In recent exploration of the literature in the two key fields of my research – drama process in TESOL and aesthetic engagement in language learning I am expanding out my reach of the research. I believe I have covered most of the research about drama process and language learning. The two main pieces of solid research are Kao & O’Neil (1998) research with Taiwanese students, drama process and amount and quality of interaction judged on discourse analysis, and Swinson & Freebody (2006) research of improvement of oral fluency with Singaporean students involved in drama process. The later used a control group research based design with pre-test and post-test of oral fluency to show learners improved more in the drama process group. This simple design appealed to me and has got me thinking now about how I may simplify the design of my own project. Another case study, although not really a piece of research, discussed the effectiveness of portfolios and reflective journals (Miccoli:2003). I like the idea of a simple 10 week course with pre-test and post-test design, with three randomised groups – a control group studying English, an intervention group studying process drama with low key aesthetic elements and a group studying process drama with high aesthetic elements. Nice simple and sweet. I could also analyse the quality and quantity of the interaction using Kao’s two discourse analysis techniques.
So this has been making me think now, what elements should be brought into the drama process language learning classroom that will increase aesthetic engagement? How do I test presence of aesthetic engagement? How do I test benefits of aesthetic engagement?
If there is already research showing that drama process in TESOL increases oral fluency, quality and quantity of student teacher interaction (Kao & O’Neil:1998; Swinson & Freebody: 2006) then I don’t need to prove this. Although these studies were done with high school students and not done with adult learners of English in Academic Pathways – hint, this could be area for exploring, especially if I am going to use CET or International Students at the University.
This also brings a good point to the forefront. If I chose to have three classes doing 10 weeks of one hour lessons, conducted by recent TESOL teacher trainees in TESOL and Drama, I would need at least 30 student volunteers. They would also be studying at University at the time. I could randomise all the students in the groups, and also in the video analysis. And also do a double blind study where the teachers do not know which is the group with the intervention studied. If I get the two drama processes as close to each other as possible, I can identify the specific elements I am changing to increase aesthetic engagement. Other data gathering would be interviews and portfolios. I would also need to investigate how to actually determine engagement through a validated testing instrument, both self-reported by the student and teachers, but also observed through video and discourse analysis. The control group could study another dramatic technique like Strategic Intervention (di Pietro: 1987) if I wanted to put a drama slant on it, or something like creativity, mindfulness, meditation, etc if I chose to put an aesthetic engagement slant on it. Teachers would need a week of training in the techniques and syllabus.
Ethics would be OK, I can imagine if I choose non-CET teachers and non-CET students, and focus the main lessons during summer and winter school periods of 2012. In fact, if I shortened the period of lesson to two weeks intensive (10 lessons of 4 hours) but doubled the class time, this would be ideal. I could also stick to the DBT design and have the teachers assist in redesigning the programs between summer and winter in 2012. So the dates for classes would be Jan/Feb, for the first reiteration, and then July/Aug for the second reiteration. This fits. All classes would be videoed and conducted at CET, using CET resources. I would also apply for study leave for these periods.
Without referring to specific evidence yet in research, I am predicting that the greater the dramatic tension in the drama process, the greater the aesthetic engagement and emotional commitment and therefore greater the learning. Dramatic tension can be heightened in the same manner as heightening tension in a drama – tension of place, tension of task, tension of character, etc. There is some information in the key research about other contributing the need for a strong pretext, topics and themes that capture the student’s attention, range of roles to play, teacher in role and mantle of the expert. I would have to start to predict the issues that may come out with a specific group in Australia of adult learners. These would be issues of cross-cultural differences, confidence, embarrassment of performance, resistance to change in power balances in the class and traditional role of teacher. From Bundy’s notion of connectedness, emotion, interaction in her analysis of aesthetic engagement, I can predict these factors affecting aesthetic engagement too.
No comments:
Post a Comment