for group work shared in a GCSE - National Drama Research Vol. 3 No. 1 April 2012 Emergent...

ISSN 2040‐2228

Vol. 3 No. 1 April 2012

Drama Research: international journal of drama in education

Emergent Researcher

How is responsibility for group work shared in a GCSE Drama class? Hannah Pantin

National Drama Publicationswww.dramaresearch.co.uk

[email protected]

Drama Research Vol. 3 No. 1 April 2012

Emergent Researcher: How is responsibility for group work shared in a GCSE Drama class? 2

How is responsibility for group work shared in a GCSE Drama class? _____________________________________________________________________

Hannah Pantin

Abstract This paper investigates how responsibility for group work is shared in a GCSE Drama class in order to gain a greater understanding of how successful group work is achieved. A variety of approaches to evaluating group work from the literature are reviewed and a selection of these techniques, including filmed observation and questionnaires, are then applied to a case study of a Year Ten GCSE Drama class. A detailed analysis of the results for this study are presented and conclusions drawn. The main finding of this study is that the students and teacher would benefit from an increased awareness of group dynamics when working in a drama class. Group work is essential to drama; however, it is a much neglected area of drama research.



Introduction When teaching on my two school PGCE placements, I observed that effective group work is essential at all Key Stages (Department for Education 2012) for success as a drama student. The focus of the majority of lessons is for pupils to work in a group to devise a drama product which is shared towards the end of the lesson. If group work is continually ineffective in a class or amongst a group of pupils, they disengage from working with a group leading to a poor outcome. This is noticeable in a minority of pupils in many Key Stage Three drama classes. At Key Stage Four, effective group work is paramount for all members of a drama class to pass their GCSE assessments. All three units of the Edexcel GCSE exam demand effective group work for success; on the first page of the Edexcel GCSE drama specification, one of the key subject aims stated is to encourage students to

‘work imaginatively and creatively in collaborative contexts, generating, developing and communicating ideas’ (Edexcel GCSE in Drama specification 2009: 1).

Edexcel’s assessment criteria for Unit 1 and 2’s Practical Exploration Sections require the student to demonstrate

‘a creative and collaborative involvement in all practical tasks which are committed and focused’ to gain an outcome in the top band (ibid.: 16 & 24).

For Unit 3, the students are assessed on a performance by an external Examiner. They are judged on ‘Communication’ as one of the assessment criteria. In order to gain the top band there must be evidence that the

‘sense of rapport with all members of the ensemble is outstanding’ (ibid.: 34).

Moreover, evidence for remaining at the lowest band level in Unit 2’s Practical Exploration Section would show that

‘cooperation and interaction with others may be inconsistent’ (ibid.: 24).

In the Grade descriptions, one general indication of an ‘A candidate’ is they ‘work very productively with others’ (ibid.: 46).

Collaboration, communication, rapport, co‐operation, interaction and finally working with others are all terms that define successful group work. The focus of this study is a Year 10 class, a committed and high ability group in their first year of GCSEs. When mock assessed, the class members were assessed as being in the top two bands of the Practical Exploration Assessment Criteria in the Spring Term of Year 10. Through small group work tasks in class, the students developed



their drama skills for the three units of assessed group work in Year 11. The case study will investigate how three small groups of five students share responsibility for devising a drama product over two one hour and forty‐minute lessons held on two consecutive days. I am investigating how responsibility for group work is shared in a GCSE Drama class in order to gain a greater understanding of how successful group work is achieved. This research question is important because the decisions students make about sharing responsibility for group work has a huge impact on the success of the drama student in all year groups. In this paper, I use my research as a basis for drawing conclusions that will inform how I approach organising and discussing group work when I teach students at all key stages.

Literature Review In Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, Johnson and Johnson (1987) list seven different criteria for defining the concept 'group', concluding with their overall definition:

‘A group is two or more individuals in face‐to‐face interaction, each aware of his or her membership in the group, each aware of the others who belong to the group, and each aware of their positive interdependence as they strive to achieve mutual goals’ (Johnson & Johnson 1987: 8).

This is the most accurate definition I have read to describe the nature of a group in a drama class as they ‘strive to achieve’ the ‘mutual’ goal of a successful drama performance. There has been much research into social groups but minimal research into group work in drama specifically. As Tracy Crossley (2006: 34) notes in Letting the Drama into Group Work:

‘within the performing arts sector, it is widely acknowledged that group work is a central part of the learning experience’

and yet

‘there has been relatively little research into learning, teaching and assessment of group practice within the ... sector’.

The standard drama text books for teachers refer to working in groups, for example:

Drama is a social art form. It involves people working together in order to communicate with others. (Kempe and Ashwell 2000: 3)

but do not discuss the requirements for successful group work in a drama class. In consequence of this lacuna in the literature of drama in education, apart from Crossley’s article, I have had recourse to surveying the literature in social psychology and education.



Group Dynamics Group dynamics, a branch of social psychology, is relevant to this research project. The term group dynamics was coined by Kurt Lewin, a German psychologist often recognised as the founder of social psychology (cited by Greathouse 1997); the study of

‘the nature, development and interactions of human groups’ (Tullock 1997: 662).

It is a field of research ‘rooted in a wide range of traditionally separate fields’, such as social psychology, therapy and education (Johnson & Johnson 1987: 12). Interaction process analysis (IPA) is a research tool commonly used to study group dynamics that was invented by Bales in 1950. I use his coding categories as the core methodology for the analysis offered here. Although many systems have been devised since Bales (e.g. Flanders 1970, Cohen 1976, Hopkins 1985), I found it to be the most serviceable and consistent method of analysis when combined with modern‐day video technology. The coding categories are displayed in Figure 1 below:

This schema enables an observer to watch the interactions in a group and classify each person’s behaviour into one of the twelve coding categories. These categories are divided into three groups classified as ‘socio‐emotional positive reactions’, ‘socio‐emotional negative reactions’ and ‘task‐oriented neutral actions’. Both non‐verbal and verbal behaviour are considered an act and noted down by the observer;



‘the basis of interaction analysis is that everything which a group says or does, including non‐verbal acts, may be coded – including items like body posture, facial expressions and tone of voice’ (Jacques & Salman 2007: 16).

Bales believed that

‘the raison d’être of any small group is the achievement of some task’ (Brown 2000: 41).

The

‘socio‐emotional behaviours are essentially subservient to the task‐related activites, [for] they are more likely to take a positive... form than to be negative or inhibitory’, presumably as the members of the group are all invested in the group goal (ibid.: 41).

Research using Bales’ IPA coding (1950) has shown that

‘some group members consistently talk more than others; people who talk the most tend to receive the most attention from the group; ...different people in the group often tend to predominate in particular coding categories, suggesting a degree of role specialisation’ (Brown 2000: 44)

And

‘positive emotions are usually expressed more than twice as often as negative emotions’ (Johnson & Johnson 1987: 58).

Johnson and Johnson (1987: 57) further states a common leadership structure to emerge is that one person will ‘assume a task‐leadership role’ in the group and another person

‘to assume a social‐emotional‐leadership role that includes behaviours... such as alleviating frustrations, resolving tensions, and mediating conflicts’.

Group Roles A participant’s behaviour in a group may be classified into Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats’ Group Roles (Mindtools 2011). In an article titled, Functional Roles of Group Members, published in 1948, Benne and Sheats defined

‘twenty‐six group roles that can be played by one or more people within a group’ (Mindtools 2011).

Years later, in 1987, Johnson and Johnson (1987: 52) introduced the same classification of group roles, but adjusting it to focus on just twelve constructive roles, such as ‘interpersonal problem solver’, ‘information and opinion giver’,



‘summarizer’; these are divided into two equal categories of ‘Task Actions’ and ‘Maintenance Actions’. I prefer Benne and Sheats’ (1948) tri‐role categorisation of

‘task roles, personal and social roles, and dysfunctional and individualistic roles’,

particularly as the third additional category allows for identifying roles that

‘disrupt group progress and weaken its cohesion’ (Mindtools 2011). For example, there is ‘the blocker’ who ‘opposes every idea that is put forward and yet refuses to make’ their ‘own suggestions’; ‘the disrupter’ who ‘uses group meetings as fun time and a way of getting out of real work’ and ‘the help seeker’ who ‘acts helpless, self‐deprecating and unable to contribute’ (Mindtools 2011). I can identify many of Benne and Sheats’ (1948) group roles, particularly the dysfunctional roles, in the behaviour of drama students at all Key Stages. As a consequence of this observation, the questionnaires that I developed for this case study specifically ask the students to reflect upon whether or not they take on some of the roles identified by Benne and Sheats (1948).

‘Groupthink’ Irving Janis (1982: 9) noted the phenomena he named ‘groupthink’ when studying ‘sources of error in [American] foreign policy decision‐making’ caused by ‘face‐to‐face groups’ who met between 1940 and 1980. He defines ‘groupthink’ as

‘a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement that results from in‐group pressures’ (Janis 1982: 9)

leading to defective group decision‐making to preserve

‘an illusion of unanimity and correctness’ (Brown 2000: 213). In 1952, Solomon Asch recorded an experiment

‘investigat[ing] the effects upon individuals of majority opinions when the latter were seen to be in a direction contrary to fact’ (Ofshe 1973: 569).

An individual was placed in a group unaware that the group were tasked to deliberately and repeatedly all agree on the same wrong answers leaving that individual feeling isolated in his or her correct reading of an event or situation. Thus, Asch (1952) investigated similar group pressures to Janis (1982). Asch (1952) discovered that



‘as the majority [of people who agree on the erroneous facts] becomes more extreme there occurs a significant increase in the frequency of 'compromise errors' (Ofshe 1973: 569).

In drawing this conclusion, Asch (1952) agrees with Janis (1982). And yet the Asch (1952) experiments also record

‘a substantial proportion of individuals [who] retained their independence throughout’ and ‘a substantial minority yielded, modifying their judgements in accord with the majority’ (Ofshe 1973: 570).

It seems that becoming a victim of ‘groupthink’ depends on ‘the character of the individual’ (Ofshe 1973: 570) and does not apply in all cases.

Leadership Style Further research undertaken by Flowers in 1977 demonstrated that it is actually the ‘leadership style’ that influences the group’s effectiveness the most rather than ‘the level of cohesiveness’ (Brown 2000: 218). These results encourage thoughtful drama teachers to question the phenomenon of ‘groupthink’ as a dominant factor in all group work. Indeed, evidence suggests that cohesion is either unrelated to decision quality or may even be associated with better decision process (Brown 2000: 219). So, it appears that leadership style is what matters the most; for ‘whenever decisions have to be made, as in a team or project group... authority problems are likely to occur. Whose job is it to decide?’ (Jacques 2007: 8). This issue forms the core question that directed my research for this case study; namely, will the leadership style of the three groups that define the sample for this inquiry have any bearing on their effectiveness?

Emotional Literacy Group work is highly valued in today’s society, as Jacques and Salmon (2007) illustrate:

‘Contemporary life places a premium on the ability of people to get on with each other, to be able to handle interpersonal problems rather than to avoid them, and to do so constructively and creatively.’ (Jacques & Salmon 2007: 21)

In keeping with the modern‐day drive to ‘get on with each other’, Daniel Goleman (1996) has led a movement to reduce ‘emotional illiteracy’ in schools and western education has added emotional literacy to its agenda. Group work in drama promotes the practice of emotional intelligence through its reliance on ‘social behaviours’ as much as ‘task‐oriented behaviours’ (Crossley 2006: 34). I agree strongly with the assessment that the



‘crucial difference between... children is the way they react to the lack of success which is bound to occur when struggling to acquire a skill’ (Salzberger‐Wittenberg et al. 1983: 54).

Effective and Ineffective Group Work Johnson and Johnson (1987: 11) list nine factors to differentiate between effective and ineffective group work. The most crucial to assisting drama teachers and their students to promote effective group work behaviours is to ensure that they are aware that

‘participation and leadership are distributed among all group members’ and that

‘cohesion is advanced through high levels of inclusion, affection, acceptance, support and trust’

in order to achieve and maintain effective standards for group work. Johnson and Johnson (1987: 9) also cite a core aspect of effective group work as

‘conflicts arising from opposing ideas and opinions (controversy) are to be encouraged’

because they

‘promote involvement in the group’s work, quality and creativity in decision making, and commitment to implementing the group’s decisions’. This accords with Crossley’s (2006: 40) argument for ‘constructive controversy’ being a positive influence on drama group work.

Constructive Controversy Furthermore, Crossley (2006: 48) views a disagreement between members of a devising group as a potential gem of creativity that is frequently untapped because of ‘conflict avoidance’ social pressure. Crossley (2006: 40 & 37) cites the ‘groupthink’ hypothesis to back up her theory that ‘constructive controversy’ is an asset to the creative process for

‘in order to become healthy, groups must be able to express disagreement, criticism and feelings of negativity and capitalize on controversy’.

She observes that there is a widespread ‘association of effective collaboration with conflict avoidance’ that inhibits effective ‘constructive controversy’ from happening in performing arts groups, citing a student survey at Salford University where ‘conflicting ideas’ was commonly listed as one of ‘the most negative influences on collaborative working’ and never as a ‘positive influence’ (Crossley 2006: 39).



Peer Relationships In the introduction to the seminal book, The Emotional Experience of Teaching and Learning, the authors state that

‘the imparting of knowledge and social skills is highly dependent on the nature of the relationship between student and teacher, the individual and his fellow students, and the student and the institution as a whole’ (Salzberger‐Wittenberg et al. 1983: xi).

I would argue that in today’s student‐centred educational orientation, the relationship between ‘the individual and his fellow students’ heavily impacts on their learning. When I refer to the sharing of responsibility for group work in drama, I mean each student group member sharing ownership or feeling ‘liable to be called to account’ for the success of the group’s social and creative interaction and subsequent final performance (Tullock1997: 1311). To be a successful group member requires a plethora of skills as evinced by Bales’ (1950) interaction process analysis. I turn now to a discussion of the methodological approach I took to generate the data that shapes the focus of this investigation.

Methodology My research is observational; it did not include interventions to improve the group dynamics. My research question endeavours to find out what is happening during group work, in particular how a Key Stage Four drama group functions. This orientation benefits this research project by making its scope more focused and the discovery of practical conclusions more likely. A case study gives an opportunity

‘to study one aspect of a problem in some depth within a limited time scale’ (Bell 1999: 10)

and case studies

‘have the advantage of depth and complexity, but involve a more distanced [objective]’ perspective (Jacques 2007: 141).

In his 1997 journal article ‘Introduction to Case Study’, Winston Tellis states that a

‘frequent criticism of case study methodology is its dependence on a single case renders it incapable of providing a generalizing conclusion’ (1997: 2).

Despite being aware of this potential shortfall in a case study’s scope, I agree with Michael Bassey (quoted in Bell 1999: 172) that



‘the relatability of a case study is more important than its generalizibility’. In this sense, teachers who work in a similar situation would be able to relate to the conclusions of this case study and apply the insights gleaned from its analysis to their own facilitation of group work projects amongst their GCSE Drama students. I selected a particularly committed, high ability Year 10 class as the subjects of the case study. I followed Tellis’s (1997) advice that

‘knowing that time is limited... the cases that are selected should be easy and willing subjects... offer[ing] the opportunity to maximise what can be learned’ (1997: 3).

The teacher chose three groups of five students of mixed ability and gender. I adopted one quantitative, and two qualitative methods, of collecting data. These were filming, questionnaire and focus group respectively. I used ‘multiple sources of data’ to ensure ‘triangulation’. Tellis (September 1997: 2) defines triangulation as ‘the protocols that are used to ensure accuracy and alternative explanations’ which are needed for ethical reasons ‘to confirm the validity of the processes’. Using Bales’ (1950) IPA system alongside a student’s and my observations, together with collecting data by questionnaire and focus group aided triangulation. I could

‘compare and contrast one account with another in order to produce as full and balanced a study as possible’ (Open University Course E811 quoted in Bell 1999: 102).

Ethical Considerations The research conducted with the students conformed to accepted standards of ethical data generation amongst human subjects. The issues of privacy, the consent of the participants and confidentiality were given full consideration during the study. All recorded material was only viewed by me and the selected student with the consent of the class. Both the questionnaires and the filmed students’ identities were kept anonymous. The focus group was led sensitively and respectfully.

Filming the Group Work I collected the quantitative data by filming each of the three groups in my Year 10 Drama class. Each group had five students. I filmed each of these groups for five minutes twice on Day One and once on Day Two, aiming to capture the group in the beginning, middle and end phases of their working. I analysed the raw video‐generated data using Bales’ (1950) IPA research method. I viewed these videos on my own, watching the footage repeatedly, focussing my observations on one participant at a time, to record every twenty seconds which IPA behaviour they were displaying. Mindful of Bell’s (1999: 159) warning that ‘it is impossible to record



everything’, I observed only interactions between individuals, specifically how the groups interacted to share responsibility for their drama product. I found Bales’ (1950) system thorough and well‐balanced and one which I could adapt for my purpose. For instance, I interpreted the meaning of ‘shows solidarity’ as listening and giving attention‐ because a non‐verbal behaviour can often demonstrate solidarity and act to raise the status of those being listening to. I added two additional categories of ‘rehearsing in drama’ and ‘in dialogue with the teacher’ as both these behaviours are particular to the drama classroom and their frequency indicates how responsibility was being shared. To supplement the quantitative analysis of these video recordings, I also logged my observations of non‐verbal behaviour and verbal interaction that were not captured by the Bales’ (1950) method in order to present a fuller, more finely grained, picture of each group’s methods of working together. Later, a student watched the filmed group work with me and we discussed how she interpreted what she saw. Her contribution was confidential so she could speak freely; this added a student’s perspective that validated and amplified my understanding of the nuances of the student interactions.

Questionnaires The questionnaires that I distributed aimed to access the ‘more subjective data from within the group itself’ because the ‘objective observation of group behaviour that is the hallmark of IPA’ can sometimes nevertheless miss a range of behaviours and interactions (Brown 2000: 44). I created a qualitative questionnaire asking mostly open‐questions. As Tellis (July 1997: 3) cautions,

‘merely quantitative techniques tended to obscure some of the important information that the researchers needed to uncover’.

In order to encourage the Year 10 students to reflect on their group work in a confidential way, this questionnaire was distributed in the lesson immediately after all groups had performed. The questionnaires were answered anonymously to encourage the student respondents to speak freely. I limited the number of questions to six mostly open‐questions to

‘give respondents the opportunity to give their own views on the topic being researched’ (Bell 1999: 119).

I started with ‘straightforward, easy‐to‐complete questions’ on what helps and hinders group work and then moved on to the ‘more complex topic’ of asking them to see if they could identify themselves as taking on Benne and Sheats’ (1948) Group Roles (Bell 1999: 119). I nominated five roles for them to refer to when considering the real‐life social roles they played. They were also asked if they slip into any negative roles.



Focus Group At the end of the group work, the students were asked to reflect for one week. Then, a focus group was held on the topic of group work. All contributed to the discussion one after the other. The meeting was audio recorded. The students were not pushed to mention names at any point, but rather to speak in generalised terms about their experience of group work. I was aware that the students may exhibit a response bias in the context of a focus group, so that they might adjust what they were saying to give a socially acceptable answer. The anonymous questionnaires counterbalanced such a response.

Analysis

Filmed Group Work Each group’s interaction profile is displayed as graphs in the following figures (see Figures 2‐8). The observations in each category were collated to show the proportion of time the group as a whole and individuals within each group spent

‘engaged in the different categories of behaviour’ (Brown 2000: 42). The first graph shows the frequency of observed interactions overall with individuals represented as different colours combining to make the whole group total for each category. The second graph shows the individual’s contributions to each category as a percentile. The observed interactions on the vertical axis are the interactions recorded on the IPA table every twenty seconds when watching the films.

Group One

Figure 2: Group One: The frequency of observed interactions overall with individuals represented as different colours combining to make the whole group total for each category

01020304050607080

Frequency of observed interaction

Bales' modified IPA categories

I

R

J

L

N



Figure 3: Group One: The individual’s contributions to each category as a percentile

From the graphs and observations, Group 1 displays some of Benne and Sheats’ (1948) Group Roles very clearly. Student I predominantly plays the ‘follower’ role whilst Student N is the ‘energiser’ and ‘initiator’ (Mindtools 2011). As Student A said when watching the filmed group work, Student N ‘is eager to get on with it’ and Student I will ‘agree or add to your idea’. This is further reflected by the IPA Results; Student I was the highest contributor to the ‘shows solidarity’ category whilst Student N the highest contributor to the ‘directs’ category. Student I’s non‐verbal focus was excellent and, although he is only recorded as contributing verbally three times, it would be unfair to say he isn’t sharing responsibility for the group work. He is aware he is more useful to the group work in this group by allowing others to lead. Student L is recorded as ‘showing tension’ the most. Student L at times takes on Benne and Sheat’s (1948) role of ‘disrupter’ (Mindtools 2011). She can distract other people by making jokes or asking unfocused questions. In other moments she simply loses focus and looks away or fiddles with her hair. Yet, she is recorded as being in more categories than the others in her group and this indicates that she is engaged a lot of the time; she directs, gives and asks for opinions, shows solidarity and also uses her joking for tension release to aid the group. Nobody in Group 1 ‘showed antagonism’. Their group work was very focused in the last five minute section of filming, demonstrated by the fact the other two groups were observed rehearsing in drama for less than twenty times whereas Group 1 was observed rehearsing their dramatic action in excess of forty times. As Student A concluded, Group 1 was ‘focused’ as a group. Overall they were effective in sharing responsibility for group work as participation and leadership was distributed among all group members and problem‐solving adequacy was high. In the focus group interview, Student N commented that ‘if someone is misbehaving I’ll tell them’, inferring he was able to keep Student L on task as the group’s leader.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

1 Solidarity

2 Jokes

3 Agrees

4 Directs

5 Opinion

6 Clarifies

7 Asks for info

8 Asks for opinion

9 Asks for …

10 Disagrees

11 Shows tension

12 Shows …

13 Rehearse in …

14 Dialogue …

Percentage of observed

interaction


I

R

J

L

N



Group Two

Figure 4: Group 2 ‐ the frequency of observed interactions overall with individuals represented as different colours combining to make the whole group total for each category

Figure 5: Group 2 ‐ the individual’s contributions to each category as a percentile

Figures 4 and 5 show that Group 2 was the most challenged where sharing responsibility for group work was concerned. Studying the video recordings of their interactions showed that these students also demonstrate the highest proportion of negative socio‐emotive behaviours. This group displayed a range of dominance and sociability behaviours in accordance with Johnson and Johnson’s (1987) interpersonal patterns detailed in the Figure below:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Frequency of observed interaction


S

M

A

C

J

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%


interaction


S

M

A

C

J



Figure 6: Johnson and Johnson’s (1987) interpersonal patterns

Student J portrayed high dominance and high sociability patterns, Student M had low sociability and high dominance patterns leading to antagonistic behaviour, whilst the three female students in the group displayed mostly low dominance and low sociability patterns. Their withdrawal from the conflicts between Student J and Student M meant the group work didn’t progress easily. This group had the most dominant leader of all the groups in the research sample, in the person of Student J whose leadership style fuelled the negative socio‐emotional behaviour of Student M. The behaviour of Student J was that of

‘a leader who is too directive... [and] is likely to be detrimental to effective decision making’ (Brown 2000: 218).

Particularly pertinent to this group’s observed interactions is the theory that

‘the members who are high on task behaviours tend to create some tension and hostility on the part of members who are less committed to the task’ (Johnson 1987: 57).

During the first filmed five minutes, the body language of slouching and facial expression suggests half‐heartedness amongst Students M, C and S. Student J was relaying information between members as they stood apart in space, much like Bavelas’ diagram of ‘communication patterns’ where

‘there is only one individual in the group who can communicate directly with all the others’ (Ofshe 1973: 595).

Student J talked the most and did receive the most attention but he eventually became isolated from his peers. Group 2 is the only group to have members showing signs of antagonism on Bales’ IPA chart; this group also had the most dialogue with the teacher. Student A in Group 2 sought out the teacher the most. She used the teacher to relay her opinion to the group as she was not confident that they were listening and acknowledging her input. As Jacques (2007: 9) observes,



‘often there is a feeling in groups that the ultimate responsibility for each person’s actions, and its consequences, resides in any figure of authority’,

usually the teacher ‘in learning groups’. Student A manifested what appeared to be child‐like needy behaviour towards the teacher. Referring to Freud’s theory of transference, Salzberger‐Wittenberg et al. (1983: 33) assert that contact with the teacher may easily reawaken ‘the most primitive anxiety states’ that the student ‘experienced in the past in relation to his mother and father’, and that where this is the case, it may be manifested as child‐like needy behaviour towards the teacher. Others in the group also interacted with the teacher in a way which suggests impatience,

‘demand[ing] answers from the teacher so as to be able to put an end to’ their ‘anxieties’ (Salzberger‐Wittenberg et al. 1983: 57).

They displayed behaviours that demonstrated a refusal to take responsibility for the group work, particularly by turning to the teacher whenever they encountered disagreement amongst themselves or when their group work was slowed down by a dilemma over staging. The last time I filmed this group the conflict between them had resurfaced, rather than continuing to be ‘avoided or suppressed’ (Johnson 1987: 9). They were vocally showing their annoyance at each other. At this point the group were the most united in working together so, actually, their vocalisation of frustration helped them work better as a team and share responsibility. Thus the analysis of their group behaviour argues the case for resisting ‘groupthink’ and acknowledging controversy when it occurs.

Group Three

Figure 7: Group 3 ‐ the frequency of observed interactions overall with individuals represented as different colours combining to make the whole group total for each category

020406080100120

Frequency of observed

interaction


L

F

I

K

N

A



Figure 8: Group 3 ‐ the individual’s contributions to each category as a percentile

Group 3 evidenced minimal tension. They lost Student K on the second day of the project and gained Student L who hadn’t been present the day before. Despite this, they remained focused and energised. Student K had been the leader, but without him, students F and A enthusiastically shared joint leadership. They were a very productive and co‐operative group. Student I in Group 3 was both a ‘follower’ and ‘encourager’. Several students within the group played the ‘compromiser’ role at various points. Student A has this to say about working in Group 3:

‘We all understand each other’s ideas and respect the ideas as well. We were all connected. We all shared an idea of what we wanted and it sort of built up.’

This group had the highest frequency of solidarity of all the groups, many smiled and laughed as they worked. Overall Group 3 was the most successful group both in terms of creatively managing their work outputs and in the ways in which they were able to work co‐operatively together. It is significant that they evinced the fewest of Bales’ (1950) negative emotions. They demonstrated a ‘non‐directive participative style’ of leadership that contributed to their success as an efficient group. This factor is in alignment with Flowers (1977) and Fodor and Smith’s (1982) research finding that the

‘less power‐hungry leaders... produced... the more solutions’ (quoted in Brown 2000: 217).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Percentage of observed interaction


L

F

I

K

N

A



Anonymous Questionnaires on Group Work

Figure 9: Questionnaire results for the question ‘What helps group work in drama?’

Figure 10: Questionnaire results for the question ‘What difficulties can you find in group work in drama?’

Respect15%

Listening16%

Contributing ideas16%

Supportive people16%

Co‐operating as a team37%

1. What helps group work in drama?

Arguing over ideas28%

People not participating

28%

People not communicatin

g well22%

People lacking focus11%

Poor personal relationships

11%

2. What difficulties can you find in group work in drama?



The Year 10 students’ questionnaire results, summarised in Figures 9 and 10, are similar to the Salford University students’ survey results that Crossley (2006: 39) described. The joint highest most common difficulty they felt was ‘arguing over ideas’. The other most common difficulty cited by my sample of Year 10 students was ‘people not participating’. This suggests that they see passivity as being just as negative an influence on a group’s ability to produce positive outcomes as is the case where they argue over ideas. These Year 10 students overwhelmingly saw ‘co‐operating as a group’ as helping their group work. This shows an awareness that one must adapt one’s behaviour towards attitudes of co‐operation to ensure a positive outcome. 73% felt that responsibility for group work was needed to be equally shared when working in groups. One student reflected on this in the following terms,

‘Yes because everybody has their say, everybody has their point of view and finally everyone takes part’.

Those who didn’t feel group work was equally shared pointed out that some people will take leadership responsibility whereas others ‘may not be bothered’. The predominant roles students felt they took were those of compromiser and director. 60% of students felt they never slip into some of Benne and Sheat’s (1948) negative roles in terms of showing a lack of self‐awareness for others. One astute student wrote, ‘it depends how I feel, if I feel positive I will try and get everyone to listen to my ideas, if I’m feeling negative I will just go with the flow’ demonstrating an awareness of how she switches roles.

Focus Group In the focus group, as well as in the case of the video recorded group work, I noted what Crossley (2006: 36) identified in her research, that

‘invisible norms were operating that suppressed the expression of disagreement within the group’.

The repetition of ‘I don’t know’ responses, resistance to giving examples of poor group work and frequent destabilizing laughter revealed a fear of expressing a controversial opinion to the group. At one point I, as teacher, needed to address the undermining influence of side conversations and covert laughter. Despite this, many of the ideas expressed by the students were quite perceptive. A few examples:

citing being good at teamwork as more valuable than being an astute performer for group work;

a group needs ‘people who build on ideas instead of breaking them’;

‘it’s best to get all the ideas out first then you can elaborate’ on them’;

‘the group can’t work’ when someone ‘has a negative attitude’. Their responses showed an awareness that their skills and capacity for group work had improved through their experience with the work promoted by the Key Stage Three GCSE Drama curriculum.



Limits of Analysis Because I was the sole IPA recorder of the student’s work, I acknowledge that I, as the investigator, may have been vulnerable to the possibility that ‘there is potential investigator subjectivity’ (Tellis July 1997: 5) which may have clouded my analysis of the data. I also hadn’t explained some terms as thoroughly as I might have before the students completed the questionnaires; for instance, I might have explained Benne and Sheats (1948) group role terms and discussed what sharing responsibility for group work means. I also wonder if I should have asked the students to name themselves on the questionnaires. I would have been more aware of how individuals saw themselves and this would have enabled me to compare their reflections with my IPA results. For instance, I observed that the students who display negative socio‐emotional behaviour are less aware of their impact than those who are affected by them, and I would have been able to verify this observation more objectively if the questionnaires had not been anonymous. Furthermore, I began to realise that Bales’ IPA method (1950) is ill‐equipped to take into account the personal relationships that exist between group members. As Jacques and Salman (2007: 18) note,

‘the analysis assumes that members of the group are not radically affected by external factors such as previous animosities or extrinsic motives’.

Bearing in mind these pupils may have known each other for three years or more before this case study took place, it is highly likely there was shared ‘history’ between group members.

Conclusion Identifying how responsibility for group work is shared in a GCSE drama class is complicated by many competing factors. Moreover, Tellis (July 1997: 7) cautions that

‘analysing case study evidence’ is often

‘the least developed and hence the most difficult... aspect’ of using case study as a research methodology. However, the triangulation strategy that I chose enabled me to identify some useful patterns, the awareness of which may be helpful to other drama teachers. The pattern in all three groups was that the person rarely talking and mostly listening (showing solidarity according to Bales’ (1950) IPA) is very much taking responsibility for group work even though their role is not that of the visible leader. This observation has given me a more heightened appreciation of students who take on the role of follower; for they know that the group won’t function if everyone takes on the role of task‐leader. The recurrent interaction patterns that Iobserved were that one or two people in each group assumed a ‘directing’ role and one or two people assumed a ‘follower’ or



‘compromiser’ role. Drama teachers would be wise to facilitate this. Also, as Group 3 demonstrated, leadership style is the most effective when there is little negative socio‐emotional behaviour because this allows them to remain more attentive to the tasks before them. Leadership style does have an important bearing upon a group’s effectiveness,

‘open, non‐directive leaders’ are consistently shown to be amongst the most productive behaviours that affect positive group work outcomes (Brown 2000: 217).

For my future pedagogy, I will work to make sure that

‘strategies for developing collaborative skills are integrated into overall course content and... the conditions for constructive controversy... are structured in’ (Crossley 2006: 42).

This inquiry has sensitised me to the value of the concept that:

‘If educators can construct an environment in which controversy and conflict are regarded as central to creative group work, it will help students to develop their understanding of conflict, their skills for resolving it and reduce the anxiety they may feel when confronting potentially contentious issues when they arise.’ (Crossley 2006: 48)

I recommend the theories of group dynamics to be taught as part of the GCSE curriculum to better equip drama students for negotiating with others to successfully work in groups. Doing so would enable students to be better informed and equipped to deal with disagreements, knowing that quickly compromising in order to avoid conflict is not necessarily the most creative option available to them. I also intend to make more regular use of the opportunity to film group work because I am sure that this enables students to form a ‘more informed perspective’ as ‘a critic as well as performer/ devisor’ (Crossley 2006: 47) of how to make their group work more effective. Additionally, I will continue to experiment with allocating roles in the group work in consequence of research that confirms that ‘undifferientated groups are more susceptible to ‘groupthink’ than groups with co‐operative role differentiation’ (Crossley 2006: 42). Finally, I will take care to resist the temptation to succumb to students’ demands for me, in my role as teacher to ‘play the role of the compulsive helper’ (Jacques 2007: 9) while they are working on tasks in their drama groups, for this all‐too‐common teacher response behaviour is ultimately ‘anti‐developmental’ (Salzberger‐Wittenberg et al. 1983: 28). I embrace the notion that as

‘long as there is a persistent belief that the individual does not have to struggle with some frustration’ (Salzberger‐Wittenberg et al. 1983: 28),



‘an opportunity to develop the student’s capacity for... greater autonomy and responsibility’ is being missed (Jacques 2007: 9).

Teachers have a crucial role to play in embedding a culture of respect amongst students for the work conducted in the drama studio, for ‘mutual trust’ entails a necessary quality of vulnerability which needs to be sensitively nurtured by the teacher for the benefit of all (Ennis and McCauley 2002: 3). This inquiry has further sensitised me to the importance of finding ways to positively encourage my students for I am aware of how ‘any criticism which the teacher expresses’ is often ‘the cause of deep distress’ (Salzberger‐Wittenberg et al. 1983: 31) for many teenage learners. I shall be ever more vigilant that my presence in the classroom as we work together is one of affirmation and support for their creativity and contributions. As we work together to encourage one another, their experience of group work will be one of openness, trust and mutual support that focuses them on achieving positive learning outcomes.



References Bales, R. F. (1950) A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction. American Sociological Review. Vol. 15. 257‐263. Bell, J. (1999) Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first‐time researchers in education and social science (third edition). Buckingham: Open University Press Bion, W. R. (1961) Experiences in Groups and Other Papers. London: Tavistock Publications Limited Brown, R. (2000) Group Processes: Dynamics within and between groups (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell Crossley, T. (2006) Letting the Drama into Group Work: Using conflict constructively in performing arts group practice. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. 2006. Vol. 5. No. 1, 33‐50. London: Sage Publications Department for Education (2012) Description of Key Stages in Schools Graph [online] Available from:http://www.education.gov.uk/get‐into‐teaching/subjects‐age‐groups/age‐groups/graph‐description.aspx [accessed 2/04/12] EdExcel Examinations (2009) EdExcel GCSE in Drama Specification [online] Available from:http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCSE%20New%20GCSE/GCSE%20in%20Drama%20spec%20issue%202%20160112.pdf[accessed 04/04/2012] Ennis, C.D. and McCauley M.T. (2002) Creating urban classroom communities worthy of trust. Curriculum Studies. Vol. 34. No. 2. 149‐172. Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Greathouse, J. (1997) Kurt Lewin (1890‐1947) [online] Available from: http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/lewin.htm [accessed 15/11/2011] Hinshelwood, R. D. (1987) What Happens in Groups: Psychoanalysis, the Individual and the Community. London: Free Association Books Janis, I. (1982) Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company Jacques, D. and Salman, G. (2007) Learning in Groups: A Handbook for face‐to‐face and online environments. Abingdon: Routledge Jennings, S. (1986) Creative Drama in Groupwork. Bicester: Winslow Press Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, F. P. (1987) Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills (third edition). London: Prentice‐Hall International, Inc. Kempe. A, and Ashwell. A. (2000) Progression in Secondary Drama. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers Mindtools (2011) Benne and Sheats’ Group Roles: Identifying Both Positive and Negative Group Behaviour Roles. [online] Available from: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_85.htm [accessed 10/04/2011] Ofshe, R. J. ed. (1973) Interpersonal Behaviour in Small Groups. London: Prentice‐Hall International, Inc. Salzberger‐Wittenberg, O. and Henry, G. and Osborne E. (1983) The Emotional Experience of Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc



Tellis, W. (July 1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, Volume 3, No. 2, [online] Available from:http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3‐2/tellis1.html [accessed 10/04/2011] Tellis, W. (September 1997) Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, Volume 3, No. 3, [online] Available from:http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3‐3/tellis2.html [accessed 10/04/2011] Tullock, S. ed. (1997) The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus. Oxford: Oxford University Press



Appendix One Table 1.1: Comparison of effective and ineffective groups

Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, F. P. (1987) Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills (third edition) London: Prentice‐Hall International.



Appendix Two Table to Analyse Filmed Group Work Click here for: Online Excel spreadsheet Table to Analyse Filmed Group Work The charts below are extracted from this online spreadsheet. Group 1 Chart 1 and Chart 2 featured below:

01020304050607080



I

R

J

L

N

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%



I

R

J

L

N



Group 2 Chart 1 and Chart 2 featured below:

Group 3 Chart 1 and Chart 2 featured below:

01020304050607080



S

M

A

C

J

0%20%40%60%80%100%


interaction


S

M

A

C

J

020406080100120

Frequency of observed

interaction


L

F

I

K

N

A



0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%



L

F

I

K

N

A



Appendix Three Filmed Group Work Observations of Non‐verbal behaviour & Verbal interaction (often not described by Bales’ IPA method) GROUP 1 Beginning 5 minutes J at first looks disengaged, looks away. Other 4 engaged, I standing within ear shot but receiving no eye contact and not inputting ideas. R stands in front of N and L commanding their attention and they input ideas. N been listening and receiving for a while and then says ‘Ok, let’s try it’ and then gestures to a chair ‘R, R do we still need the chairs?’, deferring to Rumon but physically taking the lead. L at this point withdraws in the sense is slow to get to where the group move for 40 secs. 20 secs later she jokes about something inappropriate and off‐topic as N says ‘L stop talking about that’. Later she withdraws attention for 10 secs as looks away at floor and camera. J’s body language is very passive during this section of filming. She looks anxious and unconfident as she twiddles with her necklace and looks down a lot‐ sense more self‐conscious because of camera. She is actively listening and remaining focused but does not contribute verbally. She demonstrates agreement physically at points by getting up and moving when N says to try it. I is quiet throughout. His rocking to and fro during conversation with teacher suggests he may be feeling the need for action and feeling a little impatient as he’s been listening and waiting for a while. R calls over Ms M. 1 min 30 is spent telling her of aims and listening to her input. R, N, L start acting out drama as talking, moving into getting the rehearsal on feet. * Issue with flipcam is don’t get all subjects in the frame sometimes so can’t see their focus. Middle 5 minutes N = ‘Alright move over here’, gets up and moves so others follow. Sense of impetus and drive. * Bales feels not quite correct to analyse going into rehearsing the drama using Bales’ classifications so I have added a 13th Classification ‘Rehearse in drama’. Interesting that J changes into giving direction when N is acting. Also R is mostly passive in this middle film clip. N is in charge as the core driver. To suggest to N the only point he does fully, he puts his arms no N’s back to physically get him to listen. Although I is recorded as only contributing verbally 3 times, his nv focus is excellent.



It would be unfair to say he isn’t sharing responsibility for the group work. He is by allowing others to lead and paying attention always. Last 5 minutes Group 1 are running through their scenes the majority of the filming. All are focused, N is very much the driving force. R, like yesterday, reveals he is unsure of the text by mistaking N for the character of Judy. He is defensive when told by J ‘Yeah, I know that.’ Still he is working well. * I am noting participants moving into position to start rehearsing as ‘agrees’ on Bales’ IPA. NV Agrees. *Going to add another column for dialogue with teacher as frequency worthy of note and who initiates the conversation with the teacher. GROUP 2 Beginning 5 minutes As I come over, Ms M says get up and try it. They all do so. J appears to be in charge although uses language that suggests he is open to input. They set the stage and then look like they are waiting for instruction, not sure of what doing. Body language of slouching and facial expression suggest half‐heartedness. J suggests something. A has an idea that they are using. M is doubtful and expresses this by asking J with A nearby, ‘are you sure?’. M’s energy throughout I interpret as negative and resistant to trying out suggestions fully. He feels uncomfortable with abstract idea. ‘I think it’s alright’ but tone is uncertain. A immediately pulls Ms M over again, as she goes J tries to continue the conversation without waiting for the teacher. ‘A listen say you’re going to be in the audience sitting here (demos sitting down).’ M expresses an idea and J shows tension by shrugging his shoulders and responding with low energy and moving away quickly after M has spoken with feeling. The whole group once they got up move apart from each other and do not stay in a cluster like Group 1 or 3. C sits in a side chair. A sits in a chair at front as meant to be in the audience but still creates group disconnection. It appears J is relaying information between members rather than the members sharing with each other‐ much like the D Model on p595 ofInterpersonal Behaviour in Small Groups. M only talks to J. J gets up and demonstrates why M’s idea will take too long. They are sort of getting into staging. C is supportive in her focus, but passive in contributing, waiting for others to take the lead. Be interesting if she is the writer of questionnaire that says ‘if I’m feeling negative I will just go with the flow’. * I am frequently putting participants who are passively listening and looking in the



Solidarity box, they are perhaps best positioned in the Agrees box as defined as ‘shows passive acceptance... complies’. However, I stick to Solidarity as feel Agree is more assertive. Sometimes hard to know which box a participant’s behaviour fits in eg. A standing yawning waiting for action‐ I have put in agrees, but it’s a touch negative behaviour. * Good to include reference to teacher intervention when doing group work. All groups call her over and an opinion mentioned in the focus group was if stuck ask the teacher for help. Refer to The Emotional Experience of Learning and Teaching. M fiddles with his tie by putting to his mouth repeatedly. He isn’t entirely comfortable and is unsure how to contribute at first. He then gets involved but J rejects his idea, M goes along with J’s different version of what to do. S looks away and doesn’t help in setting the scene right at the start, she visits another group, focuses on the talk then makes a side comment to C. that can be deemed to show tension. Middle 5 minutes Straight off the group look tense. J is sitting down with all the other 4 standing around him. His tone of voice is soft and hesitant. Body language of M is defensive with crossed arms and he puts his hand up to the camera to express he is not happy with the group work/ doesn’t want it to be seen. He butts in with ‘Why don’t you just do the thing man?’ meaning do it in drama instead of discussing. Then M kicks J’s chair so he gets up, but he’s ignored M’s interjection. S has arms on hips and looking directly at J for long time ‘with attitude’. More of the other 4 are talking though. Appears exactly like Model C on p595! All around J. Then they go into positions which are all spatially far apart! C and M polite waiting but look dissatisfied. M again looks at the camera uncomfortably. A has been noticing me as well (having a side conversation with Ms M who needs to interrupt the group work). 3 are basically waiting and watching J and S rehearse a phone call. Last 5 minutes It is evident the energy is more upbeat than yesterday. They are all standing together. J is directing. He places a plastic flower between chairs setting up for rehearsing. Before long, the tensions emerge between members of the group. Tone of voice from C to M who is resisting rehearsing as planned is harsh and loud, which he comments on. M twice ushers for the camera to be switched off or for me to ‘go away’. M feels attacked by tone of voice ‘I do get it, it’s just not the actual thing.’ He is refusing to help by resisting fully engaging in rehearsing the slow‐motion. When I move on to this group, A is asking for Ms M’s opinion and pushes Ms M to voice her uncertainty to the group on her behalf, They all bar S listen to the teacher. S stays sitting and waits for the others to tell her when they return: ‘What are we



doing?’. I’ve interpreted this as withdrawal but she’s not off‐task, just not engaging with the teacher. The teacher possibly sensing the tension asks if she can take some photos. This causes the students to laugh and J to joke she takes a picture of him. S is attacking to A in tone of voice and manipulation, she mocks her hesitation to start. ‘Shall I start?’ ‘No’. ‘Shall I start?’. Loud and harsh ‘Yes, man!’. GROUP 3 Beginning 5 minutes N shows dislike of being filmed initially (‘Get that out of my face!’) and then ignores. The first group I filmed once Ms M had given the task. They stay seating in a close circle, all are happy to have K lead the conversation and suggestion of ideas. All are focused in their body language. N plays with a necklace but she is concentrated and excited by the conversation. I has his hand on his chin most of the time, gesture conveys he is a deep thinker. They are the only group to go off‐topic in a way that enriches the task. They refer to purgatory when discussing the crash. * As I am not recording conversation some nuances are missed like N ‘Yeah that’s what I said’ in response to K having said ‘No, no etc.’ to her earlier suggestion. Such a common trait of misunderstanding other people’s phrasing. Middle 5 minutes Very fluid and positive energy, evident engagement with material. They have progressed quickly as they are now using masks and spend a higher proportion of the 5 minutes rehearsing in drama then discussing how to stage it. F, A and N, in particular N, are directing each other now they are in the scene. I stays as an engaged listener, speaking little but facial expressions keen and attentive, smiling at points. Again N, A, F, K able to each take the lead at different points during the staging discussion. Then K says ‘Shall we try that?’ and summarises the direction/ order of staging A has said. Last 5 minutes F shows dislike of being filmed, perhaps as have lost K and feel challenged by having to go over it all with L as his replacement. Group 3 have lost K as he is not in class. They are integrating L into K’s role from yesterday. A and F take on the leadership roles in this instance. There is still a sense of positive drive in spite of obstacles. F shows uncomfortable with filming today‐ ‘I thought you’d filmed enough yesterday’ but when I insist I have to do 5 minutes of each group he re‐focuses on the work.



N is distracted at start, wanders off twice, focuses on setting the props for a bit, she stays on the edge but is always checking in with what A and F are instructing L to do. A very animated and using eye contact a lot to get L’s attention and understanding of the brief. L doesn’t speak, he just listens and watches.



Appendix Four Group 1 A watches and comments on R: ‘R sometimes gives his ideas but he’s not bothered all the time.’ This is very true of R’s increase in passiveness as rehearsals continue over the two days. She said N is ‘eager to get on with it. He finds his own idea after the ideas he’s received.’ She said I is more of a listener: ‘He’ll agree, or add to your idea.’ A concluded ‘J is a really good actor, very supportive’. Discussing L in Group 1, ‘sometimes she does listen like today when I pretended to do cutting her hair she said yes’. She agreed she does get distracted though. They were ‘focused’ as a group. Group 2 A comments they have ‘got up ready to go but are a bit clueless about what to do’. She says J is ‘trying to give them [his group] a chance but no one is contributing so he goes to Ms Meltzer’. She commented on C that she ‘takes the idea and does well when performing. Not sure she contributes ideas much.’ We agree they aren’t getting on well. They ‘all look a bit clueless’ but concluded from being in the room with the group over both days ‘in the end they got going.’ Group 3 A was in this group. A says she ‘uses her face a lot’ when I comment on her happy smiley face. Comments on sidetrack that they were referring to what studied in Religious Studies recently about heaven and hell. When I said it seemed off the subject but it was relevant A agreed. A concludes: ‘All understand each other’s ideas as a group and respect the ideas as well. We were all connected. All shared an idea of what wanted and it was sort of built up.’



Appendix Five Questionnaire Results Click here for: Online Excel Spreadsheet Questionnaire Results Pie charts listed below:

Respect15%

Listening16%

Contributing ideas16%

Supportive people16%

Co‐operating as a team37%

1. What helps group work in drama?

Arguing over ideas28%

People not participating

28%

People not communicating

well22%

People lacking focus11%

Poor personal

relationships 11%

2. What difficulties can you find in group work in drama?



Appendix Six FOCUS GROUP CONVERSATION ON GROUP WORK: 18th March 2011 A week after the ‘Jo and Judy’ devising task. 13.47 mins Notes on opinions expressed from listening to the video. J: in group work everybody has different opinions to make it clear to the group what we’re doing so it’s much easier to organise.[ ] C: difficult thing working in groups is when somebody has a negative attitude and they don’t want to do anything so it lets the group down. S: when they all work together, they all want to do it (what a good group looks like)/ if someone doesn’t want to do it ‘the group can’t work properly basically’ [prompted by Ms M] G: when someone shares an idea and they are kind of leading the group but it opens up other people’s ideas as well. Sharing an idea and then changing it. K: It’s best to get all the ideas out first then you can elaborate on everybody’s ideas. Then you can put each idea into the play and from there you can just keep on building. N: In her KS3 class ‘people didn’t get along, they didn’t like what they was acting as and there was arguing, but then as we grew up we started getting along with each other’ Ms M input: ‘I had a big long list of people I couldn’t put into groups because it would cause an argument’ Yes‐ Easier to work in a group in Year 10. About 3 have said I don’t know to start. R: In Year 9, there used to be bigger groups and everyone used to talk loudly and other people couldn’t hear and now because the group’s smaller it’s easier to work. A: A group needs people who build on ideas instead of breaking ideas. They should build on ideas and not break them. Ms M: Called accepting everything instead of saying no to stuff J: It’s better when you don’t work with friends because then you get more done. Agrees it makes her more creative.



Boy: Good to have something to say rather than don’t say anything and just go along with it. I think everyone should have something to say in the group. Saying encouraging is sometimes listening and not speaking over each other. M shows he doesn’t know at start, ‘it’s just bad innit’ (the group work in this class). M: [Who would be the perfect group?] They don’t have to be good at drama, they just have to be good at teamwork and stuff and working together. You can get people who are good at drama but they don’t work together. L: People that want to work together. How is different in Year 10 to Year 9? People listen more. What is your problem? At the moment we are a group, and a lot of you are doing that exact thing we said we don’t like which is not focusing as a group and breaking down the conversation. It’s all very nice to preach it but if you’re going to be rude and disrespectful.. I’m not talking just to you J. F: They’ll have fun but getting the work done. In Year 10. If people come in a not sensible manner, it makes it difficult. I: In KS4 they’re mature/ more focused in group work/ means ‘more sensible and serious’ by mature/ more mature to work with girls and boys L: In year 9 really childish. More mature in Year 10/ work harder. N: Something I like doing in a group, if someone is misbehaving I’ll tell them. Challenging conversation for some of them.



Notes on Author Hannah Pantin completed this research paper on group work during her PGCE teacher training at Goldsmiths College. She has a BA in English from Oxford University and an MFA in Theatre Directing from Birkbeck College, University of London. She set up the Penkhull Mystery Plays community event in Stoke‐on‐Trent in 2005 and Moonstruck Astronaut theatre company in 2009. She believes in the contribution drama and theatre can make to community cohesion. She currently teaches drama at Sevenoaks School in Kent.

for group work shared in a GCSE - National Drama Research Vol. 3 No. 1 April 2012 Emergent...

Documents

Transcript of for group work shared in a GCSE - National Drama Research Vol. 3 No. 1 April 2012 Emergent...