Costos Indirectos de Fabricación Aplicados

In this section, current and seminal literature on drama and ESL/EFL is reported. The literature that specifically covered the niche area of drama in ESL at the time of writing this this thesis seemed to be sparsely populated, requiring me to dip into other related or more general fields.

There has been a sizeable amount of research that informs the field of drama in first language (L1) acquisition (Stinson & Winston, 2011; Wagner, 1998). Using drama to teach EAL, or any other L2 for that matter, can take on many different, albeit related forms. Maley and Duff (1983, 2005) use what they call drama techniques, which, in their usage, are specific techniques that actors use on stage, and transpose them to the language classroom context. Some of these can be as simple as vocalising vowels and voice projection to the more complex acting in roles and overcoming problems in role. Wessels’ (1987) work also borders on a very similar concept of using drama techniques in a language classroom, although she generically labels the work as drama. Di Pietro (1987) recommended structured teaching using role-play scenarios that focused on language acquisition during the process of problem solving, and not so much the product. Di Pietro labelled this method of teaching as Strategic Interaction, where the students had full control over the dialogue and the outcome of the scenario. There would be at least two roles that had to genuinely interact with each other, and the students would have to use the language at their disposal to communicate to reach their desired outcome.

Kao and O’Neill (1998) in their landmark publication drew on in-depth, detailed analysis of process dramas carried out in Taiwan. They introduce a comprehensive continuum of drama approaches for L2, where on the one end the discourse is scripted and instructional, and the focus is on accuracy and performance, and as it progresses the discourse becomes more natural and spontaneous, and the focus is

37

on fluency and communication. The examples of the approaches given, if following this continuum, start from scripted role-play, and progress through dramatized story, language games, simulations, improvisional role-play, scenarios, and finally ending at process drama, which Kao and O’Neill consider to be pinnacle of drama approaches that lead to authenticity and fluency in communication (1998, p.6). Recent research on using process drama to teach additional languages has also demonstrated favourable results in achieving more authentic and natural communication in students (Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Stinson & Freebody 2006; Stinson 2008). However, it has to be noted that process drama itself is still a label, and that other drama approaches, Heathcote’s mantle of the expert (1995) being such a one, do exist and many of them are not mutually exclusive. Kao and O’Neill’s (1998) work on process drama drew from the analysis of the fieldwork carried out in the Taiwanese ESL context. In Malaysia, only a single study has been documented on the use of process drama in the ESL classroom (see Samat, 2010). Analysis of the survey reported in the study suggested that the students felt a significant rise in their communicative competence in English, as well as a rise in their levels of motivation and engagement in the lessons (ibid). While contemporary research leans towards the value of real life language in drama pedagogy, Cheng and Winston (2011) take on a different approach by postulating that using Shakespeare in the language classroom can provide a stimulating, fun and liberating experience, with enough richness in language and depth in emotional engagement to provide a stimulating learning setting for learners. The context in which Cheng and Winston’s (2011) study, which can be seen as reactionary against the typical bounded learning found in Taiwanese textbooks, sheds some light as to why Shakespeare was chosen as a learning medium. Cheng and Winston use Bakhtin’s (1981) political and pragmatic rationale, Cook’s (2000) language learning theories, and the raw power of Cicely Berry’s praxis (1993) as examples where the dramatic and linguistic elements of Shakespeare justify its use over the conventional textbooks. This reactionary stance towards bounded learning in textbooks forms the foundation of one of the primary teaching methods that I use in the study, called staging the textbook. The suitability of the textbook in a language classroom is one that has undergone much debate. Allwright (1981) wrote the provocatively titled article What do we want teaching materials for? that questioned the suitability of textbooks for different sets of learners with different needs. However, contrary to the seemingly hard stance against textbooks that the title suggests, Allwright did not call for total abandonment of the textbook. He acknowledged that there was merit in the deficiency view where the textbook properly covered the syllabus and contained well-planned exercises to save learners from any deficiency in teachers (pg. 6); and in the difference view where the expertise in writing materials is different to that of the teacher, whose expertise lays in interpersonal skills to make the classroom a conducive learning environment (pg. 6). Nevertheless, Allwright follows by stating that these views operate based on the assumption that the best decisions are made by the people with the most relevant expertise, and further goes on to invite the reader to question whether they were indeed the right people for the job. Allwright’s view is one of two positions in which the ‘anti-textbook’ view is divided: the ‘strong’ view that calls for total abandonment of the textbook in favour of teacher-made resources; and Allwright’s ‘weak’ view that the materials found in textbooks are

38

somehow inadequate, but can be used if the teacher is able to identify the needs of the students and adapt the material (Harwood, 2005). Interestingly, adapting materials to overcome inadequacies also falls under the pro-textbook position, where the textbook materials become ‘bridges’ to stimulate teacher’s thinking and become the basis for providing the most appropriate classes in their teaching context (ibid). Here, Cheng and Winston’s (2011) position on using Shakespeare is one where they recommend its inclusion as creative bridges in a language programme that is heavily dependent on formal textbooks.

Bodily-kinaesthetic learning, as a part of Gardner’s (1983, 1993, 1999) multiple intelligences theory, features extensively in many parts of drama pedagogy, especially seeing that drama is physical in nature (Maley & Duff, 2005). Gardner’s categorisation of multiple intelligences enables the practitioner and the researcher to better describe their teaching tools as well as what is happening in their teaching contexts. Rothwell (2011) describes the effect of kinaesthetic learning as part of authentic, multimodal interaction that that forms a crucial element in intercultural literacy, which if integrated more consciously in the language classroom, could “stimulate, scaffold and authenticate the verbal participation of beginner learners” (p.575). Bakhtin’s (1981) socio-cultural model of language interaction also anchors Rothwell’s research. According to Bakhtin, language is formed by both the opposing tensions between what is conditioned as the meaning of an utterance, and also what is brought into the meaning of the utterance by the speaker/learner. Kress (2004) builds on Bakhtin’s model by adding that the individual’s power to give a personalised meaning to the learnt utterance paves the way for interest, which in turn compels the speaker to commit to the communication, and draw upon any communicative resources they have at their disposal, whether visual, oral, tactile, kinaesthetic or verbal – thus drawing upon the multimodalities to communicate.

Ntelioglou (2011) also looks at multimodality, as well as situated practice, as part of the multiliteracies pedagogy of a mandatory drama-based ESL course. Teaching using drama pedagogies itself is multimodal, as the teacher and students engage in multiple modals of communication – written text, speech, movement, story, are some examples. Consistent with what is explored by Cheng and Winston (2011) regarding the perceived inadequacies of certain education systems with respect to more traditional ‘one size fits all’ approaches, it has been observed that these education systems fail to cater to the requirements of a student population that is becoming increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse (Cummins, 2001; Pennington, 2004; Nieto & Bode, 2008; Gandara and Rumberger, 2009; as cited in Nteliglou, 2011). As such Ntelioglou’s ethnographic study draws upon situated practice (New London Group, 1996) which utilise the students’ own life experiences to create a powerful, meaningful content with which the students can engage (2011, p.597). Their personal stories become the driving force of the lessons, drawing parallels from Kress’ (Kress, 2010) concepts of commitment to communicate, and an authentic context that is not restricted to one particular modality from which to learn.

Gee

(

1992

, p. 1) postulates that language and its meaning is social, where concepts like ‘meaning’ and ‘thinking’ are not the names of “mental entities residing privately in people’s heads”, but are rather the names of “socio-mental practices that extend

39

beyond the skin to include the world and society”. Sharing and experiencing personal stories in the language classroom through drama pedagogy creates a social learning experience. Roswell’s (2013) findings in her research concur with this where she states in her research that working with multimodality can be an act of story-telling, where the “germ of a text originates from an idea, belief, or concept woven into a story becomes material through modes”, and that the whole process of working with multimodality is collaborative, participatory, and relies on communities of practice.

Parallel to using drama to teach ESL/EFL, using drama pedagogies has also been applied to the teaching of other languages, whether they are first languages, or additional languages. Piazzoli (2011) used drama workshops as part of a third-year Italian language course at an Australian university, and the findings she obtained showed that the participants in the study were able to produce more authentic and spontaneous language, as opposed to ‘scripted’ language one would normally find in a typical language lesson. In the report of the study, this was attributed to the engagement the participants had to the role, contexts that were applicable to real life, and also the dramatic tension that was created in the drama sessions. Magos and Politi (2008) also report their study using role-play to teach Greek as a second language to immigrants in Greece. The stages of using the role-play technique can be summarised as follows: i) Teacher creates story, normally with a problem to be solved; ii) Students voluntarily select the role they want to play, and are encouraged to prepare and practice their scripts; iii) Role-play starts, with students encouraged to display behaviours and real-life responses to the situations they face in the drama/role-play; and finally iv) Feedback, which is given before the end of the exercise.

Additionally, Magos and Politi (2008) also raise the important issue of second language students being unable to engage in authentic spontaneous interaction with each other due to their limited linguistic ability, and thus to certain extent, scaffold the students’ learning with time for text creation and rehearsal. In a publication arising from this research, I also proposed similar tensions between the students’ existing linguistic knowledge, the linguistic knowledge they are supposed to have to complete a drama in ESL/EFL task, and the linguistic knowledge they are supposed to gain during and after they complete the drama in ESL/EFL task, and suggest providing adequate scaffolding for the learners (Nawi, 2013). Additionally, I also suggest that a teacher must strategically find some middle ground between what is typically done in a process drama lesson where students have the freedom to play with the texts, and a more tightly controlled language lesson, where students are given more structure and guidance, though sometimes at the expense of more freedom of expression (ibid). Magos and Politi (2008) found that students in the study valued the teacher’s corrective input, as it provided them with a yardstick of how to speak, and what to say. The teacher’s corrective input took the form of correcting the students’ mistakes in oral speech during the role-play, using the errors in the role-play to piggyback incidental targeted teaching of grammar, syntax and vocabulary. However, this was done in stages, especially in the beginning stages of using role-play, as there was also a focus on making the sessions fun and pleasant (Magos & Politi, 2008; Peregoy and Boyle, 2008) and safe, where the students felt protected in their ‘disguised

40

selves’, and were able to learn in a more relaxed, creative and inventive way (Maley, 1997; Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Heathcote, in Johnson & O’Neill, 1984; Baldwin, 2004; Maley & Duff, 2005, among others). Peregoy and Boyle (2008) sum up the relationship between scaffolding in drama and language proficiency by stating that "drama activities provide students with a variety of contextualized and scaffolded activities that gradually involve more participation and more oral language proficiency; they are also non- threatening and a lot of fun" (p.128).

One of the questions that may arise in response to using drama pedagogies is how much ‘art’ does the teacher have to know in order to be able to utilise drama pedagogy in the classroom, and utilise it well? Dunn and Stinson (2011, p.618) quote O’Neill (1991/2006, p.121), where she describes the part of the arts educator to be able to have “the confidence to shift both educational and artistic goals where appropriate”, which goes in line with Taylor’s (1995, p.48) concept of blending “the pedagogical and the aesthetic”, and Neelands’ (2009) notion that each drama lesson should infuse both elements of being an artistic as well as an educational journey (Dunn & Stinson, 2011). This then leads to other questions such as will the normal ESL/EFL ‘lay-teacher’ (a trained ESL/EFL teacher with minimal knowledge of drama pedagogies) be able to pick up the drama tools and use them in the classroom as a valid teaching tool, without having to be intensively trained until he or she becomes an expert in the field of drama? Can the skills of drama pedagogy even be passed on to the normal ‘lay-teacher’? Subsequently, Dunn and Stinson report two research projects carried out in Singapore, where observations were noted and comparisons were drawn between two groups of teachers – one consisting of experienced drama educators, and the other a group of experienced ESL teachers who were inexperienced in drama. The findings obtained in this report showed that the aesthetic value of the teachers’ art, as well as the teachers’ understanding of the foundations of drama pedagogies, did indeed influence the lessons. It was observed that without these elements, the teaching and learning experience had the potential to become diluted and reduced to just learning transactional, resulting in a great reduction of quality and depth in the student’s learning experience.

This tension between art and examinations is also explored by Stinson (2009), in the same study from which Dunn and Stinson (2011) report. In the study, Stinson (2009) carried out an intervention research project in Singapore to train drama pedagogies to ‘non-drama’ ESL teachers. Stinson wanted to investigate how in-service training would provide these ESL teachers with enough knowledge and confidence to be able to apply drama pedagogies independently in their own teaching. The research utilised Design Research methodology (Brown, 1992; A. Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; A. L. Collins, 1992; Kelly, 2004), as a way to make close modifications of the intervention to obtain a deep understanding of the research objectives. In essence, the challenge that was faced was the resistance, and in many cases mistaken ideas about drama, from many of the teachers in research towards implementing drama pedagogies. Stinson writes: “The teachers saw drama as a ‘trick’ to enliven lessons and a departure from the direct teaching and worksheets that was their normal practice, and struggled to recognise that

41

learning was taking place when there were fewer written artefacts to verify student progress” (Stinson, 2009, p.231). Additionally, Stinson notes that even the teachers who seemed most comfortable with using drama pedagogies reverted to ‘drill-and-practice’ approaches when examination time came around. However, this practice was not without its justifications, as one of the participant teachers had experienced a bad batch of test results from her students, who she had taught using drama pedagogies. Nevertheless, Stinson reports that there appeared to be no direct correlation between the lower examination results and using drama pedagogies in the ESL classroom, though the connection could have been implied by the respective teachers.

It could be argued that the comparatively poor partial uptake of drama pedagogies amongst teachers mentioned in Stinson’s study was due to the different cultural context in which it was set. However, this does raise certain issues of appropriateness of drama pedagogy in relation to the cultural backgrounds of the students. Magos and Politi (2008) noted that in the Greek as a second language classroom in which they based their study, they observed a distinct difference between the students who were from Russian and Balkan countries, and those who were from Muslim countries. The Muslim students were generally seen to be more reserved in their participation in the dramatic activities. However, this description seems to be overgeneralised, as Magos and Politi compare geographical culture against religious culture (i.e Greek, Russian, Balkan, vs Muslim), which can be argued as potentially misleading due to the difference in the categorisation (country vs religion). Nevertheless, the central observation that can be gleaned from Magos and Politi (2008) is that it cannot be denied that cultural values have to be taken into consideration when implementing a teaching and learning system that is completely different than to what students, or even the teachers themselves, are used to. Lai-wa, Yuk-lan, Yin and Shuk-kuen (2011, p.157) concur by stating that getting learners to respond in the classroom is a major issue in Asia, where “Asian learners are reluctant to participate in classroom discourse, unwilling to give response, do not ask questions, and remain passive and over-dependent on the teacher” (Braddock et al. 1995; Jones et al. 1993; Tsui 1996, cited in Cheng 2000).

However, Cheng (2000) also argues that this explanation should not be a blanket statement, as there may be other causes to the passivity and lack of participation in Asian students. These causes may arise from various sources, including unsuitable methodology (which of course may be heavily influenced by cultural attributes), and, in the context of a language classroom, language proficiency that does meet the required standard. Correspondingly, in a research project carried out in Malaysia, I also observed similar behaviour from the participants, especially in the initial stages, who reported that they found it difficult to adjust to a

In document Diseño de un sistema de costos por órdenes de producción para la Fábrica Rio Textil de la ciudad de Riobamba provincia de Chimborazo (página 59-67)