Believing In(to) The Profession

Adrian Wong, MEd [Coursework & Dissertation]Supervisor: Dr. Madonna Stinson

Advanced Diploma in Drama and Drama Education [2003 – 2005]

Masters-in-Education [Drama Education, 2005 – 2009]

Research assistant in CRPP [2005-2006] Drama teacher in CHIJ St. Nicholas Girls’

School, Singapore [2006 - ?] Committee member of Singapore Drama

Educators’ Association [SDEA]

Introduction

Case study of 3 teachers who voluntarily sighed up for and completed the Advanced Post-Graduate Diploma in Drama and Drama Education [APGD] offered by the National Institute of Education [NIE] in Singapore.

The in-service teachers completed 7 APGD modules [4 core and 3 electives] in order to receive the diploma.

The 3 participants began the program together in January 2003 and all 3 completed by October 2005.

Overview

If beliefs drive behaviour, Shouldn’t teacher change

efforts look at how teachers’ beliefs change?

Importance of teacher beliefs in educational reforms (Deng & Gopinathan, 1999, 2000; Richardson & Placier, 2001).

No known study done in Singapore on teachers’ belief change.

No known study on teacher belief change as a result of exposure to Drama education.

Findings can inform professional development program for in-service teachers or even teacher training.

Researcher’s interest and personal beliefs.

Purpose of Research

Chou (2004) – theoretical aspects are challenging for those learning to apply drama

Chou (2006) – practical aspects (the “what” and “how”) are more emphasized by published authors than the theoretical aspects (the “why”)

Warner (1998) – improved practice by focusing on students’ learning

Edwards & Cooper (1996) – shifts in belief as a result of long-term facilitated dialogue

Prior (2005) – discussion of the effectiveness of a professional development program

Professional Development for Drama educators [a selection]

Would teachers, who are a product of and are currently practicing in an educational setting which privileges more teacher-centered pedagogy,

change their beliefs when exposed to the more student-centered approach endorsed by drama educators?

Key Question

What are the changes, if any, of the participants’ beliefs in drama education as a result of exposure to drama

pedagogy during the APGD?

Q1 ; What do the teachers identity as aspects of the APGD that were significant? Why?

Q2 : Is there a change in beliefs about drama education?

Q2a : If so, what beliefs about drama education have changed and to what extent?

Q3 : Other than the APGD, what other factors could have contributed to this change?

Research Question(s)

Case study of 3 teachers, each analyzed separately then collectively for themes.

Data (collected in 2005) is triangulated within each teacher and analyzed for patterns, and then between teachers for emergent themes.

Analysis of teachers’ beliefs is based on Pajares (1992):◦ what they say,◦ what they planned to do,◦ what they said about what they did, and◦ their actions [not a judgment of practice but only beliefs]

Some data about their context [schooling and teaching] was also collected.

Methodology

Method Data Analysis 1 Analysis 2

Survey • History of education and teaching career• Motivation for and choices in APGD

• Sources of past beliefs

Comparison of past beliefs, reported change in beliefs and practice, present beliefs and actual practice

Interviews • History of education and teaching career• Influences in teaching beliefs• Critical incidences of past and present beliefs•Report of change in beliefs• Report of Significant aspects of APGD

• Sources of past beliefs• Present beliefs• Reported change in beliefs and practice• Significant factors that contributed to the change

Lesson Plan • Choices for the drama lesson

• Present beliefs

Video of teacher’s practice

• Actual teaching behaviour • Present beliefs

Stimulated recall

• Reflection of choices made during the lesson

• Present beliefs

Data analysis

Belief studies are difficult because of the divergent range of focus and terminologies (Muchmore, 2004) in the field; and are seldom clearly defined (Pajares, 1992).

Beliefs are seen as a “filter” (Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Prawat,

1992; and Pajares, 1992) for teachers’ decisions, practices and how they see new experiences.

It was argued that teachers’ beliefs and knowledge are highly individualized and situated in particular social, economic and political climates (Gu, 2007).

For the research, I used Richardson’s (1994) definition that define beliefs as◦ psychologically held propositions that drives his or her

actions (p. 93), which includes◦ subjectively and personally constructed notions of

knowledge.

Definition of beliefs

Beliefs are shaped by enculturation, education and schooling (Van Fleet, 1979, cited in Pajares, 1992, p. 316)

Synthesis of key findings from Pajares (1992, p. 324 – 325):◦ Beliefs are formed early in life and do not change

easily.◦ Beliefs affect how we process information and our

behaviour.◦ Beliefs may not be in line with external reality.◦ Beliefs shaped earlier in life are more difficult to change.◦ Belief change in adulthood is rare. ◦ Beliefs about teaching and learning are formed by

the time a student enters college.

Nature of Beliefs [1]

Teachers’ beliefs about teaching is embedded with other beliefs (Rokeach, 1968, cited in Pajares, 1992, p. 136).

Beliefs exist in clusters, with each cluster protected from others so that one can hold incompatible beliefs (Green, 1971), and such incompatibility will remain if left unexamined.

Inconsistent beliefs exist because of the difference in intensity and power of belief clusters:◦ central-periphery (Rokreach, 1986),

◦ entrenched–less entrenched (Chinn & Brewer, 1993),

◦ core-transitory (Muchmore, 2004)

Nature of Beliefs [2]

Post-pd, inconsistencies in beliefs are because:◦change process (Richardson, Anders, Tidwell & Lloyd, 1991;

Richardson & Anders, 1994);◦ teachers’ preference for ‘quick-fixes’ (Richardson &

Placier, 2001, citing Borko et. al., 1992) during professional development;

◦ teachers believe that knowledge of effective practices are localized and dismiss new practices, especially those foreign to their beliefs about teaching and learning (Joram, 2007), hence they add the new strategies to their “bag of tricks’ instead of integrating conceptual beliefs.

◦new conceptual beliefs are too discrepant from their existing beliefs and teaching and learning (Samuels & Price, 1992).

Beliefs & Professional Development

Singapore has an education system where:

• it has roots in eastern pedagogy based on teacher-centered teaching (Ho, Toh & Boo, 2002);

• the examination culture is strong and teachers are valued for their ability to help students perform well in examinations (Cheah, 1998);

• it exists within a greater social context where meritocracy is emphasized and educational credentials are valued (Tan, Chow & Goh, 2008);

• teacher-centered practices are common (Chew, Ng, Lee & D’Rozario, 1997; Mortimore, et. al, 2000; Deng & Gopinathan, 2001);

• teachers describe knowledge as fixed, teaching as imparting knowledge and learning is the acquisition, memorization, regurgitation and application of knowledge (Deng & Gopinathan, 2001); and

• when faced with curricular changes, teachers tended to focus on the “what” and “how” rather than the “why” (Yoeh, Lam & Foong, 1994); and resist literacy innovation because of accountability to results (Cheah, 1998).

Education in Singapore

Most dominant paradigm of Drama education in Singapore is the cognitive/procedural (O’Toole & O’Mara, 2007).

◦ Static, literary study of drama as literature (all students have to study English Literature from Secondary 1-2. Some schools offer Literature as a subject for the ‘O’ levels)

◦ Training students in co-curricular activities for competitions and performances (i.e. bi-annual SYF, story-telling, speech-making and drama competitions of all sorts)

This paradigm positions the knowledge of texts as “fixed” and for stagecraft there are benchmarks to be attained. The teachers are the one with knowledge/skills while the students receive and practice them. Students are often assessed for mastery of knowledge (of texts), attainment of skills in speech and of ‘acting’.

Drama Education in Singapore

The APGD’s pedagogical modules introduced a different paradigm of Drama Education to the Singapore teachers – social/pedagogical.

It is about how school curriculum can be embedded within drama structures for deep understanding and higher-order thinking that is not merely cognitive (O’Toole & O’Mara, 2007, p.210)

Representative of contemporary practice with its praxis underpinned by social-constructivist theories of learning.

Conceptually, knowledge is subjectively co-constructed by learners and teachers facilitate and structure the learning experiences. Quality of thinking and learning takes precedence over quality of ‘acting’.

A different paradigm of Drama Education

Module Type Haida Megan

Molly

Learning Thr. Drama: Theory & Practice

Core 1 1 1

Theatre Forms: Theory & Practice Core 2 2 2

Process Drama in the Curriculum

Core 3 4 4

Theatre-in-Education: Theory & Practice

Core 6 7 7

Theatre Forms: Theory & Practice 2 Elective - 3 3

Voice Production & Performance 1 Elective 3 5 5

Voice Production & Performance 2 Elective - 6 6

Making a Youth Theatre Production Elective 4 - -

Youth Theatre Directing Skills Elective 5 - -

The APGD course structure

Haida : ◦ vivacious and quick to burst into infectious laughter◦ 18 years teaching English and English Literature in a

girls’ school◦ in charge of drama club and productions

Molly :◦ prim and proper, careful to enunciate her words◦ 8 years teaching English and English Literature in an elite

girls’ school◦ In charge of ELDDS, and is subject-head

Megan :◦ bubbly and gregarious Head of English◦ 6 years of teaching English in a co-ed neighbourhood

school◦ Write plays, direct, in charge of drama club, etc…

Introducing the teachers…

Key findings

The individual teachers The context

12

3

Haida : “(I) realize(d) that there is a long process (and) that there’s such a thing as drama in education”

Megan : “a great fundamental shift, to greatly appreciate that the process is of such great benefit (to students)”

Molly : there were drama conventions like “tableau” and she can “infuse drama into so many other subjects and (make them) more meaningful”

(1) A change in beliefs about drama education…

Molly : “Because they are involved in the process. Like over here they’re involved in making the drama, they are creating it. I think they can remember the lesson a lot better. They realize certain things on their own, without being told.”

Megan : “… you know I think the process really brings about many outcomes”

Haida : I prodded her what she meant by process three times but she could not clarify it what it means for her.

What do they mean by process?

Analogue experiences (Borko & Putam, 1995; Morocco &

Solomon, 1999) provided the teachers the experience of how teaching and learning are different from how they were taught and how they teach. Such experiences model for the teachers that it should be like for the students.

Megan and Haida used strong emotive language to share their experiences of process dramas, showing how these are the critical incidences (Webster & Mertova, 2007) that they reflected upon and referred to as significant moments of the entire course, perhaps critical moments that contributed to their change in beliefs about drama education.

(2)Process Dramas : Analogue Experiences & Critical Incidences for teacher change

The process dramas they experienced are published ones, facilitated by an experienced practitioner (Dr. Madonna Stinson) in the modules Learning Through Drama and Process Drama in the Curriculum.

Those mentioned by the teachers were : ◦ First Fleet (O’Toole & Dunn, 2002)◦ The True Story of the Three Little Pigs (Taylor,

2000)◦ The Seal Wife (O’Neal, 1994)◦ a drama based on The Identification by Roger

McGough (2004)

(2) Quality of the Process Drama experiences

A genre (Fleming, 2003) of drama education that is firmly within the social/pedagogical paradigm :

It is described as (i) non-teacher-dominated, (ii) involving all the students all the time, for the purpose of (iii) solving problems, employing higher-order thinking processes (Stinson &

Freebody, 2006, p.26) and students’ personal growth (Weltsek-Medina,

2006). The dramas, transient and “ephemeral” (Stinson & Freebody, 2006,

p. 29) are for the “internal audience” (Bolton, 1998, p. 143) made up of the participant group and are not intended for an audience outside of the drama (Edmiston & Wilhelm, 1998; Bowell & Heap, 2001; Stinson & Freebody, 2006).

The teacher (/facilitator) structures the experience by drawing on the participants’ input and knowledge and the entire group collectively manipulates dramatic elements for the drama to unfold for them meaningfully n a processual manner (O’Toole, 1992).

However, Stinson & Freebody (2006) warned that it can be inaptly used to describe any participatory drama activities.

Definition of Process Drama

“I love Process Drama” “(I) could see things from a different

perspective” [onThe Three Little Pigs] “It’s very dramatic. I remember (for an episode)

working with Wee Kit and one other person and we used sound and everything was in slow motion and theatrical. The image was very strong to me especially (the part) where we said goodbye to the seal wife, who had to say goodbye to the family and I think that the whole sequence was so wonderful.” [onThe Seal Wife]

What did Haida say?

Could remember “every single experiential process drama”

“(I) felt being touched n the soul” as “I think part of the whole drama course is that it’s very much to do with Art, and Art is about being touched in the soul. I think that did happen in this course a number of times”

Based on her experiences, she also believed that process drama “brings about many outcomes” and she would often make links between her experience as a participant to the learning her students could possibly achieve out of the experiences.

What did Megan say? [1]

On First Fleet (O’Toole & Dunn, 2002), after she (in role) has written a letter back home.

I think she [Dr. Stinson in role] would walk around and we talked louder and we read from the letter and when she walked away, our voices will go softer. That whole experience was so magical and so like “Wow!”. You know I could do this with my kids. They get to write, which is always a good skill and they have to read aloud and it’s just so meaningful. I mean the moment we started doing that drama I was thinking – this is so Singapore! You know this is about the migrants and I thought it would be so easy to translate that here.

What did Megan say? [2]

Haida felt a “sense of community” during the folk dance [in The Seal Wife] and may have planned her drama lesson to replicate some sense of “community” within the fiction of the drama that she planned.

Megan modified First Fleet for her students in the drama club, bringing them to the beach for the experience.

Motivated to act upon their new beliefs…

Molly mentioned that process drama, such as The True Story of the Three Little Pigs as significant but did not discuss it with much emotive and affective details.

She focused her recollection on the practical aspects and instrumental value of the drama strategies such as “role-on-the-wall, teacher-in-role, tableau, tap-and-talk and then also mantle-of-the-expert”.

She also felt it was useful as there were “hands-on lessons on how to use process drama” as there were “many lessons, many examples” and the assessment was “a good test of what was being taught” so she felt confident to use them in class.

What did Molly say?

Inconsistent beliefs abt Drama Ed (between reported change, reported beliefs and beliefs inferred from anecdotes) for Haida and Molly, consistent beliefs for Megan.

Implication : ◦ teachers are experiencing process of change◦ some beliefs are stronger and more resistant to

change, and have more impact on their actions than the beliefs that have change (i.e. beliefs about drama education?)

(3) Extent of change

Megan also expressed ‘conflicts’ in her beliefs.

Hashweh (2003):◦ Progressive outcomes: integrating old and new

beliefs◦ Transitional outcomes: live with unresolved

conflict◦ Conservative: essentially preserve

existing(/core) beliefs

Integration of conceptual beliefs

Megan:“I felt like a traitor to the cause (of drama education)… have to weigh cost and benefit of having drama and preparing students for the (national/school) exams…”

Experiencing conflict

What was absent was the teachers’ use of theoretical concepts / references to theoretical concepts taught during the core modules when they talk about their beliefs and practice.

All three stated that they believe in student-centered teaching but could not elaborate what that mean to them in practice.

The data indicated a strong preference for practical experiences, by two teachers [Haida and Molly], with one expressing a preference to understand the concepts behind her practice [Megan].

Conceptual beliefs (of teaching and learning) may be too discrepant from their existing beliefs (Samuel & Price, 1992)

Teachers’ conceptual beliefs

All three teachers were unable to fully explain their understanding of the process of learning through drama.

They emphasized that students learn through the process, but were unable to discuss what they believe happens in this process of engaging with the drama.

Teachers’ understanding of the process of learning through Drama

Strong focus on practical strategies that could be immediately applied to their classes.

Personal learning preferences and motivation for the APGD affected their experiences of the course.

The strong examination culture, strong prior beliefs and dominant paradigm of Drama Education in Singapore forms the backdrop to and perhaps reinforces their existing beliefs, motivation and personal preferences in learning.

Other factors affecting change

Megan consistently focused on the students’ learning and thinking (over ‘acting’) in her interviews, her reflection on her lesson and her practice.

She was able to integrate the principles of practice of the social/pedagogical paradigm of Drama Education into her practice, resolving the conflict between ‘old’ and ‘new’ beliefs (Hashweh, 2007).

Is this because of APGD despite the strong social context?

Or is it because of Megan’s own beliefs?

All is not bleak…

Megan shared a critical incident when she was a student in Junior College.

She recounted how a classmate insisted that we would all be connected via this new technology called “the internet”.

Their tutor scolded him and told him its dumb.

“ But there’s no way anyone would know. In this day and age, no teacher can claim to know everything…”

Megan’s beliefs

• focus change effort on teachers’ conceptual beliefs and understanding of drama education, focusing on process of learning through drama;

• experiences of the social/pedagogical paradigm of drama education (e.g. process dramas) should be provided as an essential part of their experience;

• teachers should be engaged to dialogue about their experiences, observe and examine (qualities in) students’ thinking and learning (Warner, 1998; Morocco & Solomon, 1999) during drama lessons and how they can facilitate students’ experience of dramas.

Implications for professional development

Do the teachers’ beliefs about knowledge [inclusive of their conceptions of teaching and learning and their role as teachers] have an impact on their change? (i.e. epistemological worldviews by Schraw & Olafson, 2003)

What are the ways in which teachers can be facilitated to examine their beliefs in the process of change?

How else can we facilitate teachers’ integration of the principles of practice that drama educators espouse?

What is the relationship between their beliefs of drama education and their beliefs about knowledge? [Core versus periphery?]

More questions…

Contact : adrianwong77@gmail.com