Changes in Sociometric Status Following Drama Education: A Longitudinal Study in Czech Republic

Širůček, J. (sirucek@fss.muni.cz)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

Jan SirucekSirucek@fss.muni.cz