(RE)WRITING THE SCRIPT OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING/LEARNING: EXPLORING TEACHER CANDIDATES’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF DRAMA- BASED INSTRUCTION

ABSTRACT

This dissertation reports on a qualitative longitudinal study that explores the original conceptualization of drama-based instruction (DBI) in the L2 classroom among ten K-12 teachercandidates in a language teacher preparation program.  It gives particular attention to two case study participants as they continued to (re)conceptualize drama-based instruction in L2 teaching/learning during diverse field experiences within the United States and Sweden.  The following research questions were investigated: 1) In what ways might drama-based instruction offer a basis to L2 teacher-candidates as they work to engage in playful/learning ZPD activity with learners during field experiences in US K-12 schools and abroad?; 2) What are the challenges and affordances experienced by teacher-candidates as they attempt to orient to L2 education from a perspective informed by dramatic play?; and 3) Does L2 teacher-candidates’ use of dramatic play activities impact their perceptions of their students’ L2 knowledge and development?  If so, how?

Analysis of participants’ written lesson plans and teaching reflections, along with researcher field notes of classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with the teachers revealed three major findings: 1) participants struggled to successfully commit to perspective of DBI, informed by Vygotskian principles, resulting in formal learning ZPD activity taking precedence over playful/learning ZPD activity during drama-based activities; 2) drama-based instruction ruptured traditional classroom dynamics which challenged participants’ emerging, and existing, pedagogical content knowledge; and 3) participant assumptions of students’ L2 skills, and the process of second language acquisition, affected methodological considerations when designing DBI for L2 instruction.  The analysis highlights the need for specific teacher-education

 

in DBI for successful mediated learning to occur in L2 classrooms, and the specific challenges of orientating to methods that support a communicative-based pedagogy for L2 teaching/learning.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………………………………… viii

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………………………. x

Chapter 1  Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

1.1 Background and Purpose ……………………………………………………………………………. 1

1.2 Research Questions …………………………………………………………………………………… 61.3 Research Position Statement ………………………………………………………………………. 7

1.4 The Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………………….. 11

1.5 Dissertation Overview……………………………………………………………………………….. 11

Chapter 2  Review of Literature………………………………………………………………………………. 13

2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13

2.2 Definitions and Approaches to Drama-Based Instruction …………………………………. 14

2.3 The Relationship Between Play and Drama: A Vygotskian View ……………………… 18

2.4 Mediation and Internalization: Creating Playful/Learning ZPDs ……………………….. 22

2.5 DBI and Language Learning ………………………………………………………………………. 26

2.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30

Chapter 3  Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………… 31

3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31

3.2 Study Design: Case Study Research …………………………………………………………….. 31

3.3 Research Context: The World Languages Teacher Preparation Program …………….. 33

3.4 Participants ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 36

3.5 Phase I: The Elementary World Language Classroom …………………………………….. 39

3.5.1 Methods Course Overview ……………………………………………………………….. 39

3.5.2 The Elementary Field Experience Course Overview ……………………………… 43

3.6 Phase I Sources of Data …………………………………………………………………………….. 46

3.7 Phase II: The EFL Secondary Classroom………………………………………………………. 47

3.7.1 English Education in Sweden…………………………………………………………….. 48

3.8 Phase II: Sources of Data …………………………………………………………………………… 50

3.9 Phase III: The Secondary World Language Classroom ……………………………………. 513.10 Procedures for Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………. 53

3.11 Validity and Reliability ……………………………………………………………………………. 55

3.12 Generalizability/Transferability …………………………………………………………………. 56

3.13 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

Chapter 4  Setting the Stage …………………………………………………………………………………… 59

4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 59

4.2 Conceptualizing Meaningful Instruction for Language Learning……………………….. 59

4.3 (Re)Framing Drama-Based Instruction …………………………………………………………. 63

4.3.1 The Locked Safe: A Modified Gauntlet Activity …………………………………… 67

4.3.2 Vanishing Artwork: A Tableaux Vivant ………………………………………………. 69

4.3.3 Stolen Colors: Student and Teacher-in-Role …………………………………………. 70

4.3.4 Writing the Script: Planning Lessons with a DBI-as-Methodology

Orientation ……………………………………………………………………………………… 71

4.4 The Struggle for Self-Regulation: Challenges in (Re)Framing a Mindset ……………. 72

4.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………. 79

Chapter 5  Act One: Becoming a ‘Good’ Teacher – The Unfolding Case of Madeline………. 80

5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 805.2. Socio-cultural and Language Learning Background……………………………………….. 81

5.3 Phase I: The Elementary Field Experience ……………………………………………………. 84

5.3.1 Examining Madeline’s Teaching Practices in the Elementary Field

Experience………………………………………………………………………………………. 86

5.4 Week Three DBI Lesson: A Game of Charades ……………………………………………… 88

5.4.2 The Disappearing Pantomime ……………………………………………………………. 93

5.5 Week Three DBI Activity: Reflections and Initial Mediation ……………………………. 96

5.6 Week Six DBI Lesson: Inner Drama ……………………………………………………………. 99

5.6.1 Beginning the Lesson: Getting into Character ………………………………………. 100

5.6.2 Extending the Dramatic Sphere………………………………………………………….. 105

5.6.3 Discarded Role Play ………………………………………………………………………… 109

5.6.4 Imagination and Issues of Power………………………………………………………… 115

5.7 Reflections and Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………. 120

5.8 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………. 123

Chapter 6  Act Two: Teaching as Performance – The Contradictory Case of Max ……………. 124

6.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 124

6.2 Socio-cultural and Language Learning Background………………………………………… 1246.3 Phase I: The Elementary Field Experience ……………………………………………………. 128

6.4 Week Two DBI Lesson: Drama as Best Supporting Actor ……………………………….. 130

6.4.1 Story-Reading: Pantomime to Support L2 Meaning-Making …………………… 132

6.4.2 Reading-in-Role: Misidentification of DBI Strategies ……………………………. 135

6.5 Week Two DBI Activity: Reflections and Initial Mediation …………………………….. 140

6.6 Testing the Waters: Week Seven DBI Lesson ………………………………………………… 143

6.6.1 The Voyage Spectaculaire Takes Flight ………………………………………………. 145

6.6.2 Pantomime in New Lands …………………………………………………………………. 148

6.7 Reflections and Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………. 154

6.8 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………. 161

Chapter 7  Act Three: (Re)contextualizing L2 Teaching Practices…………………………………. 162

7.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 162

7.2 Selecting a Topic: Enacting U.S. Civics ……………………………………………………….. 163

7.2.1 The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election: DBI at Gymnasieskola …………………… 166

7.2.2 Civics in Action………………………………………………………………………………. 168

7.2.3 Intermission: Midway Adjustments to the Drama-Based Lesson ……………… 176

7.3 Finishing the Pantomime: DBI at Grundskola………………………………………………… 182

7.3.1 Teacher-Dominated DBI: Pantomime as Theatre ………………………………….. 185

7.4 Reflexive Thoughts: Reactions from Max …………………………………………………….. 189

7.5 Becoming English Authors: Story-writing vs. Story-telling vs. Story-reading ……… 191

7.6 Phase III: The Secondary World Language Classroom ……………………………………. 199

7.6.1 DBI and The Secondary World Languages Classroom: Madeline …………….. 200

7.6.2 DBI and The Secondary World Languages Classroom: Max …………………… 203

7.7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………. 211

Chapter 8  The Final Act: Conclusion and Discussion…………………………………………………. 213

8.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 213

8.2 Drama-Based Instruction and Playful/Learning ZPD Activity…………………………… 214

8.3 DBI in the L2 Classroom: Challenges and Affordances …………………………………… 217

8.4 Second Language Learning: DBI and Teachers’ Perceptions ……………………………. 219

8.5 Implications …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 221

8.5.1 Implications for Language Teacher Preparation and L2 Pedagogy ……………. 221

8.6 Limitations of the Study …………………………………………………………………………….. 224

8.7 Concluding Statement: Future Directions ……………………………………………………… 226

References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 229

Appendix A  Phase I Course Syllabi ………………………………………………………………………… 239

Appendix B  List of Semi-Structured Interview Questions …………………………………………… 246

Appendix C  Strategy Questionnaire ………………………………………………………………………… 248

Appendix D  Transcription Conventions …………………………………………………………………… 250

Chapter 1

 

Introduction

1.1 Background and Purpose

Drama, used as an instructional strategy, takes advantage of imaginative processes that humans have participated in for thousands of years to explain, explore, and imitate cultural interactions observed in society.  Drama is able to illustrate multiple beliefs, perspectives, and possibilities related to human activity (Edmiston, 2007; Enciso, 2015; Holzman, 2010; O’Neill, 1995).  In addition, it has been noted that drama possesses the ability to make substantial positive contributions in the learning process by a number of scholars in the field of drama/theatre in education (Anderson, 2012; Baldwin & Fleming, 2003; Booth, 2005; Bowell & Heap, 2013; Eriksson, 2009; Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Grady, 2000; Heathcote & Bolton, 1995; Miller & Saxton, 2004; Neelands, 2000; Nicholson, 2011; O’Connor, 2010; O’Neill 1995; O’Toole, 1992; Verity, 1992; Wagner, 1998).

Indeed, research conducted on drama-based instruction (DBI) shows that it is able to facilitate diverse learning opportunities for a wide range of learners – including those in the process of learning an additional language (Bundy, Piazzoli, & Dunn, 2015; Lauer, 2008; Matthias, 2007; Rothwell, 2011; Ryan-Scheutz & Colangelo, 2004; Wilburn, 1992).  While discussions on the role of drama in second language (L2) instruction is not new to the field of language education, (and will be extensively discussed in the forthcoming chapters of this dissertation), how teachers are educated to successfully use drama to assist the production of thought and meaning-making in the L2 teaching/learning process has yet to be fully explored.

In general, methods of L2 instruction have come and gone out of favor based on the popularity (or abandonment) of relevant theories in both the fields of second language acquisition and education (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Loewen, 2015; Lightbown & Spada, 2006).  The contemporary goals of language learning, as Huhn (2012) points out, includes a “focus on various forms of communication across cultures and communities and the uses of language as a tool to acquire new knowledge” which demands “far more than just the development of grammatical knowledge” that existed in the grammar-translation paradigm of a previous language teaching/learning generation (p.163).  Huhn (2012) continues:

“Consequently, preparing the language learner within this new paradigm means that the classroom teacher must be much more than an individual who imparts grammatical knowledge and orchestrates mechanical linguistic practice.  Today’s language teacher must be able to assume the role of facilitator in guiding student learning, designing opportunities for interaction within the classroom and with communities beyond the classroom, and providing feedback and assistance so that learners know what they must do to progress (Shrum & Glisan, 2010)”  (p. 164).

 

Both the ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012) and the TESOL PreK-12 English Language Proficiency Standards (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 2006) position successful communication in a variety of diverse settings as the cornerstone for L2 curriculum design.  However, as McApline and Dhonau (2007) remark, “While much national attention has been given to what students should know and are able to do in a foreign language classroom, very little attention has been placed on what their teachers should know and be able to do as foreign language educators” (p. 248, emphasis added).

Challenges surrounding the implementation of a function-oriented communicative-based pedagogy for language teacher-candidates notwithstanding, DBI poses its own unique challenges for educators seeking to incorporate it into L2 instruction. There are several teacher-practitioner oriented manuals that provide a rationale for drama as a teaching methodology alongside examples of drama-based learning strategies (e.g., Boal, 1992/2002; Edmiston, 2014; Heathcote

& Bolton, 1995; Maley and Duff, 1982; O’Neill, 1995; Saldaña, 1995; Siks, 1958; Spolin, 1986; Van de Water, McAvoy, & Hunt, 2015; Wagner, 1976; Ward, 1947; Way, 1967).  While these texts have been valuable for introducing drama into educational settings, they largely fail to address what Wagner (1998) has called the crisis in drama education research; that is to say, “There has not been a huge tolerance in educational drama research of the evolving understanding that teachers develop when a new pedagogical structure, drama, is pressed into their practice” (p. 223).  To explain, drama in education necessitates a radical paradigmatic shift in how the studentteacher relationship is conceptualized if used in the language learning process.  As Maley and

Duff (1982) caution:

“The [drama] activities cannot work unless there is a relaxed atmosphere.  Rearranging the layout of the room will help, but you will also need to alter the students’ idea, and possibly your own, of what the teacher is there for.  You will no longer be the source of all knowledge nor the sole arbiter of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ ‘good’ and ‘bad.’  Your main function now is to set things in motion; you are, to use the French word, the ‘animateur.’  You should ensure the students understand what you want them to do, then step back as far as possible from what is happening, controlling but not directing” (p. 22).

 

Unlike other approaches of L2 instruction that were born with an emphasis on habit formation rooted in a behaviorist philosophy, DBI serves to rupture preconceived notions of just how and in what ways the teaching and learning of new, academic concepts take place for those involved in the educational process. Van de Water et al. (2015) warn: “Doing drama can feel like organized chaos” (p.4).  This feeling may derive from current curriculum and instructional practices in U.S. K-12 contexts that tend to place value on the creation of predetermined end products within physical environments that reflect top-down approaches to order and discipline.  In contrast, the fine arts (including the disciplines of drama/theatre, music, movement/dance, and the visual arts), in their roles as symbolic instructional tools, may hold the potential to offer individuation that allow for dynamic, dialogic, and transformative relationships between teachers and students to emerge in otherwise teacher- and administrator-driven learning environments.

These relationships forged through DBI may serve as a foundation for the formation of unique playful/learning Zones of Proximal Development (ZPDs) that support language learning in the classroom.  The ZPD is a dialectical concept of instruction first discussed in the work of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky during the early part of the twentieth century and before his untimely death at the age of 37 from tuberculosis in 1934.  As Edmiston (2007) briefly explains:

“In every social situation, Vygotsky (1978) theorized that all people (including those with impairments) create ZPDs, which lie between their actual level of development and a potential level of development that shifts or becomes possible with the guidance or cooperation, of an adult or more capable peer” (pp. 338339).

 

As will be discussed in further detail in chapter two, the ZPD and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, breaks from a causal and linear approach to learning, instruction, and development.  As Verity (1992) explains, “At all times as the learner and knower move through the learner’s ZPD, restructuring goes on…at any given moment, the learner and knower are to be found in a semiotically-constructed, temporarily-shared relationship that is entirely open to change.  Thus, learning is seen to be crucially social and crucially indeterminate, since it relies on the construction of numerous, yet temporary, versions of ‘reality,’ which can be simply defined as the task at hand” (p. 68).  Edmiston (2007) makes the claim that the “playful situations of drama open up possibilities for adults to collaborate with children” and that “fictional situations create what Vygotsky (1967) conceptualized as ‘zones of proximal development,’ where ‘a child is a head taller’ and where the often-hidden potentials of children can be revealed” (p. 338).

For Holzman (2009, 2010), actualizing the ‘head taller’ experience for individuals outside the realm of early childhood and into other stages of life opens the door for limitless potential especially through drama or performance-based activity.  Holzman (2009) sees performing “in the theatrical sense of the word” as having:

“similarities to the pretend play of early childhood in which children are doing what is familiar to them and, at the same time, doing things that are brand new, things that are beyond them…we let very young children perform ahead of themselves – speaking, drawing pictures, reading books (and much more) before they know how.  This performing kind of play and these spaces for performance are essential to development and learning – not only in early childhood but for all of us at all ages.  Development, in this understanding, is the activity of creating who you are by performing who you are not…and Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development is not a zone at all, or a societal scaffold, but an activity – simultaneously the performance space and the performance” (pp. 18-19).

 

These important assertions take into consideration the dynamic relationship that exists between learning, drama, and cognitive development – a relationship that warrants further investigation in the field of language teacher preparation. L2 teacher-candidates, and language learners alike, are engaged in an ongoing process of becoming in the language learning classroom as they participate in activities that are brand new to them.  Holzman (2009) explains that “Vygotsky’s attempt to create a dialectical conception of human development (the activity of becoming) and a dialectical methodology for studying it (tool-and-result) reframes the question of human development in such a way as to embrace its paradoxical nature: How can something be both what it is and what it is not?” (p. 17).  L2 teacher-candidates find themselves engaged in such a paradoxical dilemma while in enrolled in teacher-preparation programs.  They are positioned as being in the process of becoming professional language educators (subject to institutional and socio-political expectations and demands) as well as highly knowledgeable multilingual language users.  At various occasions, L2 teacher-candidates must embody and perform both of these roles while participating in student-teaching field experiences.  They are simultaneously being and becoming professional language teachers with in-depth knowledge and skill in the target language being taught.

This process becomes further complicated when looking at U.S. national language teacher preparation programs that place particular emphasis on translating the previously described ACTFL and TESOL standards into relevant pedagogical practice wherein contextualized communication is advocated as being central to L2 curriculum design.  For many

L2 teacher-candidates, the approach to language teaching/learning taken by the ACTFL and TESOL standards, and how it has impacted L2 pedagogical decision making, is a radical departure from their personal experiences as a language learner in the world language classroom.  Teacher-candidates that were predominately exposed to instruction in the world language classroom – as language learners – that emphasized grammatical form over communicative function through rote memorization and didactic teaching methods might experience difficulty (re)orienting to a set of educational standards that now ask them to privilege meaning over form through interactive, student-centered activities; activities they may never have participated in as language learners but are now asked to endorse in student-teaching field experiences by their teacher-preparation program.  To this end, DBI – with its unique potential to be used to create meaningful playful/learning ZPD activity where educators and learners alike are invited to perform beyond their current abilities – might offer a fundamental reorganization of how teacher-candidates orient to their practice as emerging L2 educators attempting to promote communicative-based standards of language teaching/learning.

1.2 Research Questions

In order to exploit the potential benefits DBI might provide L2 teacher-candidates, it is important to first investigate the complicated, multi-faceted process of encouraging teachercandidates to first (re)conceptualize and then implement Vygotskian-informed DBI in the language learning classroom to create playful/learning ZPD activity.  Thus, this study explores the original conceptualization of DBI in the L2 classroom among ten K-12 teacher-candidates in a language teacher preparation program.  It then focused on two case study participants as they continued to (re)conceptualize DBI in L2 instruction during diverse field experiences within the United States and Sweden. (The exact process of participant selection for further case study analysis will be explained in more detail in chapter three.)  To this end, the specific research questions pursued in this dissertation included the following:

• In what ways might drama-based instruction offer a basis to L2 teachercandidates as they work to engage in playful/learning ZPD activity with learners during field experiences in US K-12 schools and abroad?

 

• What are the challenges and affordances experienced by teacher-candidates as they attempt to orient to L2 education from a perspective informed by dramatic play?

 

• Does L2 teacher-candidates’ use of dramatic play activities impact their perceptions of their students’ L2 knowledge and development? If so, how?

 

Using a longitudinal, qualitative case study approach (to be discussed in further detail in chapter three), these questions were designed to capture a comprehensive description of the teacher-preparation process undertaken by L2 teacher-candidates as they attempted to incorporate DBI in their instructional practice.

1.3 Research Position Statement

The basis of this proposed research study emerges from my previous experiences with drama and education.  I was initially trained as a professional actor and hired by the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia as one of four Dorothy Haas Acting Fellows.  Along with many other responsibilities in this position, I was trained (using an apprenticeship model) to work as a teaching artist in local schools and other various institutions, within an hour of Philadelphia, in order to implement DBI at sites of learning.  During my experiences as a teaching artist, I began to count myself amongst a growing number of educators who have found the use of drama activities in the classroom opening up unforeseen possibilities of learning for a diverse range of students.

In particular, during my time as a professional teaching artist, I found that many children whose learning experiences involved the process of acquiring English as an additional language and becoming socialized into an English-medium environment seemed particularly affected by the opportunities drama afforded them.  On more than one occasion, I witnessed children who were English Language Learners (ELLs) appear to be afraid to discuss the language-, culture-, community- and family-related social practices available to them outside of school.  I felt their embarrassment and their struggle with being seen as culturally different from what they assumed many of their teachers expected of them.  Cultural misunderstanding and miscommunication between children who were ELLs and educators seemed to be prevalent in many of the classrooms I visited and could result in scenes of tension and frustration.

Yet, when creative drama was infused into lessons many children who were ELLs and their monolingual peers became attentive, excited, and enthusiastic about learning.  I became particularly aware of how several ELL students were often able to transform from silent to active participants in the learning process and become valued members of the classroom community through the use of creative drama practices.  Many learners began to see their diverse worldview perspectives not as deficiencies but as resources to share with their fellow peers and educators.

Later, while pursuing my secondary teaching certification and immersed in my student teaching experience, I engaged in an inquiry-based qualitative research project to see how learners would take up drama-based activities during a unit on Romeo and Juliet.   I implemented drama techniques I had refined at the Walnut Street Theatre into both an intermediate ESL

(English as a Second Language) class and a ninth-grade advanced English course.

To be frank, I found the position of a student teacher constraining.  As a teaching artist, and an independent contractor, I had followed the rules and procedures of the school where I was placed, but I had none of the institutional pressures that current classroom teachers experience

(such as a need to cover a large range of curricular objectives in a limited period of time, provide measurable/quantifiable evidence of student learning and achievement, defend particular pedagogical choices, etc.)  As a student-teacher, I was removed from my ideal teaching position I held as a teaching-artist and placed into the realistic accountable shoes of the public-school teacher.

Additionally, I quickly realized that a student-teacher must strike a balance between their personal philosophy of how teaching/learning takes place in the classroom against the beliefs of their co-operating in-service teacher.  During my time implementing DBI in both the ESL and ninth-grade English classrooms, I became acutely aware of the important methodological negotiations that must occur between pre-service and in-service teachers when designing learning strategies for lesson plans.  I was a guest in my co-operating teachers’ classrooms, yet I struggled at times between what research told me were ‘best practices’ and what I saw being employed in the classroom.

That is not to say that what I witnessed were not ‘best practices.’  The methods employed by my co-operating teachers, from their point of view, were indeed ‘best practices’ as they saw and understood the social configuration and needs of their learners.  However, I felt an inherent power imbalance between the role of the pre-service teacher and that of the in-service teacher whereby the in-service teacher, by virtue of experience, was deemed “the expert” and the preservice teacher “the novice.”  It was a uni-directional learning process despite my recent exposure with current research on teaching methods and the prior pedagogical experience that I brought with me to the classroom.

In addition, I experienced the complex emotions that can occur when engaging in DBI activities with students for the first time in a student-teaching setting.  As a well-trained educator in the fields of both drama and second language learning, I had moments of hesitation and anxiety when developing and engaging in drama-based lesson plans with my students.  I feared that I might ‘fail’ in the eyes of my supervisors, that I may not be taken seriously as a competent teacher, or that the students would not take to the drama-based lesson and I would be left scrambling for alternative instructional activities to meet pre-established learning objectives.

Despite these troubling circumstances, the results of the inquiry-project were overwhelmingly positive in both classes with students remarking that they enjoyed the opportunity to engage in DBI, get away from their desks, and experience the text in physical form.  While the positive results of using DBI were encouraging, this experience also helped me to see first-hand the institutional, situational, and emotional constraints placed upon teachercandidates that may serve to influence their experimentation with particular teaching techniques or their perspective on what learning strategies are valued as practical classroom endeavors.

Certainly, as will become apparent within the pages of this dissertation, the teachercandidates in this language teacher preparation program experienced similar instructional and self-imposed constraints as I did when they attempted to gain an understanding of DBI that would allow them to integrate it in a meaningful way throughout their pedagogical practice.  These constraints ranged from navigating their personal philosophies of education and second language acquisition with supervisor expectations when preparing lesson plans, to anxiety over losing control of the classroom while teaching, to experiencing moments of imposter-syndrome in viewing themselves as competent teachers and users of the languages being taught.  These similarities in experience force me to acknowledge that the personal narrative and perspectives I recount here affect the interpretation of the data collected during this study and serve to provide me with a more dynamic perspective regarding the participants’ methodological considerations and pedagogical decisions made during diverse field experiences in language learning classrooms.

 

1.4 The Significance of the Study

With an increasingly linguistically diverse society in the United States (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Greenfader & Brouillette, 2013), L2 educators, whether working with languagemajority or language-minority learners, must be prepared to engage their students in innovative ways to facilitate their grammatical, communicative, and symbolic competency skills.  For that reason, teachers, teacher-educators, education administrators, policy makers, academic curriculum publishers, and caregivers of multilingual children are only a few of the many people who may benefit from becoming aware of the affordances and challenges faced in implementing DBI in today’s language learning classrooms.

On a broader level, this dissertation aims to strengthen our understanding of the complex factors involved in L2 teacher preparation by focusing specifically on the unique journeys of two L2 teacher-candidates, from an original cohort of ten participants, as they attempted to (re)orient their conceptual approach to how DBI can be used in classroom settings that departs from traditional notions of L2 teaching/learning.  The insights from this study, and the specific study recommendations, should be of value to the field of world languages education, TESOL, PK-12 education, applied linguistics, and other related fields.

1.5 Dissertation Overview

Chapter two begins by orienting the reader with the field of drama in education through an in-depth discussion of recent research trends in drama as a classroom teaching/learning strategy that impact contemporary pedagogical practices. Following this, a theoretical argument is put forth – grounded in Vygotskian socio-cultural theory – that provides a framework for drama’s potential to create unique playful/learning zones of proximal development in general education settings, and in the field of L2 teaching/learning.

Chapter three proceeds to foreground the methodological considerations of the study’s overall design, the contexts in which the research took place, the selection of participants, and the exact procedures undertaken for data collection and analysis. The study’s validity and reliability as well as its overall potential for generalization is also addressed.  In addition, an overview of the coursework completed in the participants’ L2 teacher preparation program is presented.

Chapter four provides contextualizing information by illustrating how the ten participants in the world languages cohort, from which the two case studies described in this dissertation were selected, became introduced to DBI strategies during their first methods course and how they were asked to (re)orient their approach by incorporating Vygotskian principles of socio-cultural theory.  Chapters five and six then proceed to present the experiences of each case study participant during their elementary field experiences.  Chapter seven follows the case study participants as they continued their teacher-preparation, and use of DBI, abroad in north-central Sweden.  These data analysis chapters provide detailed accounts of each participants’ sociocultural and language learning background as well as thick descriptive reports of their attempts in using DBI in the L2 classroom over the final two years of their teacher preparation program in each field experience setting.

Chapter eight synthesizes the results of both case studies and addresses the relevant findings in light of the proposed research questions.  Implications for language teacher preparation, L2 pedagogy, and language teacher education, are subsequently addressed.  The chapter concludes the dissertation with an acknowledgement of the study’s limitations and proposes suggestions for future research directions.

(RE)WRITING THE SCRIPT OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING/LEARNING: EXPLORING TEACHER CANDIDATES’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF DRAMA- BASED INSTRUCTION

Sharing is caring!