Design of the Process Drama Workshop

A published process drama was used for design of the workshop. Several alterations were customised for the specific group. Principles for ensuring engagement, derived from the work of Kao and O’Neill, were employed. These principles included the importance of pretext and tension, use of variable dynamics and forms of questioning (Kao and O'Neill 1998). Further principles used that evolved from their research in designing process drama include initiating the drama in role, choosing a theme appropriate to the level of the students, providing opportunities for multiple roles and allowing for reflection (Kao and O'Neill 1998: 13).

Research and guides for teachers exploring drama as a teaching methodology were also drawn upon in the design (Bernal 2007; Bräuer 2002; Cunico 2005; Liu 2002; Murillo M 2007). Specific process drama conventions were scheduled to ensure use of these in the workshop (Neelands and Goode 2000). An expert drama facilitator was employed to conduct the program. The workshops were advertised on an online social networking group for drama teachers and the successful facilitator selected from applicants based on their experience with process drama and interest in English language instruction and drama research.

The researcher and facilitator met multiple times to go over the program and provide input in redesign of the process drama for this research. Principles of distancing were considered to ensure opportunities for metaxis and intercultural intimacy (Piazzoli 2013). There was special attention placed on introducing

pre-text and linguistic input at the beginning and at several key points throughout each workshop. This was to ensure that students were exposed to different genre forms and realistic text types. The narrative of the drama and the selection of the pre-text was aimed at maximising possibilities for dramatic tension and student engagement. According to Piazzoli, the pre-text of a process drama should have a strong visual element, have intercultural potential and enable both process and product-oriented language (Piazzoli 2011b). These considerations were made in the later redesigns of the published process drama. Pictures and images were used to develop and enhance the pretext in each workshop. Similarities between the participants’ real and imagined worlds were designed to be highlighted and made explicit in activities during the process dramas to increase the intercultural potential.

Incorporating the theme of the Australian Goldrush in the 1850s, the narrative of the process drama began in Victorian London, enrolling students as potential immigrants bound for Australia hoping to find gold. The first workshop was based around leaving London for a new country, Australia. The second workshop was set on board the ship ‘Balengeich’, an actual ship that set sail for Australia in the 1850s. During a fictional storm the participants experienced the loss of a character ‘Little Johnny’ who was thrown overboard by the sea and mourned by the rest of the passengers. The third workshop was set in Sydney and the goldfields of Ballarat where the participants role-played finding gold. This process drama was chosen because of the parallels to the journey international students undertake in choosing to study in Australia and this element was heightened in the redesigns. There was hope that this would enhance the outcome of the process drama technique of distancing and increase student engagement. The lesson plan for the three workshops is detailed in the Appendix as a key reference source for this thesis. It is presented in its entirety to give an overview of the journey the participants made in the three workshops. This process drama was originally presented in Planning Process Drama (Bowell and Heap 2001) but modified and repurposed for this specific set of participants with approval of the original authors. Included in the Appendix are the drama and language activities that were conducted by the facilitator. In the original process drama, the initial focus was ‘what makes human beings give up what they know and take a long and difficult journey in the hope of something better at the end’ (Bowell and Heap 2001: 91). During the replanning, greater emphasis at the beginning of the workshops was given to the facilitator and less to the participants to accommodate for the lower level of English in the group. This was intentional. As the workshops progressed, the replanning was designed to allow for scaffolding through playbuilding to support both the language and dramatic development of the participants.

Stage 2 – Selection of Participants as Case Studies

An advertisement was published in a student online newsletter at the research site and on the university’s website. 42 students applied for the program. Teachers at the location were sent a statement to read in each class to encourage students to enrol voluntarily. Out of the 42 students, 35 were university students and the rest were external to the university. The enrolled students were then sent detailed information about the workshop, including the Participant Consent Form and Participant Information Sheet

electronically in survey format (University of Sydney HREC Approval Protocol 14522, 2012). The survey was built using an online survey tool and included ten questions about the participants’ experience in drama and language learning. The objective was to collect data about the students to enable selection of participants likely to respond to the workshops. Selecting students with some experience in drama to maximise the possibility of involvement was considered important, as understanding and appreciation of the art form is stated in the literature to be a requirement for dramatic engagement (Bundy 2003; Haseman and Winston 2010). The aim of the research was to ensure heightened dramatic engagement for a select set of students to explore the phenomenon and hopefully provide an opportunity for aesthetic engagement. However, a large enough cohort of students was needed to ensure dynamism and collaboration in the classroom and allow for varied combinations of group work. Therefore, twelve students were chosen based on their responses to the survey, English language ability and experience with drama. Two students withdrew before the first workshop, leaving the final ten. Students with a self- reported English language ability of lower than IELTS 5.0 (lower intermediate) as measured by the International English Language Test System (IELTS 2018) were withdrawn from the sample to ensure that participants had the capability to complete reflective journals and participate in discussion during video recall. Table 1 represents a list of the final ten participants. The names have been changed to aliases to protect the privacy of the participants.

Table 1: Participant List

Name Nationality Sex Age IELTS Key

1 Eve Singapore Female 21 7.5 STU5

2 Jiao Chinese Male 21 6.5 STU6

3 Mateo Spanish Male 32 7.5 STU1

4 Kang Chinese Male 23 6.5 STU4

5 Yuko Japanese Female 21 7.5 STU7

6 Shui Chinese Female 19 6.5 STU8

7 Leandro Spanish Male 21 6.5 STU9

8 Fae Chinese Female 24 7.0 STU10

9 Hiro Japanese Male 43 5.0 STU3

10 Mee Korean Female 22 6.0 STU2

The pre-workshop surveys indicated that participants were from a variety of cultural backgrounds, age, sex and English level as measured by the International English Language Test System (IELTS). This data is further explored in Chapters Four, Five, and Six.

In this research, transcripts were used to unpack moments of dramatic engagement. The experiences of four key participants were isolated. These participants were chosen from the ten participants in the study for cross-analysis and comparison. These four participants reported being engaged with the process drama and represented varying experiences of dramatic engagement. They were chosen to invite to the video recall as they represented four different cultural backgrounds (Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Japanese) and four varying levels of English (IELTS 5.0, 6.0, 6.5 and 7.5). They also seemed the most engaged. The descriptions of the four participants have been crafted from the pre-workshop survey answers (PWS1), the researcher notes (RN1) and the teacher / facilitator interviews (TEI). The following descriptions of the participants are made below.

Mateo (Student/Participant 1)

Mateo is 32 years old, from Spain and has an upper-intermediate level of English. He presents as confident, articulate and energetic. He moved to Sydney to study English at a language school. His highest qualification is a diploma. He reported in the interview being involved in drama activities in language learning and acted in plays when he was a child. He commented that he strongly believes in the benefits of learning a language through drama and likes classes that are fun.

Kang (Student/ Participant 2)

Kang is 23 years old and from China. He is in Sydney studying English for university entry and has an upper intermediate level of English. He has an undergraduate degree and the field notes comment he presents as confident, cheeky and willing to take risks. He reported he has some experience with vocal exercises and performance in class and believes in learning by doing.

Hiro (Student/Participant 3)

Hiro is 43 years old, from Japan and has a PhD in speech pathology. His English level is lower intermediate. He reported that he believes in rote learning and needs to write down words to remember them. He is in Sydney for research collaboration at a university. The researcher notes comment that he presents as enthusiastic and eager to learn about learning.

Mee (Student/Participant 4)

Mee is 22 years old, from Korea and is intermediate in English. Her language learning goals are to study for the Cambridge Advanced English (CAE) test. The researcher field notes comment that she presents as shy and timid, although goal driven. Her highest qualification is an undergraduate degree. She strongly believes her speaking is weak. Mee has some experience in language games and role- play. The field notes comment that she likes to watch Korean soap operas and American television drama. She reports learning best by rote learning.