Changes in Sociometric Status Following Drama Education: A Longitudinal Study in Czech Republic Širůček, J. Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies, Brno, Czech republic

Special thanks... To professor Peter K. Smith (University of London, Department of psychology) For patient help with an abstract of this paper

Drama education in Czech schools  10 years of experience with drama education in CZ  Drama education is not a common part of curriculum  Implemented as consequence of changes in “general school education plans”, pronouncing core competencies:  Communication skills  Social and personal skills  Learning skills  Problem solving skills  Civic skills  Work skills ... In addition to conservative focus on frontal teaching and knowledge, typical for Czech school system

Ways and methods of drama education  Game play, dramatic etudes and theatre performances support growth of core competencies by  Experience with wording own opinions & listening and appraising to others` opinions (communication skills)  Role-taking in game play makes new emotional experience accessible (social and personal skills)  Information seeking & processing enhance learning skills  Analysis of social conflicts in drama etudes affects problem solving skills  Moral aspects of drama education scenarios & open theatre performances for broader school community supports civic skills  Preparation of stage decorations, costumes etc. encourage work skills  As result, global positive changes in social relations in classes are expected  And dramatic etudes could be used in constructive solving of specific conflicts or difficult social situations happening in everyday life in classroom

Research aim & design  Evaluate possible changes in peer relations related to drama education implementation  With special respect to problematic social relations in classes  Two-wave longitudinal study with control group

Two-wave longitudinal study  4 intervention classes & 4 control classes:  Matched by grade  2 fifth-grade classes (N=21 & N=28)  4 sixth-grade classes (N=47 & N=43)  2 seventh-grade classes (N=23 & N=29)  Control classes were from same school as experimental  Selection of intervention classes:  Based on school headmasters` reference  Classes with suspect onset of bullying or with difficult social relations within pupils  Without any previous experience drama education  Without any previous or currently running preventive program focused on social relations or bullying  Headmasters reference based on reports of class teachers & educational counselors (school psychologist not present)  Selection of control classes  Classes considered as “healthy” in terms of social relations  Again based on school headmasters` reference  1st wave of date collection in September 2008, 2nd at the end of June 2009

Drama education implementation  Instructors:  Four PhD students of special pedagogy  3-4 years of experience with drama education  All of them active teachers on another schools than those in sample  Provided with regular supervision (monthly meetings with their leader)  Participated voluntarily on project, with only a symbolic reward  Drama education in intervention classes:  Two hours each two weeks  Drop-outs of hours occurred in all classes, about 10% of time

Method - Nomination technique (NT)  Set of 18 items, based on tool traditionally used by Czech school psychologist in assessment of peer relations  Enriched by more items to ensure better reliability and wider interpretation  2 cumulative scales  Prosocial behavior (K = 8; alpha = 0,91)  Items as “who is helpful?” or “who is trustworthy?”  Conflict behavior (K = 8; alpha = 0,93)  Items as “who starts quarrels or hassles?” or “who is hostile toward others?”  2 single questions  Influence: “who has influence on others?”  Dismissal: “who is only for himself?”  Dimensional structure  Prosocial & conflicts scales linearly independent (r = 0,12)  Prosocial & influence in mediocre correlation (r = 0,30)  Conflicts & dismissal highly correlated (r = 0,8!)  Lack of valid scale of social isolation  Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (Goodman), completed by class teacher  Perceived peer relations questionnaire & state anxiety scale included as self-report  Data still not available for analysis

Results – group comparison  Control group:  Influence (p = 0,008; Cohen`s D = 0,36)  Intervention group:  Prosocial behavior (p = 0,018; Cohen`s D = 0,16)  Conflict behavior (p = 0,009; Cohen`s D = 0,22)  Influence (p = 0,018; Cohen`s D = 0,32)

Prosocial behavior – class comparison  Control group:  3 significant effects, 2 increases & 1 decrease in class means  Intervention group:  2 significant effects, both slightly increasing  2 “stability” lines  Greater variability of changes in control group

Conflict behavior – class comparison  Control group:  3 significant effects, 2 increases & 1 decrease in class means again  Intervention group:  3 significant effects, all increasing  Greater variability of changes in control group again  1 stability line in both groups

Influence – class comparison  Control group:  2 significant effects, 1 extreme increase (Cohen`s D = 2,45!) & 1 slight increase  2 stability lines  Intervention group:  3 significant effects, all with mediocre increasing  Greater variability of changes in control group again

Discussion of results  In intervention vs. control group comparison,  Medium increasing effects were found in prosocial behavior, conflict behavior and influence in experimental group  Surprisingly, also “negative” effect of increased rate of conflict behavior  In control group, influence increased only  First interpretation:  Drama education positively affects children`s social skills  Increase in prosocial behavior reflects drama education`s focus on expressing own emotions and understanding others  These growing capacities results in more prosocial behavior in peer group  Increase in conflict behavior is interpreted as growing self-confidence and ability to openly name problematic or unwanted behavior in group of peers  Pupils are more willing to indicate problem behavior in nomination technique ... And possibly to face it in active way, which leads to more conflicts in class

Discussion of results  But... What about those inconsistencies between specific classes?  Higher variability of spontaneous changes in control group  2 increasing & 1 decreasing trend in both prosocial and conflict scale  Group comparison results are consequence of higher variance of scores in control group, wave 3  Exactly, results are caused by strong decrease in only one class  Based on this (small) sample, no strong support for drama education effect is evident  Maybe NT is not the right tool?  NT measures outcomes only, social processes leading to outcomes are hidden in “black box”  More intensive research is needed  Focused on more on social process, and not only outcomes of drama education  Qualitative research based on observation

THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION Jan Sirucek