changes in sociometric status following drama education: a longitudinal study in czech republic...
TRANSCRIPT
Changes in Sociometric Status Following Drama Education: A Longitudinal Study in Czech Republic
Širůček, J. ([email protected])Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies, Brno, Czech republic
Special thanks...
To professor Peter K. Smith
(University of London, Department of psychology)
For patient help with an abstract of this paper
Drama education in Czech schools 10 years of experience with drama education in CZ
Drama education is not a common part of curriculum Implemented as consequence of changes in “general
school education plans”, pronouncing core competencies: Communication skills Social and personal skills Learning skills Problem solving skills Civic skills Work skills
... In addition to conservative focus on frontal teaching and knowledge, typical for Czech school system
Ways and methods of drama education Game play, dramatic etudes and theatre performances
support growth of core competencies by Experience with wording own opinions & listening and
appraising to others` opinions (communication skills) Role-taking in game play makes new emotional experience
accessible (social and personal skills) Information seeking & processing enhance learning skills Analysis of social conflicts in drama etudes affects problem
solving skills Moral aspects of drama education scenarios & open theatre
performances for broader school community supports civic skills
Preparation of stage decorations, costumes etc. encourage work skills
As result, global positive changes in social relations in classes are expected
And dramatic etudes could be used in constructive solving of specific conflicts or difficult social situations happening in everyday life in classroom
Research aim & design
Evaluate possible changes in peer relations related to drama education implementation
With special respect to problematic social relations in classes
Two-wave longitudinal study with control group
Two-wave longitudinal study 4 intervention classes & 4 control classes:
Matched by grade 2 fifth-grade classes (N=21 & N=28) 4 sixth-grade classes (N=47 & N=43) 2 seventh-grade classes (N=23 & N=29)
Control classes were from same school as experimental Selection of intervention classes:
Based on school headmasters` reference Classes with suspect onset of bullying or with difficult social relations within
pupils Without any previous experience drama education Without any previous or currently running preventive program focused on
social relations or bullying Headmasters reference based on reports of class teachers & educational
counselors (school psychologist not present) Selection of control classes
Classes considered as “healthy” in terms of social relations Again based on school headmasters` reference
1st wave of date collection in September 2008, 2nd at the end of June 2009
Drama education implementation Instructors:
Four PhD students of special pedagogy 3-4 years of experience with drama education All of them active teachers on another schools than
those in sample Provided with regular supervision (monthly meetings
with their leader) Participated voluntarily on project, with only a symbolic
reward
Drama education in intervention classes: Two hours each two weeks Drop-outs of hours occurred in all classes, about
10% of time
Method - Nomination technique (NT) Set of 18 items, based on tool traditionally used by Czech school psychologist
in assessment of peer relations Enriched by more items to ensure better reliability and wider interpretation 2 cumulative scales
Prosocial behavior (K = 8; alpha = 0,91) Items as “who is helpful?” or “who is trustworthy?”
Conflict behavior (K = 8; alpha = 0,93) Items as “who starts quarrels or hassles?” or “who is hostile toward others?”
2 single questions Influence: “who has influence on others?” Dismissal: “who is only for himself?”
Dimensional structure Prosocial & conflicts scales linearly independent (r = 0,12) Prosocial & influence in mediocre correlation (r = 0,30) Conflicts & dismissal highly correlated (r = 0,8!) Lack of valid scale of social isolation
Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (Goodman), completed by class teacher Perceived peer relations questionnaire & state anxiety scale included as self-report
Data still not available for analysis
Results – group comparison
Control group: Influence (p = 0,008; Cohen`s D = 0,36)
Intervention group: Prosocial behavior (p = 0,018; Cohen`s D = 0,16) Conflict behavior (p = 0,009; Cohen`s D = 0,22) Influence (p = 0,018; Cohen`s D = 0,32)
Prosocial behavior – class comparisonControl group:
3 significant effects, 2 increases & 1 decrease in class meansIntervention group:
2 significant effects, both slightly increasing 2 “stability” lines
Greater variability of changes in control group
Conflict behavior – class comparisonControl group:
3 significant effects, 2 increases & 1 decrease in class means againIntervention group:
3 significant effects, all increasingGreater variability of changes in control group again
1 stability line in both groups
Influence – class comparisonControl group:
2 significant effects, 1 extreme increase (Cohen`s D = 2,45!) & 1 slight increase 2 stability lines
Intervention group: 3 significant effects, all with mediocre increasing
Greater variability of changes in control group again
Discussion of results In intervention vs. control group comparison,
Medium increasing effects were found in prosocial behavior, conflict behavior and influence in experimental group Surprisingly, also “negative” effect of increased rate of conflict
behavior In control group, influence increased only
First interpretation: Drama education positively affects children`s social skills
Increase in prosocial behavior reflects drama education`s focus on expressing own emotions and understanding others These growing capacities results in more prosocial behavior in peer
group Increase in conflict behavior is interpreted as growing self-
confidence and ability to openly name problematic or unwanted behavior in group of peers Pupils are more willing to indicate problem behavior in nomination
technique ... And possibly to face it in active way, which leads to more conflicts in
class
Discussion of results But... What about those inconsistencies between
specific classes? Higher variability of spontaneous changes in control group
2 increasing & 1 decreasing trend in both prosocial and conflict scale
Group comparison results are consequence of higher variance of scores in control group, wave 3 Exactly, results are caused by strong decrease in only one
class Based on this (small) sample, no strong support for drama
education effect is evident Maybe NT is not the right tool? NT measures outcomes only, social processes leading to
outcomes are hidden in “black box” More intensive research is needed
Focused on more on social process, and not only outcomes of drama education
Qualitative research based on observation
THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION