Group Factors as a Part of Drama Education
Abstract
This article aims to answer the following questions: 1) How do structural factors of a group appear in drama teaching? 2) How do structural factors of a group influence the progression and functionality of a drama lesson? An analytic model of the structural factors that influence drama lessons was developed in a preliminary study by Toivanen, Pyykkö & Ruismäki. The purpose of the developed analyzing model was to help prospective teachers to increase their theoretical knowledge of the structural factors that influence drama teaching. The chosen structural factors as the target of the theoretical study are; norms, roles, statuses and communication in the group. In this study the research material contained seven videotaped drama lessons held by class teacher trainees at the Helsinki University Teacher Training School in Finland. The pupils were from the Teacher Training School of Helsinki University’s primary school. The set of data used in this study was collected in spring 2011 and 2012. The video material included lessons from the 1st and 2nd grades. Researchers coded the video recordings that formed the basis of the analysis. This study confirms that consideration of the pupil’s group roles has an impact on the success of the lesson. The success of the lesson means pupils commitment and active participation in the drama work. The considering of group roles had a connection to all the other studied structural factors of the group. Trainee teachers’ remedial actions during drama lessons were also aligned with the consideration of group roles. The teaching-studying-learning process in the context of the classroom drama is challenging as compared to many other ways of teaching. The nature of classroom drama requires a physical mentality that should be involved in fictional roles, time and space as well as in the social group roles of the class. Teachers using drama need to be able to facilitate the working dynamics of both kinds of groups in empty space. Becoming a teacher using drama in education requires knowledge of group dynamics (pedagogical skills) and drama (substance management) in order to anticipate problems in drama teaching situations.
Keywords: Drama education, classroom drama, group factors, teacher education, trainee teacher, Finnish teacher education
Introduction
This article presents some outlines of the ongoing research project’s attempts to build a theory- based model of drama teaching. The research project undertaken at Helsinki University Department of Teacher Education is focused on classroom drama teaching practices. So far, we have found two main factors affect the functioning of interaction in drama lessons in our research project. These two main categories are the teacher’s actions plus teaching arrangements and group structural factors. This article is focused on the analytic model of the structural factors that influence drama teaching, and it is hoped that the model will also be useful in all other teaching. The analytic model for the group structural factors was first created by Toivanen, Pyykkö and Ruismäki (2011). The selected structural factors; norms, roles, statuses and communication in the group were chosen as the target of the theoretical study due to the social nature of drama teaching. A teacher needs to manage two levels of the teaching-studying-learning process, the didactic and the pedagogic (Kansanen 1999; 2009). The didactic level is the teacher’s relationship with the subject, and the pedagogical level is the teacher’s relationship to the pupils (Figure 1). The meaningfulness and enjoyment of education is based on mastery of both levels.
- The triangle model of drama education (Toivanen 2010; Toivanen 2012)
The triangle model of drama education (Figure 1) is based on the Finnish holistic idea of education that supports students’ social, emotional, spiritual and cognitive development (Kansanen, 1999, 2009). Pedagogical interaction is divided into two parts; didactic (teaching) and pedagogic (relation to students) side. The didactic level (2) of education is connected to teachers' decision making in the teaching-studying-learning process. The didactic level (1) includes pre- interaction (planning learning objectives, selecting teaching content and methods), interaction (making pedagogical decisions in action, managing time, space, aids etc.) and post-interaction (reflection). Teachers' teaching experience and subject management is affecting to didactic capability. For the pedagogical level teachers need to be able to manage groups of students in the social dimension of education (Tirri, 2012). Drama education (classroom drama) is defined both as an art subject and teaching method. Classroom drama uses elements of the theatre art form adapted for educational purposes for students of all ages. It incorporates elements of theatre to facilitate the student’s cognitive, physical, social and emotional development and learning. It is a multisensory mode of teaching and learning (Neelands 1984; 1997; Bolton 1998, 198–200; Toivanen, 2012). The potential complexity and diversity of creative processes and use of double reality in drama education make it challenging (see Toivanen, Pyykkö & Ruismäki 2011, Bowell & Heap, 2010, Toivanen, Rantala & Ruismäki, 2009; Wales, 2009; Stinson 2009).
- Experiences in drama work through a role character
In classroom drama (Figure 2) teacher is combining the learning power of fictional situations (what if) that enable students (as participators) to operate as characters (presentation) in fictional situations “as if” they were real. Using drama techniques and fictional roles turn the “what if” situations into a living “as if” experience for pupils. Our real-life experiences give us the backgrounds that the “what if” situations need. They provide us with a context and with characters and problems that need to be resolved or understood (Bolton, 1998, 262–265, 277; Cooper, 2010, 17–18). The possibility to pretend to be someone else, the aesthetic doubling, is the power of drama (Østern & Heikkinen, 2001). Drama offers an active and creative dimension for learning.
Because there is no external audience, drama lets pupils safely play and share out issues and past or future experiences that are disturbing or exciting to them in real life, rehearsing and resolving them with the group (participators).
Using classroom drama in teaching can be challenging especially at the beginning, because novice teachers operate relying more on guidelines and operating principles (Sawyer 2004, 2006). In contrast to most other subjects teachers success in drama work includes developing pupils’ abilities to accept the shift from teacher-imposed discipline and the forming of ideas leading to self-discipline and self-mastery over the learning and drama process. The teachers arrange space for drama learning by removing the desks and chairs along the classroom edges. The open space enables the pupils to move from place to place while working alone, in pairs or in groups.
Teachers using drama need to be able to manage time, space and groups and to do so in both the social dimension of the classroom and the aesthetic dimension of the drama art form (Neelands 2009, 41–42). In most other school subjects, pupils working, moving and interaction in classrooms is easier to control by the teacher’s actions, layout of desks, choice of teaching materials and teaching methods.
- The developmental and the structural factors of the group
Group development has been described by different theories. The most used sequential-stage theory is Bruce W.Tuckman’s theory of group development (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, 28).
Group development in the previous theory has been divided into five developmental stages in which the group focuses on different issues. The stages are: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. Group development proceeds as a process, but sometimes development can also cease or regress if a developmental stage is not mastered properly (Tuckman, 1965, 386–387; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977, 427). The structural factors of a group are elements that affect group development. The structural factors of a group are the phenomena that occur in the interactions between the group members and that affect those interactions. The following structural factors will be examined here: norms, roles and statuses and communication in the group (Johnston & Johnston, 2009, 14–27; Pennington, Gillen & Hill, 1999, 358).
The class teachers defined all the classes in this study as being at the 3rd stage of group development. At the third stage (norming) of group development cohesiveness and group feeling develop in the group. The groups’ standards of activity begin to form. Harmony between group members is important at this stage therefore conflicts are avoided. Also new group-generated norms and roles evolve in the group in order to insure the group´s existence and harmony in the group (Tuckman, 1965, 386–387). In one of the cases (Case 6) the class teacher had from the beginning of the school year regularly done activities with the group to help the grouping process.
- Study Design
- Purpose of the study
The aim of this study is to further develop the analysis model of the structural factors that influence the drama work, which is presented in Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (Toivanen, Pyykkö & Ruismäki 2011). The purpose for the developed model is to improve teacher training and help beginning teachers using classroom drama to increase their theoretical knowledge of interactions with groups.
The analysis of these six classroom drama lessons taught by class teacher trainees at the University of Helsinki is a part of an extensive research project that is being focused on the classroom drama teaching (Toivanen, Rantala & Ruismäki, 2009; Toivanen, Komulainen & Ruismäki, 2011; Toivanen, Pyykkö & Ruismäki, 2011; Pyykkö, Toivanen & Ruismäki 2012, Toivanen, Antikainen & Ruismäki, 2012). The research project attempts to uncover some educational measures that can prevent interference with or the failure of drama lesson. The aim of this study is to answer the following research questions using video analysis:
- How do the structural factors of a group appear in drama teaching?
- How do the structural factors of a group influence the progression and functionality of a drama lesson?
- Methods
This study can be characterized as a qualitative case study in which video analysis is used to examine the elements of the group structure in drama education. The design of the on-going study reflects the researchers’ values and views concerning the empirical research field: Classroom drama teaching is a complex social phenomenon. From this perspective, it is necessary to study and discuss the drama teaching merely as a result of teachers and students’ social interactions. This research focuses on the students' activities without forgetting the teacher actions, because the student's activities are always connected to the teacher's pedagogical solutions and interactions. As all systems for video analysis are more or less impregnated with assumptions and theories, it is necessary to account for the theoretical background that has led to the methodological decisions resulting in an open-ended software solution for data handling and analysis (Rostvall and West, 2005; Derry etc., 2010, Silverman, 2010, 58–61, 243–250).
In this study, the research material consisted of seven-videotaped drama lessons taught by a pair of class teacher teaching trainees in the University’s teacher training school. In all lessons was the primary teacher trainee who was responsible for everything that happens in the classroom. The actions of the primary teacher trainee was in the focus of the video analyze. Two of the lessons (Case 1 and 2) were also involved in a preliminary study (Toivanen, Pyykkö & Ruismäki, 2011). The participants were university class teacher students from the University of Helsinki class teacher education program. The pupils were from the teacher training school’s lower level comprehensive classes. The set of data used in this study was collected from March 2011 to April 2011 and April 2012. Each of these seven drama lessons was recorded with the permission of the student teachers and the pupils’ parents. The video camera was placed at the rear of the classroom. The camera position, shooting from the back with the learners and teachers in the foreground, was consistent with this study’s focus on lecturer-to-student interaction (Erickson, 2006).
Research material collected by video is often suitable for the examination of a teaching event and the systematic analysis of the people and environment acting in the teaching event especially when examining the whole system of interaction (Heath, 1997; Erickson, 2006). The many- sidedness of the classroom interaction is usually studied with the help of systematic transcriptions. The fact that the transcription follows the relation of time and operation is especially important for investigating how the teachers’ and pupils' functions follow each other and become significant to the participants from moment to moment in the proceeding interaction context (Heat & Hindmarsh, 2002). The transcription of the video material concentrated on 1) the chronological alternation of educational interaction 2) how the pupils orientated themselves to the drama actions, 3) what kind of interaction methods the trainee teachers used in the creation of the pedagogical interaction and order in the class (verbal and nonverbal methods). Both researchers evaluated the videos independently in order to increase the reliability of the study. The evaluations by the researchers were in parallel with each other.
Results
The seven lessons chosen for examination for this article were taught by class teacher trainees. In six cases the teacher trainees were specializing in drama education, and they had completed 25 study points, the equivalent of a minor course in drama education. In one case (4) the trainee teachers had completed only the basic course of drama education (4 study points). All the trainee teachers were familiar to the pupils, because they had been doing their teaching practice in their classes for a few weeks prior to the experiment. The five lessons included a drama process that was based on the children’s book. In two 2nd grade lesson (2. and 7.), pupils created and characterised their own figures with plays, physical work and drama techniques. Only in Case 1 did the trainee teacher work alone. In all the other lessons the trainee teachers worked in pairs, but in all these lessons were the primary teacher trainee responsible for everything that happens in the classroom. The drama lessons included plays and drama techniques with physical work or discussion. The primary grades were chosen for this research because the main interest was to the examine challenges of classroom drama teaching for beginning pupils. On the other hand the young primary school pupils as well as class teacher trainees both had a limited experience of classroom drama. From the perspective of the trainee teacher it is easier to create an authority relationship with the young pupils because the pupils usually want to please the teacher (Adena & Connell, 2004, 270). At the starting point also the primary-aged pupils more willingness of role play (role-play age) should make it easier for the trainee teachers to succeed in leading the drama lesson. In two of the cases (cases 6 and 7) the class teacher has regularly from the beginning of the school year done activities with the group to help the grouping process, which can be seen in the results.
As the pupils in the classroom acquire experiences of themselves and others as part of the group, new expectations for actions or roles began to emerge. These expectations were either in relation to the teacher, other group members or an individual’s own position in the group. Expectations that arise in group members are affected by the actions of each group member. A network of group roles built up the group structure. The built up network is relatively stable and the roles remain in the network. The key to the pupils’ well-being is whether their roles include or exclude them from the group (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, 24–27; Junttila, 2010, 33–34). Based on the findings from the video analysis, the teacher’s actions to correct infractions in student group roles have an impact on the success of the drama lesson.
In Case 1 the pupils were guided to sit in a circle on the floor and cases 3, 4 and 5 on a half circle in chairs in certain places. The places were marked on the floor with tape (case 1.) or pupils sat in their own chairs (Cases 3, 4, and 5). The trainee teachers arranged and labelled the seating in advance. By doing this the trainee teachers noticed the group roles and genders were mixed in the circle or half circle. This appeared as a calm start to the lesson. The trainee teachers had arranged the action to start almost instantaneously.
The pupils could sit wherever they wanted in the circle. The teachers did not try to guide the pupils so that the familiar group roles would in fractionate. The pupils went to sit next to familiar pupils and the normal group roles strengthened. Girls and boys sat in a circle in their own groups. It took a few minutes to get the pupils to sit in the circle.
The pupils could sit wherever they wanted in the circle. The teachers did not try to guide where the pupils sat. Pupils broke the familiar group roles. Girls and boys sat in a circle side by side.
The four cases (1, 3, 4 and 5) show that it is useful for teachers to consciously vary and turnover group roles at the beginning of teaching classroom drama. The trainee teachers tried to dismantle and prevent the distribution of group roles into inner and outer roles by breaking the normal social network. By doing this they influenced the working atmosphere of the drama lesson. The consideration of group roles seems to have a connection to the positive emotional working climate in the classroom (Pianta, La Paro & Hamre, 2011, 22-27). It helped the pupils commit to drama work and work more actively. The pupils were given the opportunity to have different group roles in different educational situations. The use of flexible roles increases the sense of safety in drama work (Toivanen, 2002, 95–101; Kopakkala, 2008, 108–109).
Having the pupils work in multifaceted group roles and play different kinds of fictional roles is a central part of classroom drama (Balwin 2008, 2 – 3; Toivanen, 2010, 12). The possibility to work in a fictional world and roles was also at the focus of these six examined drama lessons. In Table 1 it should be noted that in cases (4) and (6) the pupils were whole drama lesson in a fictional world. Pupils worked partly in roles and partly as themselves.
Understanding one’s own choices as well as those of other people increases flexibility in social interactions. (Bolton, 1998, 251–254, 270, Gallaher 2001, Toivanen 2002).
Status is generally connected to the pupil's value in the group, how much power a pupil has to make group work successful (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro & Chatman, 2006). The status stabilizes quickly in a group and tends to persist. The teacher, and the trainee teacher, is likely to be valued by the group and treated with respect and as leader of the class have normally a high- status. Both rights and obligations are included in the expectations that define group roles and status. An obligation of being a teacher, for example, includes the rights of structuring a learning situation. The right of being a pupil is to have learning situations structured by the teacher. Expectations for the obligations of a role can conflict within the group. The kinds of actions a pupil might expect from a teacher, for example in drama lessons, may be contradictory. One type of role or status conflict can arise from the contradictory expectations (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, 15–18). The table below shows the number of status conflicts between pupils and trainee teachers in the examined drama lessons.
In case (2) the pupils challenge the teacher’s status 24 times and in case (7) ten times. Only in half of the situations did the pupils return to lower status and the situation was solved. The trainee teachers do not seek to strengthen their higher status (authority) by reacting to the pupils challenges. Once a trainee teacher has accepted lowered her status it might stay lowered because a given status tends to persist; after a person receives a certain status, that person’s behaviour as a group member no longer plays an important role (Salmivalli, 2005, 127, 25–26).
In all the other cases (1,3,4,5 and 6) nearly all the situations where the pupils challenged the trainee teacher’s status are solved. The trainee teachers also react more actively either by commanding or by making physical contact to a child than in case (2). The trainee teachers reinforce their higher status by reacting to the situations and the pupils returned to a lower status.
There are no status conflicts between pupils in this drama lesson.
The only drama lesson where there was status conflicts (six times) between pupils.
The in fractionating of permanent group roles plays a crucial part in developing pupil’s social emotional welfare (Barret, Sonderegger & Sonderegger, 2001; Junttila, 2010). The teachers’ responsibility for their pupils’ psychosocial welfare as the leader of the group is highlighted in teaching situations such as case (2). Striving for a higher status than the group has given (Anderson et al., 2006) as well as weakness in social skills (Junttila & Vauras, 2009; Junttila, 2010) may thus cause rejection by the group. These factors may explain the behaviour of the girl in case 2.
- Norms
Norms are the shared expectations or attitudes for appropriate behaviour and actions in the classroom. Norms direct pupils to act and function as a single unit by specifying the behaviour expected of all group members. Common attitudes, expectation and manners develop as group members` behaviour is standardized through norms. Group members` behaviour is regulated by norms and helps the group to achieve its basic task. Acting according to the norms is a reward, i.e., the norms of a group influence acceptance and rejection in a group (Johnston & Johnston, 2009, 17–18; Schmuck & Schmuck, 2001, 193; Salmivalli, 2005, 130). In school, some educational situations require strict adherence to rules but others, like classroom drama, permit a wide range of behaviours that are regarded as acceptable. That is why drama work usually starts with making a drama contract, which is based on an idea of trying to achieve a balance between freedom and responsibility, mindfulness and playfulness (Neelands, 2009, 13).
The drama contract has already been made during the previous drama lesson. The trainee teachers only tells the pupils when the drama work can begin. Working starts immediately.
The trainee teachers briefly recall the drama contract with the pupils and then work started.
The lesson starts with making the drama contract. The problem making the drama contract was that the centralized communication mechanisms were not working; not all of the pupils were listening to the teacher reading the contract. The agreement was also too abstract. The content of the contract should have been negotiated carefully (All this took 5 minutes).
The negotiation of a drama contract is thought to create a positive working environment and to create norms that support drama work. The drama contract is an agreement in which the pupils and the teacher agree to work together. The drama contracts include the ground rules with pupils to ensure they use the empty space safely and feel safe to fully engage in drama (see Toivanen, 2010, 41–45; Neelands, 2009, 13; Dickinson & Neelands, 2006, 38–41). The agreement should create encourage the pupils to work together and use fictional roles. Pupils can play in fictional roles without the worry of being humiliated. They are not responsible for the actions or opinions of the role character. Responses and evaluation are made in a fictional reality. The above points reinforce a student's sense of drama as a divided experience that includes both shared interests and responsibilities (Baldwin, 2008, 1–8). The importance of infringement of the group roles and commitment to the drama contract can be seen in Table 3 below. It describes how much active drama work time the drama lessons included.
The consideration of the drama contract and group roles seems to show a direct connection with the pupils’ commitment to the drama work in this study. Pupils’ active participation in the drama work is a significant percentage higher in cases (1), (4), and (5). The exceptions are the cases (3) and (6) which included a lot of storytelling by the teacher in role – drama technique. The students followed the teacher’s story telling calmly and with great interest, but were not active themselves. In cases (2) and (7), where the group roles were not taken into account in advance, the students' commitment to drama work was weaker. In case (2.) the teachers’ instructions for what would happen next, and waiting for the pupils to be ready to continue took even more time than was used in active drama working. A common drama contract enabled the teacher to discontinue activities or to reflect on the experiences and actions at the end of the exercise. The teacher or the teacher and the group together could evaluate how everyone had complied with the drama contract. In case (2) the pupils did not receive feedback on their work at end of the lessons, although the trainee teachers were not satisfied with the pupils’ activities and participation in the drama work. Pupils missed the opportunity to learn how to extend or improve their work the next time. In cases (4) and (5) pupils briefly self-evaluated their drama work and in cases (1) and (3) they receive a few minutes of feedback from the trainee teacher. In case (7) they receive a short feedback (30 seconds) from the trainee teacher.
The drama contract and the consideration of group roles were also connected to teachers’ remedial actions during the drama lessons.
In five cases (1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) the trainee teacher used significantly less remedial actions as a whole in the drama class. The amount of remedial actions used by the trainee teachers in cases (1,3,4,5 and 6) ranges from 42 to 62. In all these lessons the drama contract defined the norms for the group and the group roles had been mixed at the beginning of the lesson. Whereas in case (2) the group roles had not been dismantled, and the pupils were not committed to the drama contract. In case (2) the trainee teachers had to use twelve different remedial actions 143 times altogether.
Different kinds of communication models appear in the group depending on the task and group. The models of classroom communication have been examined and sorted according to how centralized or scattered their structure is. In the scattered communication network all group members communicate with each other. The network is described as centralized if there is one member of the group who manages the communication, often the teacher. The group members enjoy themselves most when communication is scattered, according to Helkama, Myllyniemi Liebkind (2005, 266–267) and Johnson & Johnson (2009, 155). Drama work requires the use of different forms of communication in the classroom. The students learn to communicate more openly with each other in constantly changing working combinations. The various pair and group working methods used in drama support the use of scattered communication. (cf. Erbay et al., 2010; Hui, 2006; Toivanen, 2010, 36–41;). The turnover from one communication model to other appeared to be challenging in the preliminary study. We noticed that it is challenging to alternate from scattered communication to centralized communication in drama lessons. The difficulty between these two communications models was shown in all the drama lessons studied (see Table 3). The time used for instructions and waiting for pupils to be ready for instructions or drama work ranged from 30% (case 5) up to 57% (case 2) of the lesson’s duration.
The time used for teacher’s instructions or pupils to be ready to start working in these seven drama lessons seems also to be related the group roles and the teacher’s role. To provide leadership, you must have the flexibility to engage in a wide variety of actions to get your pupils’ attention (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, 199). The teacher’s leadership in classroom drama includes verbal instructions, nonverbal communication, expressions, gestures, movement and placement in relation to the group. Verbal instructions are not the only action needed to make a successful drama lesson. Novice teachers have not yet developed diagnostic skills to be sufficiently flexible in the complex situations by providing the diverse types of actions needed for different situations. In order to develop those diagnostic skills, a trainee teacher´s needs knowledge and experiences of teaching and group behavior in similar situations (see Jyrhämä & Maaranen, 2012). Especially in case (2), the trainee teachers seem to have a lack of leadership and authority.
- Conclusions
- The group structural factors affect to the success of a drama lesson
Figure 3 describes the factors affecting the success of a drama lesson according to our findings. This case study gives some indication of the importance of noticing the group structural factors especially when a novice teacher starts classroom drama teaching. Based on the findings from the video analysis, teacher actions to influence the pupils’ group roles, when classroom drama is first used, seems to have an impact on the success of the drama lesson.
The consideration of group roles had a direct connection to pupils’ abilities to follow the norms (drama contract) and communication (teacher’s instructions, approaches between centralized or scattered communication). It also affected the amount of the trainee teacher’s remedial actions (uses commands, requests, makes physical contact with a child, calls a child by name, waits, claps hands, seeks eye contact etc.) and status conflicts in the classroom. A high number of remedial actions and status conflicts between students and the trainee teacher were aligned.
When we speak about quality of drama education, we could apply many different educational and aesthetic criteria. In our study, the quality of the lesson was defined to mean pupils’ commitment and active participation in drama work. The consideration of group roles seems also had a connection to the positive emotional working climate in the classroom. Teacher actions to influence the pupils’ group roles reflect to the emotional connection and interaction between the teacher and students and among students. In lessons where the group roles were not taken into account in advance, the students' commitment to drama work was weaker and there were more displays of negative verbal and nonverbal interaction by the teacher and/or students.
Furthermore, the success of drama education depends on the teacher’s skills, the engagement and the level of trust in creating the group. The teacher must try to break the established group roles. By doing so, the teacher shows the pupils that group roles can be characterised by variability and turnover. Pupils may have different roles in different educational situations. Empty space is especially challenging for communication because there has to be recognition and facilitation at the same time. The drama contract helps teacher and pupils to achieve a balance between mindfulness and playfulness in drama work.
This study suggests that becoming a teacher using drama in education requires knowledge and skills in both drama (substance management) and group dynamics (pedagogical skills). The teacher needs courage and leadership competence to teach in an empty space. When we review the results, we must be critical; this is a case study. Background factors relating to these classes’ social histories were not observed in this study and the contents of drama lessons were different. The lessons analyzed in this article are part of a broader research project, in which we will try to verify the results of this case study. Subsequent studies will be focused on one group structural element at a time. Thus, different perspectives on the complexity of drama education can be better evaluated. Success in drama education is not a simple matter, but it can be achieved. We hope the implications and outcomes of our studies will reinforce novice teachers’ awareness in complex drama teaching situations. Success in drama education, or other teaching, is not a simple matter, but it can be achieved.
Acknowledgements
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Adena, M. K., & Connell, P. C. (2004). Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher Support to Student Engagement and Achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262 - 273.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J., Spataro, S. E. & Chatman. J. A. (2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1094 - 1110.
Baldwin, P. (2008). The Primary Drama Handbook. London: Savage.
Barret, P. M., Sonderegger, R., & Sonderegger, N. L. (2001). Evaluation of an anxiety-prevention and positive-coping program (Friends) for Children and Adolescents of Non-English-speaking Background. Behaviour Change, 18(2), 78 - 91.
Bolton, G. (1998). Acting in Classroom Drama a Critical Analysis. London: Trentham Books.
Bowell, P., & Heap, B. (2010). Drama is not a dirty word: Past achievements, present concerns, alternative futures. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 15(4), 579 - 592.
Cooper, C. (ed.) (2010). Making a World of difference, A DICE resource for practitioners on educational theatre and drama. http://www.dramanetwork.eu/file/Education%20 Resource%20long.pdf
Derry, S. J., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting Video Research in the Learning Sciences: Guidance on Selection, Analysis, Technology, and Ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 3-53.
Dickinson, R., Neelands, J., & Shelton Primary School (2006). Improve your Primary School through Drama. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Erbay, F., & Doğru, S. S. Y. (2010). The effectiveness of creative drama education on the teaching of social communication skills in mainstreamed students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4475 - 4479.
Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp.177-205). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (LEA).
Gallagher, K. (2001). Drama Education in the Lives of Girls: Imagining Possibilities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Heath, C. (1997). The analysis of activities in face-to-face interaction using video. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: theory, method and practice (pp. 183 - 200). London: Sage.
Heat, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002) Analysing Interaction: Video, ethnography and Situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.) Qualitate research in action (pp. 99 - 121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helkama, K., Myllyniemi, R., & Liebkind, K. (2005). Johdatus sosiaalipsykologiaan [An introduction to social psychology.] Helsinki: Edita Prima Oy.
Hui, A. (2006). Drama education: A touch of the creative mind and communicative-expressive ability of elementary school children in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 34 - 40.
Johnson D. W., & Johnson F. P. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.
Junttila, M., & Vauras, M. (2009). Loneliness of school-aged children and their parents. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 211 - 219.
Junttila, N. (2010). Sosiaalinen kompetenssi ja yksinäisyys koululaisilla [Social competence and loneliness of school children]. In K. Joronen, & A. Koski (Eds.), Tunne- ja sosiaalisten taitojen vahvistaminen kouluyhteisössä [Strengthen emotional and Social skills in School]. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Jyrhämä, R., & Syrjäläinen, E. (2009). Mentoring relationship, mentor´s role and pedagogical thinking for teaching practice periods. The Finnish Journal of Education Kasvatus, 40(5), 417 - 431.
Jyrhämä, R., & Maaranen K. (2012). Research Orientation in a Teacher´s Work. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of Education. The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools (pp. 97 - 112). Rotterdam: Sence Publishers.
Kansanen, P. (1999). Teaching as teaching-studying-learning interaction. Scandinavian journal of Education Research, 43(1), 81 - 89.
Kansanen, P. (2009). The Curious Affair of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Orbis Scholae, 3(2), 5-18.
Kopakkala, A. (2008). Porukka, jengi, tiimi. Ryhmädynamiikka ja siihen vaikuttaminen [Group, gang, team. The group dynamics and influencing on them.] Helsinki: Edita Prima Oy.
Neelands, J. (1984). Making sense of drama. A guide to classroom practice. Oxfort: Heineman Educational Publishers.
Neelands, J. (1997). Structuring drama work. A handbook of available forms in theatre and drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Neelands, J. (2009). Beginning Drama 11–14 (Second Edition). London: David Fulton Publishers.
Pennington, D. C., Gilen, K. G., & Hill, P. (1999). Social Psychology. London: Arnold.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro K. M., & Hmare B. K. (2011). Class Assessment Scoring System. Manual K-3. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
Pyykkö, A, Toivanen, T., & Ruismäki, H. (2012). Towards a Functioning Group with Drama Methods. In Muldma M. & Leida T. (Eds.), Education as a Dialog in Multicultural Society. Tallinn: Tallinn University
Rostvall A-L., & West T. (2005) Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on Designing Video Studies of Interaction. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(4).
Salmivalli, C. (2005). Kaverien kanssa [With friends.] Keuruu: Otavan kirjapaino Oy.
Sawyer, K. (2004). Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12 - 20.
Sawyer, K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 41 - 48.
Silverman, D. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research. A Practical Handbook (Third edition). Sage Publications: London.
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (2001). Group Processes in the Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stinson, M. (2009). “Drama is like reversing everything”: intervention research as teacher professional development. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(2), 225 - 243.
Tirri, K. (2012) The Core of School Pedagogy: Finnish Teacher´s Views on the Educational Purposefulness of Their Teaching. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of Education. The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sence Publishers.
Toivanen, T. (2002). "Mä en ois kyllä ikinä uskonu ittestäni sellasta": peruskoulun viides-ja kuudesluokkalaisten kokemuksia teatterityöstä ["I'd never thought of myself doing like that": elementary school fifth-and sixth-graders experience of theater work.] Teatterikorkeakoulu. Acta Scenica 9.
Toivanen, T., Rantala, H., & Ruismäki, H. (2009). Young primary school teachers as drama educators - possibilities and challanges. In H. Ruismäki, & I. Ruokonen (Eds.), Arts-Contact Points Between Cultures. 1st International Journal of Intercultural Arts Education Conference: Post- Conference Book (pp. 129 - 140). University of Helsinki. Research Report 312.
Toivanen, T. (2010). Kasvuun! Draamakasvatusta 1–8-vuotiaille [Growth! Drama Education for 1-8 year olds.] Helsinki: WSOYpro Oy.
Toivanen, T., Komulainen, K., & Ruismäki, H. (2011). Drama education and improvisation as a resource of teacher student's creativity. Procedia Social and Educational Sciences, 12(2011), 60 - 69.
Toivanen, T., Pyykkö, A., & Ruismäki, H. (2011). Challenge of the empty space. Group factors as a part of drama education. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29(2011), 402 - 411.
Toivanen, T., Antikainen, L., & Ruismäki, H. (2012). Teacher's Perceptions of Factors Determining the Success or Failure of Drama Lessons. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 555-565.
Toivanen, T. (2012). Drama Education in the Finnish School System: Past, Present and Future. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of Education. The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools (pp. 227 - 236). Rotterdam: Sence Publishers.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Development Sequences in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational studies, 2, 419 - 427.
Wales, P. (2009). Positioning the drama teacher: exploring the power of identity in teaching practices. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(2), 261 - 278.
Østern, A-L., & Heikkinen H. (2001). The aesthetic doubling. In B. Rasmussen, T. Kjolner, V. Rasmusson, & H. Heikkinen (Eds.), Nordic Voices of Drama, Theatre and Education (pp 110 - 123) Oslo: IDEA publications.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.