1. Teaching Context

This article presents an overview of the findings of an action research project conducted to establish whether the German classroom at Cork Institute of Technology (CIT) is suited to the use of drama activities.

CIT is a third-level college, with a total of approximately 17,000 full- and part-time students. The courses span the areas of Business, Science, Engineering, Art and Music, and aim to provide practical, career-oriented skills, as well as academic knowledge of the subject areas. Foreign languages (FLs) are available as optional modules on some courses in the college; for the Tourism and Hospitality Management courses, students choose as a compulsory subject one of three FLs (German, Italian, or French), with the option to study a second FL if they wish to do so. Where FLs are part of a course syllabus, they are taught with a strong emphasis on LSP (Language for Specific Purposes).

Prescribed language textbooks for set syllabi often do not provide sufficient material to make a language class interesting, as suggested by Schewe/Shaw (1993:9):

Many of the textbooks and course-books in current use are still full of banal, painfully obvious and often dull dialogues […].

In the academic year 2003/2004, I introduced drama activities, not in order to remove the textbook and other materials from the classroom, but rather to use the activities to encourage creative exploration and physical as well as emotional engagement with the language as presented by these materials.

The games, miming and acting of drama activities provide a means of involving a student’s whole personality and not merely the thought-processing part. (Dougill 1994: 6)

2. Research Methods

This article discusses action research findings from a ‘teacher learning’ perspective; the drama activities used in the classroom represented a departure from previous teaching methods employed on the courses (such as unimprovised role-playing, and textbook-based grammar and comprehension exercises). McNiff (2001:1) says of action research:

[It] encourages a teacher to be reflective of his own practice in order to enhance the quality of education for himself and his pupils. It is a form of self-reflective enquiry […] and […] it actively involves teachers as participants in their own educational process. […] It is a powerful method of bridging the gap between the theory and practice of education […].

The research was conducted during the academic year 2003/2004¹ in repeated cycles, each cycle spanning four stages: planning and conducting a drama activity; observing what occurred; reflecting on the observations; and planning further activities based on previous findings. In addition to the use of observation notes as a source of information, the research was triangulated by the students’ observations (in the form of questionnaires and interviews) and those of Holger Huber, a colleague, with whom I collaborated for the final exercise. According to Dewaele (2005), triangulation provides an alternative to having to choose between either quantitative or qualitative research; it allows for subjective findings to be included in the final analysis. In addition, including results based on student contributions allows students to become directly involved in research conducted to improve their learning experience.

[…] there is growing acceptance within the SLA [Second Language Acquisition] community that learners’ feelings and reflections on their learning process, language use, and changing identity offer valuable insights in aspects traditionally overlooked in SLA. (Dewaele 2005: 369)

The initial phase of research discussed in this article was conducted with the first-year class, a mixed group consisting of 28 students from three different courses: Tourism, Office Information Systems (OIS), and Hotel and Catering. Subsequent phases of research with the second-year class (15 students consisting of two groups: five Hotel and Catering students and ten Tourism students) involved the use of dramatic role-plays (see Appendices II and III; Exercises 1 and 2), and culminated in rehearsing and performing the scene Im Restaurant (see Appendices IV and V), on which Holger Huber and I collaborated. His third-year class staged this activity in a classroom with props such as plates, cutlery and tablecloths, for which I became a participant-observer. One week later Mr. Huber became the participant-observer for my group of second-years, who staged their performance in the fully-equipped Training Restaurant. Based on our observation and discussion of the third-year performance, I incorporated changes into the second-year preparation and rehearsal of the Im Restaurant scene. For example, it became apparent that the third-years had not adequately prepared for the correct use of register (the ‘waiters’ and ‘customers’ inappropriately addressed each other as du). They also demonstrated a lack of what di Pietro (1987: 84) refers to as “conversation management devices”; incidental conversation was noticeably lacking while the ‘customers’ were seated at their tables. Consequently, exercises (both written and oral) were introduced during preparation time with the second-years to raise their awareness of register, and to increase their range of conversation ‘fillers’ (for example, utterances such as ach so; na ja; also; and requests such as Können Sie mir bitte das Salz geben?), so that they could make ‘small talk’.

3. Terminology

There are many terms used to describe different forms of drama-based language teaching. These are referred to variously as creative dramatics (Sam 1990); creative drama (Dodge 1998); strategic interaction (di Pietro 1987); drama activities (Dougill 1994); drama techniques or drama (Chauhan 2004; Maley/Duff 1996); Drama in Education for Language Learning (Healy 2004) and dramapädagogische Lehr- und Lernpraxis (Schewe 1993). All of these terms refer to the use of drama activities such as role-play, simulation, scenario enactment, mime, song, and the writing and performing of plays or sketches. These activities form an integral part of the overall teaching concept referred to as Communicative Language Learning, as advocated by Morrow (1981) and Brumfit (1984). This article will use the terms drama, drama activities or drama techniques interchangeably.

4. Role/s of the Teacher

The role of the teacher in the language classroom that uses drama differs greatly from that of the teacher in the traditional language classroom. It is important that the teacher learns to take a ‘back seat’ during certain stages in drama exercises. The teacher works as a co-participant in the drama in the performance stage, thereby creating a democratic classroom environment “that promotes collaboration and risk-taking” (Healy 2004: paragraph 5). Drawing on the writings of Richards and Rodgers (1986), Schewe lists four main roles of the teacher in communicative activities:

Of particular interest to drama-based foreign-language teaching would appear to be the following:

• the teacher as facilitator assumes the role of a promoter of the process of communication between learners, or between learners and a set task;

• the teacher acts as an independent participant in the language group;

• the teacher as counsellor comes to assistance when a bridge has to be made between speaker intention and listener interpretation […];

• the teacher as manager (more accurate here might be producer-director) in group processes sets up an organisational/methodological framework for communicative activities. During and after these activities he injects impulses which accelerate or induce reflection on the group communication process. (Schewe/Shaw 1993: 293)

In taking on these roles, the teacher learns to reduce his or her control over the group, so that the students have sufficient freedom to both explore and act in situations in a natural manner.

Royka (2002:1) talks of the ‘fear factor’ for teachers considering using drama methods in their classrooms:

At times teachers are reluctant to use ‘drama’ activities in classrooms for various reasons: they don’t know how to use the activities, limited resources, time constraints, a fear of looking and feeling foolish […]. Generally these feelings are more prevalent when attempting to use drama with adults. […] Often children are much more receptive to any kind of “make-believe” or drama type activity.

Royka argues that very few books containing drama activities are aimed at experts in drama: they are written for teachers of subjects other than drama. She recommends that inexperienced teachers include just a few games in their teaching material initially. She states that teachers should not feel that they are ‘performing’ drama to the class. All members of the group (that is, the students and the teacher) should feel that they are creating the experience together.

Royka draws on Wessels’ observation that many think of drama as “theatricals” (2003: 3) (where the teacher ‘performs’ for the class). Wessels (ibid. 14) states that this perception is often acquired during teacher training, where the trainee teacher learns that education is

a one-way transmission of knowledge from the teacher to the student, rather than the creation of a learning situation in which the student is also the teacher.

Wessels feels that the use of drama breaks down barriers between teacher and student, and that this can make less confident teachers reluctant to use it. Drawing on observations made by Heathcote (1972), Wessels argues that the teacher can take a less dominant role in the classroom, without losing the respect of the class or completely losing control, which seems to be a “predominant but baseless fear among some teachers” (Wessels 2003: 15).

5. Outcomes and Conclusions

5.1. The First-Years

During the first phase of my research (in the first-year classroom), I discovered that drama activities do not necessarily succeed in breaking down barriers, either between students and teacher, or between different groups of students within a class. The first-year students did not respond well to drama activities such as the On the Raft exercise (see Appendix A), or the At the Party exercise (see Appendix A) and increasingly refused to cooperate when I attempted to introduce such activities. They did not move when asked to do so, and repeatedly refused to rearrange classroom furniture. These students also demonstrated reluctance to cooperate with other class members who belonged to different course groups. Consequently, my research for this particular phase changed direction away from the development of further scenarios, and toward an understanding of, and therefore a possible resolution to, uncooperative group behaviour.

Rivers (1987: 9) describes the hesitant teacher teetering “on the brink of interactive practice”, resulting in the students’ withdrawal from the new experience. It may be that my nervousness, due to unfamiliarity with this teaching method and with these new students, may have transmitted itself, thereby contributing to the students’ reluctance to participate. It also became clear to me that, due to my inexperience with drama techniques, I had used inappropriate exercises with this first-year group, such as pretending to be on a raft. Bernat (2004: 4) reminds us that adults are proud of their independence, and that treating adult learners as if they were not fully independent attacks their pride in themselves. This must be particularly true of 18-year-olds, who have only just reached adulthood. It is probable that my methods in the first-year classroom were regarded by the students as forcing them to be childish and undignified.

Bernat (ibid.) also argues that adults have strong feelings about learning situations: some have had “depressing and demoralizing” learning experiences in school, which may indeed be true of some CIT students’ prior language learning experiences. An entirely new teaching and learning method may have caused them to feel threatened, particularly if the idea of learning a language at third-level did not appeal to them to begin with. I realised belatedly that drama techniques should only be introduced after students have established a good working relationship with each other and with the teacher. These first-years were trying to cope simultaneously with unfamiliar classmates, an unfamiliar learning environment, and an unfamiliar teacher; it was not an appropriate time to introduce new teaching and learning methods as well.

Hegman-Shier (2002: 189) states that, when using drama activities, the teacher must be able to “give up control” to make a successful transition from “guiding” (Schewe’s manager and counsellor roles) to “facilitating” (that is, functioning as a facilitator and an independent participant). She believes that a combination of instinct and experience will tell the teacher how to do this. I believe that I did not achieve a successful transition between the teacher roles of facilitator, independent participant, counsellor, and manager that Schewe (1993: 293) lists as essential for classroom drama. Perhaps my inexperience in using drama, combined with my unfamiliarity with the first-years, caused me to be instinctively cautious, rendering me reluctant to relinquish my counsellor and manager roles and become a participant on an equal footing with the students. An additional contributing factor may have been the students’ reluctance to accept me as a participant, as they were accustomed to the teacher being ‘in charge’ at all times.

Low motivation to participate in the first-year German class resulted in fluctuating attendance levels; this meant that most relationships within this class – apart from those between the few regular (and, arguably, more motivated) attendees – could not be established. The ice did not break in this first-year class.

Until the climate warms sufficiently, ice has a habit of re-forming. […] [M]ost learner groups will have spent intervening time belonging to, and conforming to the norms of, many other groups (families, peers, other classes, etc.). For this reason, most groups need a period of readjustment each time they come together, a time to rejoin the group, to accept each other again, to re-establish relationships, and to remind themselves implicitly of the goals and rules of the group – at the same time as switching into a second language “mind-set”. (Ehrmann/Dörnyei 1998: 235)

As a different set of students was present for each class, the few students who attended regularly were constantly readjusting to different group members. A lesson had to be repeated on more than one occasion, as no-one present had been to the preceding class. This is not an ideal climate in which to attempt group cohesion exercises.

5.2. The Second- and Third-Years

The second-year class was half the size of the first-year class, and contained students from only two different courses (as opposed to three in the case of the first-year group); I believed this would facilitate a higher level of group cohesion. In fact, the use of drama activities with both the second- and third-year classes (the latter in collaboration with Mr. Huber) were more successful, probably because the students were more familiar with each other and with me (and, in the case of the third-years, Mr. Huber), and also with their environment.

I first introduced paired role-playing activities using physical movement to the second-year class (as an example see Appendix B: Exercise 1). Drawing on my experience with the first-years, the second-years were allowed to pair up with whomever they chose to sit on entering the classroom during this initial phase, an approach recommended by di Pietro (1987: 71):

Allowing students to seek out their own groups with whom to work improves the chances that they will be productive in their learning tasks.

Exercises for larger groups followed from the paired exercises (as an example see Appendix C: Exercise 2), leading ultimately to whole-group exercises (see Appendices IV and V: Im Restaurant.). Way (1973: 44) advocates this method, as it allows for different stages of development in the use of drama in the classroom to be achieved in a natural fashion:

[…] it is wisest to allow opportunity for early practice and mastery to be entirely personal, individual and isolated; following this, little by little one learns how to share with other people, developing from the few to the many, often working with one’s own friends in natural social grouping.

This gradual phasing in of group exercises was coupled with a change in the physical layout of the classroom, and adding props, to accommodate the transition to more elaborate role-playing required by Exercise 3 (see Appendix D).

During their performance of these exercises, the students responded well to tension-creating dramatic devices; for example, during Phase 4 of Exercise 3 (Im Restaurant), they quickly learnt to distract the others at their table in an attempt to rid themselves of the ‘poisoned’ red wine glass (see Pictures 1 and 2)², and they reacted promptly to news of their cars being towed, by leaving the restaurant to deal with the problem outside before returning (see Picture 3). The waiter demonstrated an ability to think quickly and respond in German when dealing with customer complaints (see Picture 4), and, where vocabulary was lacking, he and the other students utilised paralinguistic communication skills to compensate. Personae were adopted to a certain extent, although I believe that the students did not fully ‘get into character’ during any of the exercises. It is probable that they did not perform a sufficient number of exercises to become comfortable with this method; the grammar-orientated syllabus prevented the inclusion of a greater number of activities.