Author: courtneyshields

“What do general education classroom teachers need to do in order to support the academic English development of language learners, especially when English learners are one of many types of students they serve?” (Himmel, 2012)

In her article “Language Objectives: The Key to Effective Content Area Instruction for English Learners,” Jennifer Himmel provides a helpful step-by-step breakdown of what strategies general education classroom teachers can use to create Language Objectives that will support the learning of ELL students in their classes. I found her basic guideline that these objectives “should involve the four language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing),” a particularly useful concept for use in my own classroom.

As a future drama teacher, I’ve struggled throughout this course with the idea of including more academic language in my lesson plans, because in many cases students who are drawn to drama and theatre courses are seeking refuge from the more academic subjects. Now I realize that there are students who need as much exposure as possible to the academic English language in a variety of contexts. And it’s not as if I have to redo my entire curriculum to incorporate ways to support this need. It can be as simple as creating and posting frames (for a start), to help my students access language objectives with more clarity. Which is useful for all my students – not just my ELLs.

Although, as a general rule, drama teachers try to avoid too many writing assignments (to prevent turning our classes into English courses) – there are opportunities for small writing prompts that could help reinforce the process of using academic English in a low risk environment. By providing handouts as a part of informal performance feedback activities, I can ask students to “list, retell, summarize in writing, record” their observations and analyses about a performance. Or as a part of a game, I could ask students to “define and use” key theatre vocabulary or “demonstrate” key concepts to illustrate their understanding. When I really stop and reflect, there are a lot of ways I can turn my drama classroom into another space where all my students can practice their academic English skills. I just have to open my eyes to new possibilities.

How can I use drama texts like “Hong Kong, Canada” as a tool to engage ELL students in my classroom?

Now that I’ve recovered from my initial rant regarding “Hong Kong, Canada:” (https://blogs.ubc.ca/lled360/2013/11/27/mixed-messages/) – I’m able to reflect on what a valuable tool a text like this can be in my drama classroom. Many of the plays that are celebrated in Western theatre education could be viewed as a “white boys club.” There are considerably less plays that celebrate female voices, and even fewer that feature positive representations of racial minorities. As a drama teacher, I feel that it is my responsibility to make texts available to my students that represent the same levels of diversity that exist in our classroom community.

A text such as “Hong Kong, Canada” would be a good place to start. It is the ideal length for a scene study project – or could even be put up as a class play. But I now understand that it isn’t enough to just touch on the issues that are presented in “Hong Kong, Canada” with one project. Diversity needs to be represented in the classroom on a more regular basis.

It’s my goal to discover other plays that explore a variety of cultures without stereotyping them. I’m also keen to explore types of theatre from outside of the Western influence. Once I (hopefully) have my own classroom, I might be able to bring in theatre experts from different regions to do workshops with my students. I realize that I can’t expect my students to grasp the complexities of a type of theatre they’ve never been exposed to before with one workshop – but at least I would be able to introduce them to a more authentic experience than I would be able to provide myself.

I also plan to give my students the opportunity to present work in their home languages. I witnessed a monologue exercise that was performed by one of my classmates during the UBC BFA in his home language of Spanish – and it was incredible how the entire class was able to understand the nuances of his emotions without knowing what the monologue was about. It was profoundly moving, and I hope that such an exercise in my own classroom would not only benefit the performers, but also my English-speaking students as well.

This is merely a starting point – but I plan to go further from here.

Alfie Kohn’s “The Case Against Grades” is a thought-provoking piece that has me reflecting on how I have been impacted by the pressure of grades during my journey through Studentdom – and how I want to deal the issue of letter grades in my potential future classroom. I wholeheartedly agree that “collecting information doesn’t require tests, and sharing that information doesn’t require grades” (8), and I believe that Chapter 9 of our Zwiers textbook has offered some very useful alternatives to testing in the classroom. However, the idea of eliminating grades as a tool for “sharing that information” is a more complex issue.

Kohn’s “big three findings” (9), are compelling evidence in the campaign against grades. In particular, when I examine these findings through the lens of my own learning career at UBC – I can’t help but see some truth in them. I can think of countless examples where the stress of fulfilling assignment requirements for the sake of a grade caused me to have decreased interest in a subject I was previously passionate about (and often created resentment towards said subject), or created an easiest-way-out mentality. The extrinsic motivation of “success matters more than learning” (9) was the driving force behind almost every essay I wrote during my undergrad. I would try to base my writings in knowledge I already had instead of taking the initiative research something new. I’ll even admit that I’ve caught myself using survival tactics to get a “P” on assignments here in the B’Ed. Now I realize that I don’t want my own students to share this experience.

I spoke about this in my blog on Chapter 9 – that I hope to encourage more rigourous student involvement in the process of learning, as opposed to privileging a “successful” final product. In theatre education, there is a great deal of opportunity to spend quality time on building up a repertoire of micro skills that can be applied to performance eventually, but can exist in the form of fun games and activities on their own. When dealing with performance-based assessment projects, (as will sometimes be necessary in drama class), I will have conversations with students about what they think a “higher level of performance” looks like – and design transparent rubrics that reflect the qualities discussed by the students (with some input from me as well). I noticed that Kohn describes the rubric as “a depressingly standardized assessment tool” (11), and I can understand that point of view – but I still think that it could be a useful tool in my classroom. Especially if I give my students a voice in establishing these rubrics.

Concerning the reality of eliminating grades: I don’t think it’s possible in the current Education System. Grades are so deeply entrenched in the pedagogy. Just yesterday – in my Methods Course, my instructor said “You have to be prepared and able to assign a numeric value to the work and progress of your students’ at any given moment.” It’s a depressing thought, but I will strive to also give my students as much qualitative summary of their progress as humanly possible. Drama is such a personal means of expression that I expect it will be sometimes be difficult to assign grades to my students’ work without damaging their sense of self-worth. However, I consider it a very serious responsibility to protect my students, and validate their work – even while assigning them grades.

Is there any other way?

I was intrigued when Chapter 9 suggested introducing performance-based summative assessment into various content areas – but noticed that there is no alternative offered for those subjects that are ALREADY performance based, like drama or music. If the other subject areas are operating under the belief that the “advantage of non-test performance assessments is their adaptability to meet the needs of students with different learning styles” (231), how can the performing arts adapt to meet the same diverse set of needs? Should those subjects instead re-introduce test assessment for the sake of variety?

Obviously not, but that does beg the question what to do instead? Student-led lectures are always an option – but too much lecturing in a drama room can be tedious for kinesthetic learners, and often each group mimics the style of activities established by the first group of presenters. The production of written work such as an editorial letter, book/play review, a children’s book, poems, stories and How-to Manuals (234), seems anti-climatic if it is not accompanied with the opportunity to present the published works. But presenting these works orally leads us back to a performance-based assessment. You might note that my struggle has established a pattern…

However, there is ample opportunity for formative assessment along the way. Drama assessment in particular, often relies on participation activities that are designed to get students engaged in the process of drama – which lessens the emphasis on grading a final performance, or a product. Such participation activities are a good way to gage whether or not students are grasping the micro skills and basic concepts required to progress into more complex (summative) work. I also think that formative assessment activities allow for low risk check-ins for students to demonstrate new language skills. Overall, I applaud the idea of including performance-based assessment in a variety of subjects, but will strive to find ways to offer more frequent formative assessments in my classroom.
 

The World of Rhetoric and Debate

When broaching the subject of Academic Language in a theatre classroom, many teachers go the route of Shakespeare. The reason for this? We’re aware that the majority of our students are drawn to the drama classroom to escape the world of desks and writing. Therefore, the easiest justification to incorporate a unit that requires students to participate in an analysis of language and meaning is to study the works of The Bard. However, I think many teachers wish to avoid the trap of turning the drama room into an English class – so often this unit tends to privilege teaching students to understand the meaning behind the language rather than focusing on the academic rhetoric Shakespeare uses to compose his character’s arguments. Also, it is difficult for students to connect to the academic complexity of language that feels so out of date.

After reading Chapter 8, I found myself reflecting on the opening quote: “All teachers are writing teachers” (195). However, I struggled to picture how many of the strategies suggested by the text to scaffold academic writing would be successfully incorporated into a drama perspective. Thinking back to Shakespeare and the importance of rhetoric to the development of his characters and their arguments, I found my inspiration: By having students participate in a performed debate – I would have a unique opportunity to have them explore/practice expository/persuasive writing.

I imagine I would divide the class into two teams, and via a group discussion, a topic would be decided on. At the end of the week, the teams would present their arguments in a friendly debate. Each individual student would be required to “present a main point and support it with evidence” (199) during the live debate performance.

Leading up to the debate, I would design classes that allowed them to practice their pre-writing skills, and would provide any struggling students with the framework they need as an entry point into this style of writing. I might have students participate in more informal activities like writing Pros/Cons with a partner, or have them brainstorm using the Persuasion Scale (Figure 8.3).

I think this activity would be a fun way to incorporate one genre of academic writing into a drama classroom – and I hope to continue to discover more strategies and exercises to provide writing opportunities for my students.

(My Initial Reactions to “Hong Kong, Canada”)

After reading Tara Goldstein’s “Hong Kong, Canada” (twice), I have to say, I’m very intrigued by the opportunity to explore this piece as a drama based activity that deals with the complex issues ELL students face in their school communities. However, I have some concerns! While it’s clear that Goldstein has taken great care to give voice to her characters based on those that she observed as being silenced or even oppressed during her ethnographic fieldwork, I find the development of those characters that appear on the “wrong side” of this controversial issue, troubling. In this case, I am referring to the characters Joshua and Sarah.

The first time the audience meets Sarah, we watch in disapproval as she literally kisses another girl’s boyfriend in front of the poor girl – granted, on the cheek, but her intent (and disregard for Wendy’s feelings) is clear. Meanwhile, in the very next scene, we watch as Josh blatantly ignores Sam’s request to turn off the radio program even though Sam admits that it makes him uncomfortable. As the play develops we see Josh manipulate Sarah by flirting with her in order to get her to write an article for his paper, constantly interrupt others or refuse to see their point of view; we see him walk out on his girlfriend after she confronts him about refusing to introduce her to his family, and combine forces with Sarah to create a petition for an English-only policy at their school. I recognize that these are the characters that I am not meant to agree with as an audience member – but should I also dislike them outside of their controversial political/personal opinions? Why are there no scenes that offer a “softer side” to either of these characters?

In her notes following the play, Goldstein writes that Joshua should be played as “as confused and uncertain rather than confident and cocky.” She also writes that Sarah should be seen as “vulnerable so that she would not be represented as a self-interested, ‘bitchy’ Jew.” Informing the audience how she envisions these characters should be played is problematic for me, because I’m not convinced that these versions of the characters are clearly represented in the text. Of course, having an actor breathe life into any role changes the way an audience will understand the character on the stage vs. the way they appear on the page. However, it is the job of the playwright to make the intentions of the characters and their actions clear whether the reader has had the opportunity to see a live action version or not. It is not enough to ask the actor to play the characters as “vulnerable” or “confused” in a footnote. We need to see these scenes as a functional part of the story.

We do see a hint of Joshua’s “confusion” in Scene 7, but the lights fade before we get an opportunity gage Josh’s reaction to his Nana’s speech. Also, this occurs almost halfway through the play, so most of the audience has already made up their minds about him AND he almost immediately reverts to being closed-minded, (and in my opinion unlikeable)! Both Josh and Sarah are characters that function as antagonists in this story. They are presented as angry, ignorant, and unable to see viewpoints outside of their own. I realize that this version of the script is missing the ending – and I’d like to think that these two characters are given even a moment of redemption, but I somehow doubt it.

So I guess the point of this rant is – when writing/staging a political piece of theatre, should we represent those characters who the audience is meant to disagree with as horrible humans – or do these characters also deserve a range of emotional colours in order to create a more balanced representation of their point of view? Isn’t it our responsibility as teachers to offer our students fully realized versions of both sides of any issue, no matter how controversial it is? And if so, how would we apply this to a piece of writing such as “Hong Kong, Canada” where the text itself is meant to challenge one bias – but inadvertently creates a new one?

Recognizing and meeting the needs of ELL students can be difficult in a Drama Classroom – or so I discovered during my short practicum at Killarney Secondary, because there are fewer explicit indicators that these students might be struggling. I understand that is my responsibility as a teacher to get to know my students in order to make my classroom a space that is accessible to everyone, and after revisiting my school last Tuesday, I now realize that I still have a long way to go.

I witnessed an event that I’m having difficulty unpacking that involved a Grade 9 ELL student. On the day of my visit, the Grade 9’s were performing short scenes using 3 or 4 lines of dialogue while portraying different stock characters. However, after the student in question performed, my SA made a particular point of applauding his work, and exclaimed that “I’m so proud because, as the class may or may not know, English is not your first language – and you did very well. The character and the dialogue were very clear. Well done.” This comment was extremely sincere, in fact, it was apparent to me that my SA was quite emotional during this moment.

At first, I too was swept up by my SA’s enthusiasm in the heat of this moment. I felt that it was a moment of positive encouragement for this particular student, and offered recognition his accomplishments during the scene. However, when I was at home reflecting on my visit like a good little B’Ed student – I realized that I was feeling conflicted about what had happened. Even though it’s clear to me that my SA singled this student out to compliment him, by doing so he also highlighted that because “English is not [his] first language,” he is different from his classmates. The implicit message of this could be “I have different (ie. lower) expectations of you,” and by pointing this out to the class, it might actually change how this student is regarded by his peers.

So now I’m at an impasse, (and would appreciate input from my classmates). Is it better to single out our ELL students for the purpose of recognizing their progress – or does that only further separate them from the classroom community? What does the alternative look like?
Help!

Due to the fact that I am the worst blogger ever, I never did get around to doing a post about “Brick and Mortar Words.” Luckily – our recent journey into the world of Lesson Plans has highlighted for me just how necessary it is to keep track of these words in our subject areas. In a lecture that was designed to teach Grade 8 Drama students the important concept of the Proscenium Arch, I noticed something. Scattered throughout the text of my lecture, there were several other brick words.  As an experiment, I decided to highlight these words for the purpose of counting them.  There were 16 on the first page. (And I hadn’t even gotten to the worksheet that had a section of brick words that were specific to the Proscenium Arch!) In one page that was designed to explain one term – 16 other terms had cropped up that would also, (probably), need explanation. And such an explanation would definitely take up more than the 10 minutes I had allotted for the lecture section of the lesson plan.
Especially if we consider that in order for students to truly learn each of these new brick words, they will have to see it, hear it, and use it in context.  Which leads me to wonder, how will I ever get anything done in my class?!

After I had finished having that panic attack – I decided to continue to explore the lesson plan for mortar words. I discovered words like define, identify, demonstrate, represent, explain, and so on. Without my even realizing it, I had helped create a lesson plan could potentially take the entire semester to unpack. I realize now, this exercise not only provided me with a lesson I’ll be able to use in my classroom, but also gave me a very tangible demonstration about how conscious we as teachers, need to be of the language we’re using. Hopefully, I’ll be able to come up with some strategies to better incorporate “brick and mortar words” into my lesson plans without ending up with a list of words that require explanation.