Evaluation
Following on from Monitoring, Recording and Tweaking I finally feel I have some semblance of data.
So moving forward... Can the specific and deliberate use of two types of process drama not only improve Reflective Discussion amongst reluctant contributors but also Critical Literacy?
The work we did as a class on Ahi Ka, Bastion Point was a personal test of the new Aotearoa New Zealand Histories Curriculum. It allowed us to view both the Nonfictional and Fictional side of Bastion Point from the burial of Michael Joseph Savage to the land occupation. Where:
I used a type of Drama called 'Mantle of the Expert' (MoE) along with 'Hot Seating'. MoE allows the student to take on the role of the expert, research, create and present their understanding. Hot Seating allows students to question and find out more information through interrogation. As discussed in my previous post the language used during this inquiry was rich, there was much reflective discussion and social justice was questioned. There was continual thinking aloud within groups of children as they designed healthy homes or researched diseases which commonly afflict Maori and Pasifika children. Critical Literacy played an important part here as students had to question, explore and challenge the nonfictional information they were receiving. Students began disrupting the information by interrogating, addressing the issues and then taking action. However, for the purpose of quantitative audio data collection through hot seating the level of interrogation only showed a slight improvement. Was this because we had looked at the Nonfictional aspect in depth, leaving only the fictional emotional and social justice gaps to be filled in? Was the class confident in their knowledge and understanding of the topic to not need any further information? Did MoE and the rich reflective discussions that took place continuously throughout the day fill in any gaps that would normally require further interrogation?
What ever the reason I began to tweak my research. I re-focussed on using our next inquiry topic...
A New Zealand Hero. The class chose a range of heroes from wars to philanthropy to religious icons.
Their role was to study their hero inside and out and be prepared to be hot seated as 'their Hero.'
This brought about much more interrogation. The students went in blind therefore were pushed to glean as much information as possible from the 'Hero.' However, there was little reflective discussion.
Quantitative Data:
Audio recording:
At the beginning of the year extensive work was done on 'The Treasure Box' by Margaret Wild. During this study students were hot seated and audio recorded. The response to an initial question brought about only one extension. (See table below: Peter from 'The Treasure Box').
During the hot seating of our NZ Hero the response to an initial question brought about three extensions. (See table below: Suzanne Augbert).
Probe Testing:
Probe was also revisited to not only check for improvement in reading but mainly improvement in inference and evaluation.
The table below shows reading improved by one level over a 3 month period. Inference improved in all 3 students while evaluation improved in 2 out of the 3 students.
 |
Qualitative Data:Qualitative data was collected anecdotally. This included Reflective Discussion throughout MoE and during the creation of the final product and Thinking Out Loud during group and individual time. Questions were also noted during a session when students, acting as reporters, questioned the Crown with regards to their treatment of Ngati Whatua following the torching of homes on the Orakei Reserve in an effort to tidy the area for the Queen's visit and to subsequently sell the land for profit. These questions were around Social Justice using both the fictional and nonfictional aspects of the inquiry.  Although, no comparison is available anecdotally I noted a significant increase in the questioning around Social Justice compared to the beginning of the year. This coincidentally coincided with a visit from the Catholic Review Office. The reviewer was extremely impressed with the level and depth of questioning with regards to social justice from her experience observing other students from the same level. I also noted an increase in reflective discussion and thinking out loud during research time, development of presentations and the mapping and development of the new Orakei Pa/Marae community. The final product of this... a calico map delineating a new community for Orakei. A community that had been well thought out, researched and planned... including: healthy homes, parks, reserves, walking /cycling track, community gardens, orchards, medical centre, school and Marae area. Would this new community potentially stop the burning of homes in the area by the Crown?   |
So... Can the specific and deliberate use of two types of process drama not only improve Reflective Discussion amongst reluctant contributors but also Critical Literacy?
From my investigation I do believe deliberate use of process drama improves both Reflective Discussion and Critical Literacy, however it needs to be consistent and continual. Through Quantitative data collection over 3 months there was improvement in reading and also Inference and Evaluation. And, through Qualitative data collection the depth of questioning strengthened through an emotional pull for social justice. Anecdotally there was a remarkable improvement in Reflective Discussion which, included a high level of disruption of nonfictional information through peer to peer and student to teacher interrogation, the questioning of power, social justice, the addressing of issues around these and finally action being taken. Factors important in Critical Literacy!
Comments
Post a Comment