Chris Port Blog #209. KS3 Drama Action Research Project: Conclusion

© Chris Port, Central School of Speech and Drama, 2000

As suggested in the Abstract, this was a modest Action Research Project. The research period was extremely brief and artificial (the research area had to be selected before I had actually started teaching at the placement school while the pace of research was set by the hand-in date rather than what was happening in the Drama Studio). Referring back to my proposed Action Research Cycle (Chapter 3.2) I was just beginning to become proactive in my choice of learning model (Step 5) when the research project hand-in was due. I am thus unable to offer any comparative case studies to show any implementation or improvement.

5.1   Emerging themes

The original research question was: In what ways might a Behaviourist model of learning be ‘fit for the purposes’ of teaching a Drama curriculum at Key Stage 3? In my preliminary self-evaluation (Chapter 3.7) I identified a typical Drama lesson plan structure and activities in my teaching and characterized all of the teaching methods used as Behaviourist. Therein lies the problem. As I settled into the placement school and began to feel more comfortable in my teaching practice I realized that the teaching and learning dynamics of lessons were far more complex than my initial theoretical caricature. No one teaching and learning activity stayed faithful to any one theoretical model. I realized instead  that teaching and learning flitted ‘promiscuously’ between models and the characterization of which model was actually being used depended more on the agenda of the observer rather than on what was actually happening (i.e. I tended to characterize activities in the Behaviourist model if I was looking for Behaviourist activities to characterize).

Although my characterization of lesson plan structure and activities was reasonably accurate (or, rather, I became proactive in planning my lessons using this structure), I realized that the teaching and learning model was not proactively planned and was not passively reactionary. Instead, the dynamics of teaching and learning were interactive, shifting continuously, rapidly and subtly, more by intuition than precognition. I developed a much more ‘promiscuous’ analysis of teaching and learning methods whereby each activity flirted with all three models at the same time as characterized by the following table (which should be compared with my initial self-evaluation in 3.7 Self-evaluation).

Learning situation	Teaching methods used	Reasons for choice
Introduction/recap	Behaviourist	Teacher determines learning area
Question and answer session	Behaviourist Constructivist Social Constructivist	Assessing pupil response Checking whether learning area connects with children’s experience Analysing through (albeit teacher-led discussion) whether modification or negotiation of learning area is required
Setting of differentiated objectives for lesson	Behaviourist Constructivist Social constructivist	Setting teacher’s assessment criteria Differentiation/connecting new learning with children’s experience of previous learning Consider whether objectives need to be modified/negotiated to take into account pupils’ Zone of Proximal Development
Pupil preparation in practical activities	Behaviourist Constructivist Social constructivist	Teacher circulates, assessing, instructing and correcting where appropriate Differentiation: teacher assesses which pupils most need assistance. Teacher may amend/negotiate change in objectives if appropriate to pupils Zone of Proximal Development
Pupil enactment in front of teacher and peers	Behaviourist Constructivist Social constructivist	Teacher regulates activity, assesses, instructs and corrects where necessary. Opportunities for differentiation of outcome where pupils can demonstrate how they have fitted new knowledge or skills into existing knowledge and skills. Pupils may choose or adapt themes to their Zone of Proximal Development.
Constructive criticism from teacher and peers	Behaviourist Constructivist Social constructivist	Teacher regulates criticism and can overrule where necessary. Opportunity to find the ‘best fit’ for new knowledge or skills. Opportunity either to relate themes to pupils’ Zone of Proximal Development or to discover whether teaching has engaged learning.
Question and answer session	Behaviourist Constructivist Social constructivist	Teacher regulates pace and activity, assesses and corrects responses. Opportunity to find ‘best fit’ for new knowledge or skills. Opportunity either to relate themes to pupils’ Zone of Proximal Development or to discover whether teaching has engaged learning.
Summary of learning areas	Behaviourist	Teacher summarises what learning should have taken place.

‌My preliminary conclusion is thus: a Behaviourist model of learning is ‘fit for the purposes’ of demonstrating teacher competencies when being observed by inspectors (since, during a brief observation, the teacher appears to be ‘in charge’ and regulating learning activities). The Behaviourist model is also useful in designing and maintaining a modular generic curriculum structure consisting of theatre-specific knowledge and skills as suggested by the Hornbrook model (Hornbrook 1998). Behaviourism is, perhaps, most useful in regulating whole-class activities when I am looking for particular types of responses from the pupils. However, a Drama curriculum at Key Stage 3 (or Key Stage 4, for that matter) which relied exclusively on a Behaviourist model of teaching and learning would become excessively teacher-led, lack depth and pupil-engagement with their learning, and would rely almost exclusively on differentiation by outcome (a feature which recurs excessively in my lesson plan structures: I need to plan more opportunities for differentiation by input and task).

Behaviourism in this research project has acted as a baseline for effective teaching (it is most often ‘fit for the purposes’ of establishing and maintaining class control before transposing this into discipline followed by the pupils viewing Drama itself as a discipline). As teacher-pupil interactions became more familiar and complex, Constructivist and Social Constructivist models of teaching and learning became more prevalent and a degree of sophistication and progression seemed to occur. Certainly, when I became aware that I was using Constructivist and Social Constructivist models of teaching and learning, I felt that my teaching was far more ‘balanced’ and responsive to the needs of pupils as individuals rather than league table, competency and threshold performance fodder. Behaviourism is a ‘teacher-friendly’ model of teaching and learning and is thus ‘fit for the purposes’ of protecting the teacher when their teaching is exposed to erratic scrutiny.

If I had longer to develop this research project I would like to consider whether the Behaviourist model of teaching and learning has any gender implications. Although an unverifiable generalization based on limited experience I perceived that the boys seemed to respond slightly more favourably to the Behaviourist model than the girls and wondered whether this ‘regimentation’ might have ‘masculinized’ Drama, reclaiming a male interest in technical skills over emotional engagement and thus avoiding problems with boys viewing a creative and tactile subject as effeminate. This line of thought has, conversely, led me to wonder whether it is fair or accurate to characterize any element of Drama as gender-biased. Also, is it reasonable to say that the interests of one gender are only advanced at the expense of the other (e.g. a ‘masculinization’ or ‘feminization’ of Drama creating issues of gender and achievement) (cf. Epstein, Elwood, Hey and Maw 1998). During my research period I did not differentiate between male and female pupil responses to the models of learning being propagated or gender ‘readings’ between a male teacher and female and male pupils. A consideration of gender-preference (if any) between different models of teaching and learning would therefore be the next logical step if this research project could be extended.

Christopher James Port, June 2000