When we started to analyze the data we were very discouraged after producing Figure 4.
This figure is a map of the lecture room where each chair has a different code (A2, B6, etc.) and a number indicating the average mark of all the studentsdifferent students in different dayswho sat in this place (of course, taking into account repetitions).
Depending on the mark, each chair has a different colour according to the following table:
Clearly, this figure discards our initial hypothesis that best marks were in the first rows and worst marks were in the last rows. Contrarily, the two best marks are in the last row. However, this is not concluding because the rest of marks are randomly
82
distributed; and thus, we could not determine were the best and worst marks are. In principle, it seemed that they are not related to chairs.
Figure 4: Average mark of sits in the lecture room
After we produced Figure 4, we analyzed the data related to the laboratory (see Figure 5), and we discovered one important and unexpected relation: best marks are concentrated in the last rows of the laboratory. In fact, all pink chairs are in the second half of the laboratory; and there is only one red and one orange chair in the last four rows. This result is completely contrary to the initial hypothesis.
Figure 5: Average mark of sits in the laboratory
It is also interesting to know the position of the students that went to the classes but did not go to the exam. In principle, one could think that these students are those who are less prepared, or at least, less interested in the subject.
Figures 6 and 7 show respectively the position of those students in the lecture room and in the laboratory. Here, each chair is labelled with a number that indicates the number of times a non-evaluated student sat there. Depending on the label, each chair has a different colour according to the following table:
83
This second sub-experiment confirms the previous one, because a very similar result is obtained. Firstly, data showed that non-evaluated students are seated randomly in the lecture room. But, contrarily, they prefer the front rows in the laboratory. Almost all blue, yellow and pink chairs are in the first four rows.
Figure 6: Lecture room’s sits used by non-evaluated students
There is another conclusion that can be extracted from this part of the experiment but not from the figureswe conclude this idea from the data in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Those students that only come to the classroom once or twice, and that do not go to the exam, sit at the last row; indeed if there is plenty of free space. For instance, in Figure 6, rows F and G have been only visited once in the whole course by this kind of students.
Figure 7: Laboratory’ sits used by non-evaluated students
The last part of the experiment focussed on the relation between the marks of a student and the marks of the classmates that sit around her.
84
The classmates of a student were easy to identify because in the laboratory, they have to share the computer. Therefore, students are seated by pairs and work together. To get the average mark we considered all the students that worked together (in the same computer) along the course.
The result of this study is depicted in Figure 8. There, X axis represent the mark of each student; and Y axis represent the average mark of her classmates. If the Y axis is zero, it means that the classmates did not do the exam.
Figure 8: Average mark of the students’ classmates
What we expected was something like a diagonal growing up from (0,0) to (8,8). This would mean that students with a high mark work with students with a high mark; and students with low marks work together. Nevertheless, the resulting chart is completely different: There are good students seated with bad students and vice versa without any apparent logic relation.
When we analyzed the data in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets in order to get a response, we discovered that, in general, all the students worked with the same classmate (they were seated together) along the whole course. A change of classmate was not frequent; and this is the cause of the chart.
We should remember that the experiment was done on a first-year group. This means that students did not know each other at the beginning of the course, and thus, they seated randomly in the first class. At this moment the couples were formed, and they continued along the course. We need more data to provide this result with a greater confidence, but we could give a preliminary conclusion: students are faithful to their classmates and they usually work together along the whole course.
From the previous result, we can also conclude that, in the collected data, there is not a direct relation between the mark of a student and the mark of her classmates.
85 3 Interpretation
The results of the experiment contradict the original starting hypothesis, and they suggest that the students with the best marks are seated at the end of the laboratory, or randomly at the lecture room. After the experiment, we changed our mind, and now we think that the original hypothesis could be good for secondary school, but not for the university.
After some interviews, we think that students in the front rows are students that are conscious of their limitations and they sit there to better interact the professor. In fact, the number of questions that come from last rows is sensible lower than the number of questions that come from the first rows. A student that can select any row, and she sits at the end of the class is implicitly saying to the professor “I am here to listen to you, not to participate. So do not ask me questions”.
We think that this experiment is a very good starting point to start a debate about how to handle the position of students in a classroom. Our main conclusions that configure our position are the following:
The position of a student in the classroom changes a lot along the course.
The position of a student in the laboratory is different from her position in the lecture room.
Many students are seated close to the blackboard in lectures, but they are seated far from the blackboard in the laboratory.
In the laboratory, best marks are in the second half part of the classroom.
In the lecture room, good and bad marks are distributed randomly around the classroom.
In the laboratory, people who will not be evaluated is seated in the first rows.
The very last row of the lecture room is only used by people who later does not go to the exam.
The same students work together along the whole course.
There is not a direct relation between the mark of a student and the marks of her classmates in the laboratory.
Apart from the discussions in this paper, there are many different possible reasons and consequences for each of the previous statements. They should be discussed and further investigated by the teaching community.
86 4 Conclusions
We have presented the results of an experiment performed in an engineering school.
They are surprising because they contradict our initial hypothesis. The analysis of the results has provided several interesting conclusions and ideas that would be very interesting to share with other professors and colleagues.
The most interesting result is that best marks in a laboratory correspond to those students who sit at the end. We are sure that the data of the experiment will motivate a vivid debate.
5 Future work
This experiment and the whole experience in general have been very satisfactory and have provided a lot of useful information. Next academic course, the same experiment will be massively applied in different courses from the same and other degrees.
The main objective is to confirm the results of this experiment and be able to extrapolate them to other kind of students and courses. The fact that in our experiment the position in the laboratory was relevant and the position in the lectures was not is probably due to the practice-oriented nature of the subject. However, a different subject may present different results.
Similarly, the configuration of groups in our experiment has been influenced by the fact that students were in their first-year course. The influence of classmates could be different in last-year students. This is something that must be studied.
Combining different experiments we will be able to identify classes of students depending on the subject and other parameters. This information could be crucial to define a methodology for the location of students.
The final objective is to determine where to locate each student to improve the overall quality of the teaching.
87 Acknowledgements
We want to thank our colleagues that helped to perform the experiments, and all the students that participated in the experiments and kindly filled in the forms.
References
Capwell-Burns, Amy, 2007. Exploring the formation of groups: students choose
their own fate. In the annual meeting of the NCA 93rd Annual Convention, TBA, Chicago, IL, Nov 15.
Karen Schweitzer, 2009. About.com: Business School, Study Groups - Forming a Study Group. Published at
http://businessmajors.about.com/od/studentresources/a/Study_Groups.htm NWEA, 2008. Norwest Evaluation Association, Guidelines for placing students.
Available from www.nwea.org
UM, 2009. University of Minnesota, Physics Research Groups, Cooperative groups.
Available from
http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/TAOrientation/Cooperative%20 Groups.pdf
88
P
RIMARY ANDP
REP
RIMARYE
DUCATION89
KNOWLEDGE CREATION, PLAY AND EDUCATIONAL DRAMA IN THE IRISH INFANT CLASSROOM
TRÍONA STOKES AND RUTH FORREST
Froebel College of Education, Dublin. Ireland
ABSTRACT
In this paper, the authors look at the nature and role of Play and Educational Drama in not only the Irish context but on an international one. The continuum is discussed. The writings of luminaries in Early childhood Education are mentioned as grounded theory, particularly that of Friedrich Froebel. The process nature is described as well as the role of teacher-intervention. A DVD of children “at work” in Educational Drama is presented and strategies suggested so as maximise the use and efficacy of these media as conduit for Knowledge Creation in its broadest sense.
Key Words: Educational Drama, Froebel, Play, Infant and Role-Play
“There’s nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come...” This was the sentiment of Victor Hugo in 1885. One could readily attach such a statement to the relevance and importance of play in education today. In times of economic and social change such as these, when uncertainty prevails in so many areas of life, grounded theory, particularly in the area of education points the way to the values, principles and methodologies we need to conserve, develop and make relevant to the lives of our children.
In this paper, the authors look at the principles underlying educational drama and play and trace their development in the fields of Early Childhood Education moving into the areas of Play and Educational Drama. The tried and tested principles of such luminaries as Dewey, Piaget and Froebel are discussed as is the work of more contemporary experts in the field, such as Vygotsky, Singer and Singer and Moyles. In the same way that knowledge creation is discussed in theory, the authors extrapolate the relevant findings so as to make them pertinent to the teaching and learning which takes place in most Irish and European schools of today.
In the Revised Irish Primary School Curriculum (1999), it is asserted that a continuum extends from play into drama. Whilst the authors refute the absolute nature of this assertion, they acknowledge and value the complementary nature of Play and Drama as agents of learning.
90
The Irish Infant Drama Curriculum holds as an objective within the strand Exploring and Making Drama, that the child should be enabled to ‘Develop the instinct for make- believe play into drama’. Such an objective gives the teacher a clear rationale for facilitating the use of play and its subsequent development into drama within the school day. The principles of the Primary School Curriculum promote free-play with educational materials eg. magnets in science, ball-handling in Physical Education...
Within the Drama Curriculum, space can be created for organised or structured play opportunities. As children “try out” different roles in varied scenarios using the appropriate social and linguistic behaviours, they equip themselves with a skill set from which they can draw when in a similar scenario. A follow-up Drama lesson presents an opportunity for the child to practise the knowledge and skills he has acquired and consolidate them in practice.
Recent developments concerning Play in Ireland include the publication of the Síolta Guidelines (2007) as well as the foundation of the National Play Resource Centre.
This was set up to provide information, support and advice on a range of issues affecting the development of children's Play in Ireland and to promote awareness of the benefits and value of Play in school- age settings. Effective Play policies were acknowledged as a priority. It was also an aim of the NPRC to increase the opportunities for children to play at and after school with a range of activities.
The development of links between schools and after school services was acknowledged as vital in order to augment awareness of the importance of such a service.‘Educational drama, has its roots in child play, in particular, social role ormake-believe play’ (Toye and Prendiville, 2000:10).
Hendy and Toon (2001) help to clarify the differentiation between socio-dramatic Play, founded on the lived experiences of the child and thematic-fantasy Play as a departure from these lived experiences i.e. the fantasy world behind a wardrobe, as suggested in C.S Lewis’ Narnia Adventures.
Consider amongst the range of functions and benefits of Play cited amongst the plethora of Play theory available, preparation theory, which sees Play’s role in assisting a child as practice for the adult world.
One can instantly see the merits of such a viewpoint, particularly when we refer to the realm of socio-dramatic role-play, where the child draws on the familiar (usually domestic) world in which they are immersed on a daily basis, as material for his or her play. Such learning is founded on the stuff of the adult-world... household chores,
91
cooking, shopping, healthcare, repairs. The child practises the motor skills necessary for sweeping up the beans an unruly child has just spilled in his shop, rehearsing or improvising chastising his mother (play mate) for such inappropriate behaviour in his premises.
The theory of Play’s purpose as preparation certainly holds truth about Play’s potency, but in order to grasp the holistic nature of Play, one must consider its potential for new learning.
Tina Bruce (2002) claims play promotes the development of creativity and abstract thinking in young children, drawing on both socio-dramatic Play and thematic-fantasy Play. Inherent in this argument, is that the discovery-learning opportunities that free Play presents children with, offer opportunities to practise and hone problem-solving skills. Through processes of trial and error, exploring cause and effect, children learn new knowledge about the world and their surroundings. They learn this new knowledge through the use of their own hands and minds because they are the creators and purveyors of the knowledge themselves. Ownership of learning and motivation to learn are natural by-products of such activity. These provide the impetus for all future learning and facilitate the realisation of this quest for learning.
“Drama structures aim to provide meaningful and active contexts for children to explore the relationship between language identity and human behaviour in social circumstances.” (Toye and Prendiville). Play initiated by the child, similarly, provides such active contexts to explore this relationship. Children come to school with an innate capacity to be accomplished players. They, through imaginative Play, employ the drama elements of time, place and presence. Children can set their “shop” beneath a table introducing new characters and perhaps re-playing old scenes with adjustments.
Such adjustments might include the use of new language structures, tones of voices or possible outcomes. This enables children to try out responses to particular circumstances in the “no-penalty” arena of Drama and Play. In this vital stage, in the merging personal and social identity of the child, Play and its development into Drama can be used as a safe haven for children to explore, extend and use what they already know about the world, hence the creation of new knowledge.
The elements of synchronicity between Drama and Play include, its open-ended nature, its opportunities for negotiation and problem-solving and the subsequent creation and development of narrative. Just as educational Drama is not about the acting out of a story but its creative exploration and development, imaginative Play provides scope for
92
the creation and re-alignment of narrative as well as character and plot development. In Educational Drama, as in imaginative play, process is paramount.
Socio-dramatic Play and Educational Drama provide opportunities for groups of children to engage in problem-solving activities. An example of the fusion between Drama and Play would be in the setting of a scenario where the children are required to enable a group of toys of mixed swimming-ability to cross an imaginary river using their co-operative skills. All of the aforementioned characteristics of Drama and Play can be traced and identified in the process.
As the child plays, the objects that he or she uses are imbued with significance.
Everyday items come to represent other objects because they are treated as such, e.g. an upturned hat is used as a shopping-basket or a bucket as a seat for a story-teller. As other players join the play, the rules are negotiated in accordance with the conventions of Play and adjustments are made, where appropriate. In this instance, should another player use an object for other than its intended purpose, e.g. use the hat on his head, he may be redirected by the other children to use it as a basket, as originally envisaged.
Piaget’s concepts of absorption, accommodation and assimilation are readily viewed in the dramatic Play scenario. The situation is absorbed by the players, additional information is shared along with the ensuing dilemmas and the relevant adjustments are made as the totality of the experience is accommodated and the new ideas are assimilated. In this way, plot and character development hinge on the evolving narrative in action. Though at a cognitive stage of “Concrete Operations” according to Piaget, these very same concrete objects nevertheless can take on different identities, as referred to above. In order to reach Piaget’s state of equilibrium, the whole process may be repeated a few times so that the children experience total ownership of the situation and for the ensuing outcome to be fully internalised for further use and development in the knowledge creation process.“Play in any situation, whether we look at adult play or child play, has the tendency to extend towards the unfamiliar and towards the more difficult.” Liebschner (1992:60).
Vygotsky (1978), in line with Bruner (1966), Piaget (1962) and Singer and Singer (1990), concludes that play develops children socially, emotionally, affectively, linguistically, cognitively and culturally. As the child engages in problem-solving and decision-making with his peers, he may have the opportunity to enter new stages of learning growth. Vygotsky (1978:102), maintains that “in play, a child behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behaviour: in play, it is as though he were a head taller