content through ordinary classroom discussions about the issue with a lack of emotional investment in the topic. This was further elaborated by Chan:

If you ask them to pen their thoughts, if you ask to just reflect, and debate, it may not be as effective as you dramatise it out, to go into character and and really go deep into the issues of how the people around this character is feeling, how this character is feeling of how this evolves, I mean how they come to such a state, is it because of societal problem or or whatever. So drama allows you to go into deeper emotions but writing or classroom teaching may not be as effective.

Devi observed how her students’ written responses had improved as a result of using drama conventions:

I feel that students are able to explore many perspectives of a person's story. They are able to analyze the characters better, with the use of drama conventions. Thus, when it comes to writing tasks, they have better content and definitely a lot of imagination. Some students are able to use better language and vocabulary words in their writing.

Suhailah also noted how her students were able to give a rich description of a character they were working on after having done hot-seat:

They were such that the students were already going into the character of Bobby. It is not just about what Bobby does and what they have found out about Bobby. It’s like, they were going into his character even before we did the role on the wall. They were saying, “Oh, then he is a liar because he claims that he did not play the prank and he was set up, but everyone else including his good friend as well as those who snitched on him said he did.” All these, they begin to describe him. And all that, so they have already moved onto the next stage, so they are getting where I wanted them. In the right direction, describing the person and this is something that they have not really done [before].

Drama elicits active response and participation

Most of the teachers highlighted how, with drama incorporated in the lessons, students were more keen to participate, with even those who were normally quiet or constrained by their lower ability in the language encouraged to express themselves. Suhailah remarked how students “just took it as something they enjoyed and they were very responsive, more responsive than they usually are” and that she “didn’t call out any names, they volunteered their response. They raised their hands and gave me their response”. She particularly noted how a Filipino student, who was weak in English, spoke up and gave an “intelligent response” during a hot-seating session and how the other foreign pupils – from Vietnam, Myanmar and China – were able to participate actively and were not hampered by their weaknesses in the language as they would often be in a traditional English classroom. Tan Pei Shan described similar positive instances in her lessons with drama. She observed how a student who was “usually a quiet boy in class who often looks blur”, “spoke up and made an intelligent comment about one of the freeze frames” where he had noted how a waitress was trying to trip a waiter, an observation none of his other classmates had made. Another quiet student, also showed her determination in wanting to be “heard” in the lesson, something which the teacher felt was not typical in the other lessons. Pei Shan explained:

Page 27

I see her very active during the lesson when you were asking about their feelings after they have read the pre text. She actually said something you know, but

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

because you were talking to somebody else she kept that comment but then later on when she saw she had the opportunity she actually raised it again. So I actually heard her twice. Yeah. I think the first time she might be talking to her partner who was sitting beside her and because I was busy writing some other point I actually heard her say something about reading or something can’t quite remember exactly what she said but she did say something and then later on when she was given another chance she speak spoke up. She did not give up you see.

The teachers felt that this was perhaps a result of drama being a communal activity, that because students were working in small groups, more opportunities were created for them to respond to the lesson and to one other. It could also be because students were in role, hence removing some of the fear or embarrassment that came with presenting and allowing even the more reserved ones to participate actively. Suhailah explained in her journal and interview:

With the use of process Drama, I noticed that they had overcome their initial hesitation and shyness. I guess in a sense it had to do with them being in role. This is based on my observation dung the Drama Camp where the kids did the poem on identification. They were very much in role and I believe that they were keen to solve the mystery behind Stephen’s death. Many of the students felt that perhaps Stephen’s dad had to be blamed for his untimely death and that he had in a way been responsible for Stephen to pick up the negative habit from him. Even the quiet students were willing to respond though of course their involvement was minimal compared to the more vocal ones. However, that is to be expected since they hardly opened their mouth initially…so this is in fact a great improvement.

Suhailah reinforced this:

At the end of the day when you look at the conventions, it require students to do different things like to speak out their thoughts, to speak out their thoughts and to in some instance to show emotions and all that. Like during the freeze frames they have to come up with something creative and all that. And perhaps if they have to do this in a normal lesson they might feel embarrassed about it but with the use of drama convention, they know they have to do and everybody have to do it, so they are ready to do it. So there’s actually no need to tell them that … persuade them or waste time persuading them that they have to do it. So they are more confident in that sense, they are more willing to role play, they are more willing to take on roles.

A possible explanation for this improvement in confidence is that, in Process Drama, all of the students are in role all the time and there is no pressure to “perform” to others. Students shared ideas enactively and in groups, thus removing some of the pressure in performing. Chan observed that his students who were once “unwilling to share” and “unwilling to converse in English” seemed more comfortable about presenting during the lesson he co-taught on 18 August, 2005. He explained:

Yes they are more confident now. Because being huh it’s not one person presenting before a whole class but everyone is involved.

Drama builds confidence

The teachers believed that drama can help in making the students more confident. Mr Lim saw drama as a way of “helping students to get out of their shells”. He explained:

Page 28

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

[I think they will] become more communicative because many of them have things they want to say but somehow or another they are either reluctant to speak in public or you know find it difficult to express themselves. So with drama hopefully they will open up.

This view was shared by Anna who wrote:

I have every confidence that process drama will have a beneficial impact on oracy, if not in speaking well at least in building confidence to speak.

Another teacher who supported this claim was Pei Shan who co-taught a lesson during the second day of the Drama Camp. She wrote:

On Day 2, one particular boy (….. from 1T1) caught my attention. During the hot seat when Madonna was in role as Stephen’s father, I sat near …... He had a question but he was afraid to put up his hand to ask the question. He was afraid that his sentence structure might be wrong. However, I encouraged him by telling him that his question was an intelligent one and egged him on. He finally plucked up his courage to ask the first question. Subsequently, he had other questions to ask and he was more confident in asking the questions. At the end of the lesson, Madonna praised him by saying he had asked some very intelligent questions and that he was thinking. I saw the boy smile. I felt encouraged by his newly gained confidence. He really made my day when I asked him and some other boys to thank Madonna for teaching them that day, he did so and before he left the room, he thanked me sheepishly as well. I could tell that he was grateful for my help. I haven’t had the chance to tell Aminah about him. Earlier during the session, Aminah had told me that this boy had short attention span and couldn’t really sit still. However, during the hot seat, he was attentive and continually thinking of questions to ask. To me, this is a very encouraging milestone.

An increase in the amount of English spoken

Teachers recognized that drama had quickly offered opportunities to increase the quantity of English spoken:

I can see a significance increase in the number of students who speak English during that one or two lessons. Rather than only a handful speaking at during one lesson. So I think in a way it has created an awareness or created a need to speak English to one another.

Another teacher proposed that it was the structure of the lesson, which required the students to work in mixed groups, that assisted in this regard:

I think they were speaking more in English than their mother tongue because this time round they had to work with people of different races. Previously because we didn’t have that much time … so I allow[ed] them to get into their own groups and obviously they went to their friends … so the … mix was not there. So the Malays might be in one group, the Chinese may be in one group and so when that happen, they will slip into their own mother tongue.

Limiting Factors Teacher inexperience in the use of drama strategies, and pre-conceptions that drama was about “performance” rather than learning offered particular challenges in this project. Despite the many positive statements above, it was difficult for these teachers to understand the potential of drama as a learning medium that could become part of their

Page 29

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

teaching repertoire. In addition new initiatives, which did not appear to be well understood, added to the burden of teaching:

Because now is teach less, learn more, right? So the emphasis is on how to get the students to learn faster and this drama is actually slowing it down. For a teacher, he or she has to cover a certain syllabus by the time they hit the exams. The students hit the exams and when we incorporate drama in, we’re slowing ourselves down and that gets us all worried and yeah. Plus we have marking to do, marking is a big load and that affects planning. See we have all our lesson plans, if the longer we are experienced, our lesson plans are easy. We know what to do. But with drama we have to really work it out from scratch.

Teacher workload

Teachers faced a significant problem in completing the syllabus and meeting the quota of work. The scheme of work had not been cut down. Teachers, for instance, had to cover the teaching of 3 text types in the first term and to ensure that students write 3 pieces of composition and do 3 comprehension exercises in one term. This was compounded by the fact that there were only five periods for English (All 40 min lessons except for the time slot of 10:20 to 10:55am). Within this limited span of five periods per week, teachers were also expected to set aside one period for reading and another for Interdisciplinary Project Work, thus reducing teaching time for English to only three periods per week. Nearing the time for examination, the research team was also expected not to conduct research, plan or teach with the teachers after week 7 of Term 2 and week 3 of Term 4 as classwork was to focus on examination prep. One teacher claimed that if she did not have a syllabus to meet, she would have been “more willing” to “make use of drama” in her lessons. Having so few periods, coupled with the fact that teachers were not confident in carrying out drama lessons, could have prevented the teachers from wanting to do more lessons with drama. Teachers were concerned that if they did not manage to teach the lesson “successfully” through drama, then the time would have been wasted as they would feel the need to re-teach the lesson. Another problem was that some teachers felt that although the written assignments could be tied up with the lessons with drama, these tend to take a long time to complete, hence using up more of the curriculum time. Several teachers discussed how it would have been faster to teach the students using their “own methods”, perhaps referring to explicit teaching. Suhailah summed up the frustrations which all the teachers shared in her journal:

To be honest, I thought that I would have been able to complete the lesson on time and move on to doing other things had I not integrated drama conventions in my lesson. It's not that I'm against the use of drama conventions. On the contrary the conventions can be used to conduct a very engaged and exciting lesson for students. Wherein lies my frustration? The fact that we have too few periods to cover so many things. All Lower sec teachers have a total of 5 English periods and a period is set aside for Reading. That leaves us 4 periods to finish up the things in the scheme of work. As sketchy as the scheme of work appears to be, we have to complete 3 pieces of writing and 3 pieces of comprehension exercises. On top of this we have to conduct grammar lessons at least once a week. To top it all off, the Secondary 1 students were involved in project work. No additional period is provided to complete this.

Page 30

In addition, teachers had other duties or “projects” after school, making time even more scarce for them to meet up with the team to co-plan lessons. For example, apart from having to attend courses and workshops conducted by the school or an external vendor, teachers were expected to conduct remedial lessons for the weaker students on top of monitoring graduating classes on a weekly basis for the Compulsory Studies programme.

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

They were involved the internal oral examinations which were spread over the four terms and some were heavily involved in running Co-curricular Activities (CCAs) which were taking part in important national competitions like the Singapore Youth Festival. Others were also put in-charge of running school events such as concerts and the annual speech day. With so many things going on in one year, it was challenging for the teachers to cope. Hence, with no reduction in workload, teachers placed conducting drama in their English lessons as a low priority. Conflicting priorities

Perhaps another frustration faced by teachers stemmed from conflicting signals they received from the school management. On one hand, the school placed an overwhelming emphasis on examinations and getting good grades, while on the other hand, it also wanted the teachers to “experiment” with new ways of teaching, which might take a longer time to have impact on students. Teachers were caught in this “tug-of-war” because although they saw that drama could be an enriching experience for their students who were learning through discovery and problem-solving. But the process was slow and teachers were pressed for time to prepare their students for the examinations. The fastest way to do this was of course through direct teaching and through drill-and-practice by giving students more written work and worksheets. Suhailah pointed out:

So you see that the demand is that we can experiment as much as we want in the lessons but ultimately we are still pushing the students towards grades isn’t it?

One challenge lay in the scope of the Scheme of Work. Suhailah described it as being “sketchy”. The lower secondary Schemes of Work for Terms 1 and 2 provided by the school were as follows: Secondary One Term Text type Level 1 1) Procedures: Instructions

2) Narrative 3) Info. Report: Brochures & advertisements

1E/NA/NT

2 1) Personal Recount: Diaries 2) Short Functional Text: Informal letter 3) Narrative

E/NA/NT

Secondary Two Term Text Type Level 1 1) Narrative

2) Functional text: Formal letter 3) Factual recount: News report

E/NA/NT E/NA

2 1) Personal Recount 2) Narrative 3) Factual recount: News report 4) Functional texts: Formal letter, Informal

letter, Eyewitness report

E/NA/NT

The lower secondary Schemes of Work provided for Term 3 were:

Page 31

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Secondary One Text Type Level Remarks Factual recount: News Report E/NA Resources: Textbook Step Ahead 1

Teachers may use own resources if necessary. Individual teachers will decide on time frame for each text type. All 4 text types to be completed by end of Term 3.

Eyewitness report E/NA/NT Narrative E/NA/NT Exposition: Expressing opinion about film

E/NA

Secondary Two Text Type Level Remarks Information report: Manuals E/NA Resources: Textbook Step Ahead 2

Teachers may use own resources if necessary. Individual teachers will decide on time frame for each text type. All 4 text types to be completed by end of Term 3.

Factual recount: New report E/NA/NT Exposition: Persuasive texts E/NA/NT Narrative: Literary text E/NA

Although the intention to fine-tune the Scheme of Work had been discussed by the HOD and the research team, teachers reported that nothing was done. As a result of the Scheme of Work being so sparse, teachers lacked the guidance when trying to plan their lessons, especially when they were trying to incorporate drama strategies. This was evident when teachers took a substantial amount of time during the Term 3 workshop just to discuss the learning objectives and outcomes for the lessons they were planning. Most only knew the particular text type or genre that they wanted to do without having a specific idea of what the students’ learning outcome would be. Models of planning or detailed unit plans from the scheme of work did not exist. The Scheme of Work simply stated the text types to be covered in each term. Other internal work requirements (e.g., 3 compositions and 3 comprehensions per term) were implicit as part of the school culture but no planned for in any detail within the school English programme. Aminah mentioned that there was too much “flexibility” in the English department. Her concern was mainly about the lack of communication and sharing between the teachers, with each teacher doing his or her own work in isolation, because there had been little co-ordination on the part of the HOD to bring teachers together to share ideas or lessons. Other teachers echoed her sentiment when they mentioned that it was not common for the teachers in the school to meet up and discuss their lessons so most teachers were “doing their own stuff”. Even if teachers did come together, it was likely that it was more of their own initiative and out of their own time rather than because time had been set aside for them to do so. Tan Pei Shan explained:

So we just plan our own lessons and we just check with each other so what are you doing you know. Are you teaching letter writing, are you teaching a formal letter or informal letter and things like that. You know we don’t go into the details as what we did during the co-planning sessions.

Most teachers suggested that it would have been useful if the whole department had met up to think through and revise the Scheme of Work so as to incorporate drama in it prior to the start of the project, perhaps even cutting down the syllabus so that having drama lessons would not be an extra burden. A few teachers felt that the project could have been better planned on the part of the school if it had taken into consideration the time

Page 32

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

constraints teachers faced. Thus, they suggested that not only should the planning be done earlier but the training of teachers should also have been started the previous year. Suhailah stated:

It’s really at the end of the day I think that the school has not thought about it and it’s time for me to thrash my school (laughs) yeah I mean if you going to plan, if you are going to have CRPP and you want to use drama to the maximum and see how this is working, then you have to make sure that the teachers are trained really well … way before the project is even embarked upon.

Anna supported this view in her journal:

Before the integration of process drama into lang/lit lessons, the department's scheme of work for the year has to be revised, with the drama elements fitted in. That way, we know when to use what and why. This could have been done last year, and given to us so that we can prepare for what is to come. We can add on to already prepared lesson scaffolds from the process drama team, but really unfair to expect teachers newly trained in this to develop lesson plans using the strategies they have just learnt, even with help. So in summary, last year we should have been trained, last year a revised scheme of work should have been in the works, last year we should have devised lesson plans.(but no teaching, filming, journal writing etc) And this year, we go through a refresher, and execute and reflect. One school year is really the shortest time to do so much.

Classroom management concerns

It is apparent throughout that teachers were concerned about their ability to manage their classrooms, especially during lessons with drama. It was this concern that caused them to deem drama as a limited teaching tool. Teachers’ classroom management concerns included high noise level, too much student movement and the difficulty in monitoring a class of forty. Teachers perceived drama as being “activity-based”, therefore generating a lot of noise and movement among the students. Most teachers were more receptive to try drama conventions with classes they deemed to be more disciplined or less “hyper”. For instance, Devi believed that she would not have any problems conducting her lesson with 1E2 because they were an “obedient lot” while Tang who taught a Normal Technical class felt that his students were already very noisy and needed more of written work to keep them quiet. Thus, this overpowering concern with keeping the students silent and still that had propelled teachers to believe that drama cannot work for all students, especially not for those who were already noisy or restless. Moreover, there seemed to be the added pressure from the school to keep the class quiet and on-task at all times. Pei Shan explained:

Outsiders when they walk past the classroom they may not understand that they are actually participating actively in the activities. So the school probably you know have to understand what we’re doing and then hmm make some arrangements for us in that sense or or try to understand our situation. Yeah. Cos they have discipline teachers patrolling the classrooms everyday, at different times of the day, so that could just cause some stress and they may just step into the class but I mean so far that has not happened to me but they may just step into the class when we are conducting an activity not knowing that we are doing a a drama thing.

Tang supported this:

Page 33

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

The other thing I feel uncomfortable about using process drama was about school culture because um this school has to be absolutely quiet …It’s the culture that they cannot um… the management cannot tolerate noise so if we use process drama, it’s going to be noisy.

It is likely that teachers were so worried about being seen as “incompetent” in managing their classrooms by the school management that they were reluctant to employ drama strategies that were seen to generate noise and movement (such as gossip mill and conscience alley). They would rather stick to “safer” conventions like freeze frames and tap-and-talk. Thus lesson planning was based not according to which conventions were best suited for the task but instead according to conventions that would create the least noise. For example, in the Term 3 workshop planning session, a group of teachers were deciding on the conventions to use in order to build content for the lesson they were working on. When Tan Pei Shan suggested that they use hot-seat, the other teachers replied that that would only work for 2E1 because it was a “better” class. Mr Lim claimed that it would not work for his class because the students were “too playful” and “hyper”. Hence, it is implied here that teachers’ choice of drama conventions was reliant on their beliefs about how students behaved in a particular class, and not so much based on students’ learning needs. Examinations are a priority

Another concern for the teachers was ensuring that students were adequately prepared for the examinations. Teachers believed that it was not possible for drama to aid students in obtaining better grades. Suhailah expressed this concern early in the project:

Ok, honestly I think if given a choice, I will not adopt process drama because ultimately I have exams to meet and my students are weak in terms of written work and although you can have written work infused across the drama I find that really the amount that I can give them versus when I do employ process drama is far less. The written assignments and all. Perhaps with a better class I would consider using it but not with a weak class that … well we have a lot of foreign students in my class about seven of them and they really lack the language, the basic language.

Later in the year, Devi echoed her sentiments:

Yeah because there are a lot of other things [that are] important. You know like, in mid year it will be exams they have to be prepared for the exams, yeah so basically I think, we have to look at the language ability of the students before we decide whether we want to use drama or not, you know some students are just so handicapped about the language you know whatever strategy we use is not gonna work out fine, yeah, so sometime the students need to be taught the basics first.

Aminah acknowledged that she had stopped doing drama in class after the Continual Assessment 1 marks were released because she felt that it was time to “focus more on written work” as her students had done badly for the test. More time to plan

While the teachers had been promised two spare periods per week to spend as a group in planning, discussion and reflection, as part of the attempt to ease their loads, this time was frequently eroded by ‘important’ meetings about examinations or school events. Another concern was teachers felt that lessons with drama took a long time to plan. One reason could be because teachers were new to the conventions and hence, as Suhailah explained, took a long time to “think through the conventions and think about how” they

Page 34

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

could be applied. The other reason was perhaps because planning these lessons required the teachers to be very detailed, working carefully through each step and seeing that each step combine into a coherent whole. Tan Pei Shan pointed out how teachers might find this challenging because they were not used to planning their lessons this way. Normally, teachers were not required to submit detailed lesson plans and would just have a “general” idea of what they wanted to teach. She compared how a beginning teacher might still feel the need to plan in a more detailed manner due to being new and inexperienced in the job but not so for a more experienced teacher who might have grown more accustomed to his or her own teaching style and thus did not see the need to be so detailed in his or her planning. However, this was where she differed from the other teachers – while the rest felt that it was more of a hassle to have to restructure the way they plan their lessons since it took up so much time, she felt that it was a good wake-up call as she felt that teachers had become “complacent”, simply rehashing worksheets they had previously used and lessons they had previously taught without actually thinking about the specific learning needs of their students. Time and timing

Tan Pei Shan raised the issue of the amount of time required to involve students actively in the learning process. She wrote in her journal:

I had more time with 2E3 to build up on their knowledge of the original stories, the characters in the stories so they feel more for the characters. For 2E5, there was not enough time to go through the role on the wall for the ugly duckling character as a lot of periods were taken up for Common Test.

Pei Shan noticed how because the second lesson took place a day after the first one, students were “prepared and raring to” get in role. She explained in her journal why it was difficult for teachers to plan and carry out the lessons consecutively:

Sometimes, it is just not quite possible to plan and execute 2 lessons almost immediately one after the other. Before lesson 1, we spent quite a bit of time discussing the lesson plan. This lesson planning took much longer time than the previous one. We had to change the pretext to suit the needs of the students and to tailor it to the sample question we had come up with. We didn't have time to plan lesson 2 and so Lesson 1 was conducted on week 8, 19 Aug (Fri). After lesson 1 was conducted, we tried to find time to plan lesson 2. In the week after lesson 1 was conducted, I went on study leave for 2 days (Tue & Wed) and therefore we could only meet on week 9, 25 Aug (Thurs). Monday was too rushed for me as I thought I needed some time to think how we can develop lesson 1. Then in week 10, we decided to execute lesson 2 on 2 Sept (Fri) due to the Teachers' Day celebrations and the Teacher Day holiday, we will miss 2 days of lessons. These are the limitations we faced in execution and planning.

Teacher Resistance Changing teacher practices is not as simple as providing new strategies. As Richardson and Placier (2001) point out, many modifications of practice require changes in the beliefs of teachers, a well as a cultural change in the way teaching is seen in the school and wider community. Added to this is the imperative for teachers to see a need for change and to desire to be part of the change process. In Singapore, teachers have been recipients of top-down changes where leadership is crucial in the management of all stages of the change process (Goh, 2005). For our project it became apparent that the strongest inhibitors were those of teacher attitude and school leadership decisions.This stemmed from the fact that the enthusiasm for the project and all primary negotiations were undertaken from the dual positions of the Principal and HOD EL.

Page 35

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

This initial missed step in seeking consent was crucial in the light of the teachers’ attitudes:

Chan: One way, ok, maybe one improvement that we can all make is to have a clearer understanding of each other’s expectations. I think that was something very glaring at the start of the project. Cos when we were asked to go on board this project, we were not consulted. I mean I guess that was something that cannot be helped. Someone has to make the decision. But we were not consulted.

and

Anna: Ya. That’s exactly what I’m saying. That the teachers here are not necessarily prepared for a team to come in and not everyone is comfortable you know with this sort of being shoved down their throats.

I Whether they would like to use drama…? Anna: Exactly but the lower sec teachers have had no choice, and everyone

has had to, you know, do it, write the journals, be part of the project. I They had to consent to it is it? Anna: Yes.

Although the research team had made it clear that participation in the research was to be voluntary and that withdrawal could be made without penalty at any time, this was contradicted by internal school procedures. As the HOD EL stated:

I don’t believe in saying that [it is optional] …if you ask your team, your team says no I don’t want to do this. I mean given a choice nobody would want to do additional work. I mean to teachers it is additional work, let’s put it that way. Nobody would want to do that. But we have to sell it in such a way that … they get to see that it is really of benefit to them.

It was difficult for the teacher-researchers to see any personal benefit from participating in the project. The Principal had planned for all the teachers in the school to be involved in research in some way. Teachers not involved in this project were involved in a concurrent large-scale action research task. In return the teacher-researchers were not expected to participate in any additional professional development (usually a 100 hours per year requirement).

HOD EL

For this whole year, we have been telling them, this is your professional development project.

However, all the other research projects that had commenced alongside this one soon fizzled out and the “Speaking Out” teachers soon became the only teachers in the school participating in systematic and ongoing research. This produced another reason for the teachers to begrudge participation. At the first Research Briefing on January 10, the teacher-researchers seemed positive and engaged and, as far as we could tell, keen to participate in the research. In fact this was far from the truth. Singapore school management is typically “top-down” (Salleh, 2004). Because the initiative for this work had come from the Principal, it was important that the teachers appear enthusiastic and proactive. Colin Marsh (2004) identifies two attitudes of teachers who engage in curriculum innovation. The consonant teacher is philosophically attuned to the innovation or research and brings a personal commitment to their role in the innovation. The dissonant teacher is either one who appears to be

Page 36

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

committed but contributes little or deliberately (and behind the scenes) undermines the project; or one who overtly shows their lack of interest and commitment. In Singapore, the personal stakes in terms of Performance Reviews and top-down management make it almost impossible for teachers to openly disagree or criticise a decision made by the school’s Senior Management. We were to discover, during this research that the teacher-researchers were, in fact, quite antagonistic towards the whole project (though thankfully not towards us personally) because they had not been consulted by the Principal or HOD before the project began and while we, the research team, made it clear that we were asking them to participate voluntarily, this was not an easy option within the school context. They did not feel empowered to withdraw from the project. Instead, it was important that they appear to go along with it. The Principal acknowledged that this became a significant resistance-factor within the school and the research and believes that, in future, such initiatives would be handled differently:

I expected teachers to feel uncomfortable. To feel that they are being watched. And I expected them to object to having to do this and I think it did happen [at] the earlier stage where the teachers felt that I did not consult them enough before taking such a big project. And I had a long conversation with one such teacher and she told me how they felt … not that they minded doing this, but they minded the Principal did not consult them first and they were not given the opportunity to choose to be involved, you know. Well, for me that is actually a very good learning point. I think if I were to do it all over again I could do it better and do it differently. At least to involve them in the decision-making stage.

The negative feelings emerging from the perceived imposition of research also influenced on the teachers’ attitude to learning in drama. Because teachers were not consulted for the project and that it “took them by surprise”, it was “difficult to be excited about something” they “didn’t have a choice about”. Mr Lim spoke about how teachers were “obliged” to carry out drama in class, reiterating the idea that they were not given an option and Devi felt that it was “unfair” for the school to just “throw” drama in and “ask the teachers to cope”. During the project most of the teachers were resistant to seeing how drama could be beneficial for the students. Even though there were spurts of positivity in the teachers’ journals and interviews, especially when it concerned students’ responses towards drama, the teachers tend to retain a negative view towards doing drama in English lessons. Professional Development Most teachers saw drama as a new pedagogy and thus they needed time to adapt to and understand it. Even towards the end of the project, most teachers still felt that they had not fully grasped the pedagogy, although there were some who had shown the ability to apply the conventions or had at least understood the purpose behind them. A few teachers, in their enthusiasm for the experiences they had as part of the Process Drama workshops, misapplied some of the strategies and conventions in their classes (e.g., they were implemented out of sequence or attempted without students having the necessary scaffolding). Such attempts produced problems with behaviour management in the class and added to teacher resistance. In fact, the issue was not one of behaviour management but of enthusiastic teachers rushing ahead with activities before they had a clear understanding of the learning possibilities they offered.

Page 37

Throughout the year the teachers found it hard to write lesson plans incorporating drama. This was, in part, due to pre-existing models of planning which were employed within the school. Teachers recorded the topic to be covered, or the page of the text book, but did not record any planning in detail. Most teachers suggested that their training should have taken place earlier, perhaps the year before, so that they had had time to absorb

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

what they learnt before trying it out in class. Tang went as far as suggest that teachers should attend the in-service course so that they would “have time to understand the concepts and reflect upon” them. He felt that it was important to understand the theoretical underpinnings behind the pedagogy because at this point in time, the teachers were just “imitating” what they saw during the workshops without fully grasping what they were doing. Thus, it was generally felt that one year was too short to learn, plan and carry out drama strategies in class effectively. The response to co-teaching as part of Process Drama was universally positive:

I So do you think it’s a good model? You know, having like the Master Teacher situation at the beginning… with you know someone like me coming in and and teaching, doing the modeling during the practical workshops and then the ongoing support with co-planning and co-teaching?

Cheah Hui Ling:

Yah, I think that model works simply because process drama is something very… well, it’s completely new to us. It’s completely new to us so we needed, we needed people to actually tell us what it’s all about. And once you spark the … when you started teaching us all the different strategies, and you structured the lessons: you modeled the lessons and you actually moved us on from one thing to another. I could actually see a flow in how a lesson can be structured. And it set me thinking, in my context and what I want to teach, how I can actually structure my own lessons. So I think that … if we get a co-planning person, a co-planner with us to help us bounce ideas and lead us into the right way or whatever it is … how do we sequence this series of lessons … I think it’s very useful.

and

I You also mentioned before, just at the beginning of this question, the fact that we’re coming in and co-planning and co-teaching. Do you think that has been helpful?

Chen Lili:

Very. Very, very helpful. In fact, I am very grateful for that. If you had just come in to just run the workshops and, “Ok now, I’ve talked through this and then you are to plan the lesson yourself. And you go in and teach and then you just write the journals, I think that would be really difficult. One of the supports that you have given [was] to co-plan the lessons with the teachers and even [go] in to class and [teach] the lesson with the teacher observing them to see how it can be done. I thought that was being really there for them. It definitely helped a great deal.

Faced with a heavy workload, time constraints and what they perceived as little support from the school management, the teachers became rather resistant to the project. Although they were grateful for the help rendered by the research team in co-planning and co-teaching lessons, they were generally not receptive towards the project as a whole. Even though all teachers had noticed some positive outcomes in their students, many were still not convinced as to the value of drama by the end of the project. Management Issues The HOD EL was not part of the teaching team as a result of the Principal’s decision to “build up a strong team for the upper secondary classes because of examination purposes”. She was involved in the administration of the project but not in its day-to-day running. The implication of this decision was that though she was overall in-charge, she

Page 38

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

was not positioned to lead the team, or engaged to influence their attitudes or effect positive change. This timetabling decision placed additional distance between the research-involved teachers and the HOD. The teachers noted her lack of direct involvement in the project and their own level of commitment diminished even further. In an attempt to connect the external research team with the teacher-researchers the HOD appointed one of the teachers as an internal liaison. In retrospect the choice of teacher was not the best one to be made. While the liaison teacher was very dedicated and organised, she was the youngest and most inexperienced within the group of teachers who were involved. Consequently she had little influence within the group and the HOD was forced to remain involved and play an administrative role. As the year progressed her administrative load increased likewise and the research project became an additional burden. In retrospect, the Principal reflected that the research may well have benefited if she, herself had been more involved in the steering of the team but still felt that the HOD should maintain closest contact with the teachers:

So having made those arrangements I then left it … for it to be carried out. I think perhaps on hindsight I should have been a bit more involved. But I didn’t want to put myself too closely tied to anyone project because there are many projects to see to in the school. And I believe that if my HODs are experienced and they are… you know, they’re not new HODs, and if they are interested in the project they will really be able to carry it through. After all they are the curriculum people.

Relationship between Researchers and Teachers Despite the range of challenges faced by both the researchers and the teachers, he relationship between the research team and the teachers remained positive throughout. As Anna said:

In parting I want to say that it's been a rough … learning journey...for all...this CRPP, AND it was never a personal attack from teachers on the research team. In fact, I've really enjoyed talking to you, Oni and Adrian. That's been the fun part.

And from Suhailah:

We were not left on our own and a lot of times, you guys were actually willing to come down at our convenience to have co-planning, co-teaching with us. So that was really very nice of you guys to do that. I mean you were very flexible and all that. Sometimes we stood you up and all that so you’ve been very, very understanding and accommodating. That has helped really. And definitely the co-planning has helped a lot in the sense that … knowing the conventions is one thing but having to plan one lesson when you are not very used to it then it becomes very hard. So you have provided a lot of aid in that sense. Yeah and you’ve also been very accommodating in the sense that you have allowed us to actually plan for whatever … whether it’s for a 2 period or 3 period lesson whatever... It hasn’t been an insistence that it has to be a week or whatever, so in that sense, it enabled us to meet our syllabus at the same time [and] allow for drama lessons as well. In that sense, the whole thing was very good and the experience was good for us as we were allowed to … we gained something new and we were able to experiment.

Conclusion The Principal believed that the school had gained from being involved in the research:

Page 39

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

There [are] many, many valuable lessons to learn from here and … definitely all is not lost because now, after having gone through the year together with you and your team I actually have… my analysis is this: that I’ve actually been able to achieve one of the objectives that we set out [to meet] … or maybe even more than one. Definitely more of my teachers have exposure to Process Drama, whether it’s with or without ability to carry it out, [they] know the strategies and all that… at least awareness. But another thing you know [that] we have been able to do is that as an entire school, we are more open to research. So… and I see this as little steps that we take, you know. And it is really a long journey. Because if we don’t start with these little steps, I don’t think I can bring my teachers to that level where they will want to initiate research projects on their own. And your project here actually opened our minds to it. So I see us moving another step closer… to the time when more of my teachers would actually be brave enough to take on research projects on their own. … We’re not quite there… but … we are moving in that direction. So I would expect that over the next perhaps two to three years, if we continue in this way, I would see more teachers wanting to do small research projects in their own classroom. And that is exactly where I want to take the school.

Despite the teacher resistance discussed above, relationships between the research team and the teacher ended up very positively:

Chan: I’m thankful for many things. I’m thankful for the good relationship that we have, among the researchers and us, I think there’s no animosity or at least I don’t feel there is. And I can understand that all of us are pressed for a bit of our own time and a lot of deadlines to meet. I guess it’s just the circumstances don’t allow us to be as free as what we want, or as comfortable as what we want, and I’m trying to understand that.

The project was challenging in many ways but can claim to being successful overall. There are indications of the positive impact on student oral examination results as a result of drama being incorporated into regular classroom practice. It is proposed that the degree of impact would be significantly enhanced by a structured program of professional development for teachers with both theory and practice as integral. Such professional development needs to build in some accountability measures for the quality of the drama intervention. It is clear from this project that teachers need ongoing support for planning and implementation of innovative pedagogies such as Process Drama. The changes to traditional teacher-student roles and interactions place particular demands on teacher comfort levels with activities and the managing of behaviour and transitions between activities. Students and teachers are able quickly to see the benefits of working in this way in terms of confidence, collaboration and engagement. A significant challenge still lies in finding ways to enhance the quality and complexity of learning in the English/drama nexus. Considerations for School-based Intervention Research The following insights derive from this project. We would suggest that intervention research requires careful consideration of the following points: • participation should be voluntary and sincere. This is difficult in a top-down

bureaucracy. One way, perhaps, would be to run a number of pilot projects with several schools and then co-develop a longer intervention with those participants who, with real knowledge of the commitment required are interested to continue.

• the project be truly mutually beneficial and the benefit can be seen by the site-based researchers. For this project the teacher-researchers could see that the students

Page 40

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Page 41

were enjoying learning through drama and they felt their own repertoire of practice was being broadened, but this was far outweighed by the expectations of exam prep, which was the dominant topic the teacher-researchers brought up in relation to pedagogy. For them the benefit was not enough.

• accountability is built in. It was easier for the teacher-researchers to not teach drama than it was for them to teach drama so, logically and for the most part, they avoided it when they could. As the research team was seen as an add-on to the school practice they were not contributing back within the school context and were only accountable to us. Our authority did not extend to the school workplace and hence there was no real accountability for the teacher-researchers to participate, or produce the artefacts we were hoping to share at the end of the research.

• what is promised is delivered. A major complaint that became almost a canonical text was the lack of time. The Principal had allocated two lessons a week to the project and relieved the staff of some additional duties, but the time was eroded as priorities shifted and, with the non-continuance of the action research project in the school, the teacher-researchers felt imposed upon.

• the school liaison/contact person be someone with substantial authority within the school. This individual should be valued, listened to and respected by both the school administration and participants in the research. Ideally they should be someone who can report “unpopular” information as well as that which would be expected to be well-received.

• the school liaison/contact person be a participant in the study. This makes manifest the individual and collective commitment to the research.

Acknowledgements This paper makes use of data from the research project “Speaking Out: An Exploration of Process Drama and its Contribution to Oracy” (CRP 27/04 MS), funded by the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Singapore. The views expressed in this paper are the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centre or the Institute. The author would like to thank the Research Assistants, Loo Yin Mei, Adrian Wong, Oniatta Effendi, and Nora Kamal for their contributions in the development of the literature review, and the collection and analysis of data for this report.

Notes 1 The school name and the names of all participants have been changed to protect

anonymity in line with internationally recognised research protocols. Hence, ‘Terang Secondary School’ is a pseudonym for the intervention school referred to throughout this report.

2 All names have been changes to provide anonymity.

References Ackroyd, J. (2004). Role reconsidered: A re-evaluation of the relationship between

teacher-in-role and acting. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.

The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. Bolton, G. (1979). Towards a theory of drama in education. London: Longman. Bolton, G. (1984). Drama as education. Harlow, UK: Longman. Booth, D., & Neelands, J. (Eds.). (1998). Writing in role: Classroom projects connecting

writing and drama. Toronto, Canada: Caliburn Enterprises Inc. Bowell, P., & Heap, B. (2001). Planning process drama. London: David Fulton.

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

Catterall, J. S. (2002). Research on drama and theater in education. In R. J. Deasy (Ed.), Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development (pp. 19–62). Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

Cheah, Y. M. (2002). English language teaching in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 65–80.

Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

Crumpler, T., & Jasinski Schneider, J. (2002). Writing with their whole being: A cross study analysis of children's writing from five classrooms using process drama. Research in Drama Education, 7(1), 61–79.

Deasey, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

Gibbons, P. (1998). Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second language. Language and Education, 12(2), 99–118.

Goh, L. K. (2005). PE teachers teaching only PE: Understanding the change process in a Singapore government secondary school. Unpublished master’s in Education dissertation, National Institute of Education, Singapore.

Gopinathan, S. (2004). Language planning in education in Singapore: History, transitions, futures. Review, 12(2), 14–23.

Gopinathan, S. (2005). Understanding paradigm shifts in language planning in education in Singapore: A teacher educator's perspectives. In X. Deng, V. M. Cole, M. L. C. Sadorra, & S. M. Wu (Eds.), Inaugural CELC International Symposium (pp. 1–10). Singapore: Centre for English Language Communication, National University of Singapore.

Haseman, B., & O'Toole, J. (1986). Dramawise. Melbourne, Australia: Heinemann Educational.

Kao, S. M., & O'Neill, C. (1998). Words into worlds: Learning a second language through process drama. Stanford: Ablex Publishing.

Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.

Liu, J. (2002). Process drama in second- and foreign-language classrooms. In G. Brauer (Ed.), Body and language: Intercultural learning through drama (pp. 51–70). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Livermore, J. (Ed.). (1998/2003). More than words can say: A view of literacy through the arts (2nd ed.). ACT: Australian Centre for Arts Education.

Marsh, C. J. (2004). Key concepts for understanding curriculum. London & New York: Routledge Falmer.

McNaughton, M. J. (1997). Drama and children's writing: A study of the influence of drama on the imaginative writing of primary school children. Research in Drama Education, 2(1), 55–85.

Miccoli, L. (2003). English through drama for oral skills development. English Language Teachers Journal, 57(2), 122.

Ministry of Education. (2001). English Language Syllabus 2001 for primary and secondary schools. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Neelands, J., & Goode, T. (2000). Structuring drama work: A handbook of available forms in theatre and drama (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O'Neill, C. (1995). Dramaworlds: A framework for process drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

O'Toole, J. (1992). The process of drama: Negotiating art and meaning. London: Routledge.

O'Toole, J., & Dunn, J. (2002). Pretending to learn. Sydney: Pearson Education.

Page 42

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Podlozny, A. (2000). Strengthening verbal skills through the use of classroom drama: A clear link. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3&4), 239–275.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Robinson, K. (1990). The Arts 5-16: A curriculum framework. Harlow: Oliver & Boyd. Salleh, H. (2004). Remaking Singapore schools: A learner teacher to a learning

organisation through Action Research. In A. Khoo, M. A. Heng, L. Lim, & R. P. Ang (Eds.), Innovation and diversity in education (pp. 189–206). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.

Stinson, M., & Freebody, K. (2006a). The DOL project: An investigation into the contribution of process drama to improved results in English oral communication. Youth Theatre Journal, 20, 27–41.

Stinson, M., & Freebody, K. (2006b). Modulating the mosaic: Drama and oral language. In L. A. McCammon & D. McLauchlan (Eds.), Universal mosaic of drama and theatre: The IDEA04 dialogues (pp. 193–201). Ottawa, Canada: IDEA publications.

Taylor, P. (Ed.). (1995). Pre-text and storydrama: The artistry of Cecily O'Neill and David Booth. Brisbane, Australia: NADIE.

Wagner, B. J. (1998). Educational drama and language arts: What research shows. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Page 43

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Appendix: Statistics variables analysis The variables used to score the oral ability (and the scale used for scoring each variable) of the students in their respective streams are listed in the following tables: For Express and Normal Academic Students

Components Marks Scored What it means

Personal Response

4 Gives and develops intelligent personal response

3 Offers some personal responses to the theme and with some elaboration

2 Simple personal responses with little development 1 Offers hardly any personal response or development 0 Offers no personal response or development

Clarity of Expression

4 Expresses and develops ideas clearly succinctly 3 Is generally clear and coherent 2 Makes disjointed responses which may be unclear

1 Offers ideas in disconnected single sentences, phrases or even single words

0 Does not make an attempt to express any idea

Vocabulary

4 Uses appropriate vocabulary and structures 3 Uses largely appropriate vocabulary and structures

2 Some attempts to use appropriate vocabulary and structures

1 Struggles to find appropriate vocabulary 0 Uses irrelevant and/or inappropriate vocabulary

Engagement in Conversation

4 Shares ideas and opinions with the examiner. Introduces new ideas or initiates discussion of relevant issues

3 Responds well to examiner’s prompts, but show less initiative

2 Depends heavily on the examiner for encouragement and prompting

1 Finds it difficult to maintain any sustained interaction, even with repeated prompting

0 Does not make an attempt to respond to examiner’s prompts

Overall Score (over a maximum score of 16 marks)

Total score awarded to each student by adding up the marks obtained in each of the four components stated above.

For Normal Technical Students

Components Marks Scored What it means

Clarity

3 Speaks clearly and with self-assurance 2 Is generally clear and coherent

1 Speaks somewhat unevenly with a number of hesitations and false starts

0 Makes a number of long and awkward pauses

Vocabulary

3 Uses appropriate vocabulary and structures 2 Uses mostly appropriate vocabulary and structures

1 There is some attempt to use appropriate vocabulary and structures

0 Is seriously restricted by very weak vocabulary and structures

Relevance 3 Ideas and opinions are relevant to the topic 2 Ideas and opinions are usually relevant to the topic

Page 44

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

1 Ideas and opinions have some relevance to the topic 0 Student was unable to engage in relevant conversation

Effectiveness of Interaction

3 Interacts effectively 2 Interacts reasonably well 1 Able to interact with encouragement from examiner 0 Unable to interact

Prompting

3 Needs no prompting 2 Needs occasional prompting 1 Depends heavily on examiner for prompting 0 Requires constant prompting

Overall Score (over a maximum score of 15 marks)

Total score awarded to each student by adding up the marks obtained in each of the five components stated above.

Important: All the data used in the analysis for this report are just based on the

Secondary Two students in both schools, excluding those Secondary Two classes which were internal control classes, as the classes involved in the Control School (Chestnut Drive Secondary School) were Secondary Two classes. This means that all the Secondary One classes data from the Treatment School (Fajar Secondary School) are not included in any comparison analysis that was done between schools. However, the only exception to this is when students’ oral abilities were analysed for any changes by individual class or teacher.

The following shows the Factor Analysis results obtained on both the Express and Normal Academic sample, and the Normal Technical sample, to check if the use of a single composite score (in this case, the Overall Score acts as the single composite score) to represent the overall performance of each student’s oral ability is valid. Express and Normal Academic Sample

Correlation Matrixa

1.000 .755 .687 .802.755 1.000 .768 .731.687 .768 1.000 .690.802 .731 .690 1.000

Personal ResponseClarity of ExpressionVocabularyEngagement in Conversation

Correlation

PersonalResponse

Clarity ofExpression Vocabulary

Engagement inConversation

Determinant = .051a.

The above correlation matrix shows that the four components used in the Express and Normal Academic sample are very highly correlated with each other, with correlations of at least 0.687. The KMO computed in the Factor Analysis for this dataset is 0.830, which means that factors extracted from this Factor Analysis account for a substantial amount of variance. The significance level of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 0.000, which also concludes that the strength of the relationship among the components is strong, and that it is good to use Factor Analysis on the dataset. The total variance explained by using a one-factor solution for the four components in the dataset is 80.430%. The scree plot as shown below confirms a one-factor solution for the dataset as well:

Page 45

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

4321

Component Number

3

2

1

0

Eige

nval

ueScree Plot

The component matrix (as shown below) shows high factor loadings for each variable (at least 0.875) on the single composite score.

Component Matrixa

.908

.905

.899

.875

clarexp Clarity of Expressionpersres Personal Responseengage Engagement in Conversationvocab Vocabulary

1Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.1 components extracted.a.

Using the Cronbach Alpha to test the reliability of this solution, we get a score of 0.917 which shows high reliability of using this one-factor solution for this dataset. Thus we can conclude that the use of a single composite score (in this case, the Overall Score computed by adding up all the marks scored by each student in all the four components) to represent the student’s overall performance in oral ability is valid for this dataset.

Page 46

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Normal Technical Sample

Correlation Matrixa

Page 47

1.000 .778 .737 .775 .757.778 1.000 .762 .702 .708.737 .762 1.000 .718 .757.775 .702 .718 1.000 .743.757 .708 .757 .743 1.000

ClarityVocabularyRelevanceEffectiveness of Interaction

Effectiveness ofInteractionClarity Vocabulary Relevance Prompting

Correlation

Prompting

Determinant = .016a.

The above correlation matrix shows that the five components used in the Normal Technical sample are very highly correlated with each other, with correlations of at least 0.702. The KMO computed in the Factor Analysis for this dataset is 0.896, which means that factors extracted from this Factor Analysis account for a substantial amount of variance. The significance level of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 0.000, which also concludes that the strength of the relationship among the components is strong, and that it is good to use Factor Analysis on the dataset. The total variance explained by using a one-factor solution for the five components in the dataset is 79.519%. The scree plot as shown below confirms a one-factor solution for the dataset as well:

54321

Component Number

4

3

2

1

0

Eige

nval

ue

Scree Plot

The component matrix (as shown below) shows high factor loadings for each variable (at least 0.883) on the single composite score.

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Component Matrixa

.909

.891

.890

.886

.883

clarity Clarityrelev Relevanceprompt Promptingvocab Vocabularyeffecint Effectiveness of Interaction

1Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.1 components extracted.a.

Using the Cronbach Alpha to test the reliability of this solution, we get a score of 0.935 which shows high reliability of using this one-factor solution for this dataset. Thus we can conclude that the use of a single composite score (in this case, the Overall Score computed by adding up all the marks scored by each student in all the five components) to represent the student’s overall performance in oral ability is valid for this dataset.

About the author Madonna Stinson is Assistant Professor with the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Contact us For further information, please email: reports@nie.edu.sg

Page 48

Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice

National Institute of Education 1 Nanyang Walk

Singapore 637616 http://www.crpp.nie.edu.sg