Overview (Summary)
There is no Curriculum for drama in Key Stage Three of the National Curriculum in Wales. Consequently, drama teachers are given no guidance in terms of how to proceed during drama assessment. Therefore, the current situation in drama education needs to be readdressed, taking into account disparities that mostly impact the assessment of performance.
Introduction
The Need for a Framework for the assessment of the skill of producing drama instead of dependence on the National Strategy
The essence of drama in general and drama-assessment in particular depends primarily upon the guidance set by the Curriculum. Accordingly, Kempe states that
The Assessment of the potential of students to produce Drama in drama- production, drama teachers, according to Kempe, need to assess pupils on the basis of their ability to experiment with writing in order to communicate in a variety of ways, to describe story settings and incidents, to write about character profiles, to write key words and phrases that describe or which are spoken by the characters in the text, to write simple play-scripts based on their readings, to write new scenes or characters into a story or to write their own play script applying the conventions they have learnt from previous readings
(2000:27).
Dependence on the National Strategy for the assessment of performing
Drama teachers must also depend to a larger extent upon the literary strategy during the assessment of rehearsal and performance. Teachers must be familiar with the National Literacy Strategy to ensure that their planning will provide opportunities for progress in areas relating to skills and knowledge
(2000: 27) Kempe (2000:27) notes that pupils need to be assessed according to their ability ‘to identify appropriate expression, tone, volume, use of voice and other sounds… rehearse and improve [their] performance [whilst] taking note of punctuation’ to ‘show how dialogue is expressed… read stories or plays with others… retell stories orally using formal features of story language’ and ‘to be aware of the difference between spoken and written language.’
The following complaints are commonly made by drama teachers: “There is no drama Curriculum for Key Stage Three that could sustain the validity and the credibility of assessment at this level”, “Drama-evaluation equates English language assessment”, “We are given no guidance about how to assess pupils in drama”
(2000: 27)
Bleasdale (2003:2) states that ‘the inclusion of drama within the English programme of study can be seen to narrow its potential contribution to the curriculum.’ She goes on to suggest that in order ‘to encourage teachers to incorporate drama into their teaching, it is essential that a teaching programme in drama be produced’ (Bleasdale, 2003:3). The current state of drama-assessment has led Neelands (1999:12) to ponder whether there ‘is any possible way for the drama Curriculum to be sequenced in a manner that would ensure that progression is taking place.’ In his proposal that the current curriculum does not ensure such progression, he makes reference to ‘some principles and some activities’ that he thinks might be of help to Key Stage Three drama teachers.
The present paper will, therefore, hopefully contribute ideas to the general subject of drama-assessment, addressing the three elements of drama: drama-production, performance and evaluation. It is divided into three major parts. The first part sheds light upon the assessment of drama-production. It hopefully provides an occasion for the reader to reflect upon the positive and the negative sides of an officially established strategy of assessment. A subsequent section of the paper is devoted to the assessment of performances and to the challenges that drama teachers might face as a result of, for example, the absence of unified national strategies, a lack of resources in some local schools or disparities within drama-groups. The third part of the paper is devoted to the assessment of evaluation. The attempt to come up with some suggestions as to how the challenges of assessment in Key Stage Three drama can be overcome finds substance in the conclusion.
What is this part all about? The positive aspect of a drama curriculum in Key Stage Three is that it might enable drama teachers to be free from the need to set their own worksheets and tasks during the assessment of drama-production. The absence of a drama curriculum, on the other hand, would impact the validity and the reliability of assessment.
The lack of a national framework for drama and a quick provision for it in Key Stage Three might make it difficult for drama teachers to establish a structure for assessment in Key Stage Three. As Neelands asks: ‘What is it that we are preparing students to do in drama ….There isn’t an agreed and legislative framework for drama as there is for Science or History. If the framework existed, it would be easier to establish a commonly agreed method for assessing drama within schools’
(1999:4)
Although the British government is heavily increasing its investment in school drama studios, there is no serious endeavour to institutionalise drama assessment through a deeply grounded curriculum. This is mostly apparent in the exclusive stipulation designed for the regulation of drama in Key Stage Three. The Welsh National Assembly (2008:5) states that ‘Key Stage Three pupils are required to participate in a wide range of activities including role-play and in the performance of scripted and unscripted plays.’ (worksheet)
Kempe comments that For many years, the prevailing view was that drama could not be assessed…. A group of teachers considered the problem of what to assess in drama. Faced with a void in this area, they devised a model consisting of content, (where pupils are assessed on their understanding of a given content) the real (where pupils are assessed on their social skills, form and language (where pupils are assessed on visual art, movement, speech and listening) and the aesthetic
(1996:46).
Therefore, in order to reverse the narrow view of drama in general as a subject addressed by the English programme of study, the need arises to acknowledge drama’s individual merits. Kempe and Marigold (2000:31) emphasis the importance of an individual drama curriculum by suggesting that ‘the breath and balance of the drama curriculum will ensure that students are taught how to create, perform and respond to drama by working with a variety of stimuli from different sources and traditions.’ Throughout their course of study, drama teachers and pupils must find evidence for achievement through the drama-curriculum. They must be expected to meet drama-criteria in terms of producing plays, manipulating stage techniques and evaluating themselves in such a way that they can build and increase progress and self-confidence. Clearly stated criteria for success in drama must also involve how best pupils should adapt to group work and how best they can meet success criteria through self-expression in drama. Day-to-day- drama-assessment, periodic and transitional drama assessments, must operate within this view. In the light of transcending curricula boundaries, Kempe reverses the traditional trend of perceiving drama-assessment by suggesting that drama teachers.
Thus, ‘Judge drama as part of the National Curriculum, and as a subject in its own right…. assess drama within two main categories: making and presenting …when in lesson, expect to see evidence of cooperation in creating and communicating effective drama, in the use of drama to widen the experience of English, especially through the use of speaking and listening and purposeful learning, the integration of language skills for a creative purpose [and] the contribution of drama to the pupils social and moral development and understanding’ (Andy Kempe, 2000:23)
In the absence of an explicitly stipulated strategy within the curriculum for recording achievements in drama-production, drama teachers might be given the chance to accommodate assessment sheets to targets. Two assessment sheets devised by Kempe and McGuire might offer drama teachers the inspiration to design their own. Kempe (2000:54) has set a Teacher Baseline Assessment Record Sheet that might be used as a model for recording achievements in Key Stage Three drama in the United Kingdom. He states that
The three key completions range from number one as the lowest achievement to number three as the highest. The ability of pupils to develop each other’s ideas during the creation of drama is measured in the light of these three numbers. The same assessment criteria measures the extent to which pupils can cooperate, share imaginative ideas…devise and write a simple, imaginative script for improvisation and stage directions…[and] experiment with language, sound, gestures and space in creating drama
(2000:54).
How and what to assess is therefore a matter of choice. The Arts Council in Britain (1992:18) states that ‘informality in assessment is important because even discrete video recording may change.’ The Council defines progression in drama ‘as the extent to which pupils are able to make, perform and respond with increasing levels of complexity, control, depth and independence’ (1992: 11/4.7).
Kempe and Marigold (2000:37) state that ‘pupils must be assessed on their ability to use the language and the vocabulary of theatre when talking about plays and analysing plots and performances.’
Solution for conclusion 1: Assessment on ability to interact: establishing relationships during the production of Drama
Neelands (1999:8) suggests that the skills and understandings of making or devising drama might include how to establish working relationships with other students regardless of gender, ability or personal prejudices, how to search, collate, select information needed for the work, how to translate a source from page to page, how to select and use an appropriate dramatic convention for the work, how to turn ideas about actions into action (Neelands,1999:8)
McGuire (1999:48) has identified areas of weakness in assessment in Key Stage Three. Some schools focus on dramatic literacy for the sake of developing language and literacy skills while others focus on role play to develop social skills. Neelands (1999:13) states that ‘We should not assume that all children in Key Stage Three will have had the same prior experiences. Some pupils in Key Stage Three might have some sense of narrative genre, structure and plot development, while others might have been taught something about how people might behave and react in some circumstances’
(Neelands,1999:13)
In the absence of a drama-curriculum, choice covers the recording system too. In this light, McGuire (1999:47) makes reference to a recording system, labelled ‘the five grade system’ that might be of help to drama-teachers in their endeavour to record achievements in drama. The system involves five grades that range from one, which might record the highest achievement in drama to number five, which might record the lowest achievement. Meanwhile, grade three might record achievement in drama as required by the current year group expectations and number four might record the capability of pupils working towards rather than achieving year group expectations. Grade five might record limited understanding of the process of making drama.
In light of how the Arts Council (1992:10/0) defines performing, assessing performance requires the plotting of pupils progress in terms of ‘communication with the audience during a dramatic presentation.’ This includes a range of audiences, ‘classmates, members of other classes, schools, parents, [and] the general public’ (1992:10/0). The assessment plots ‘the extent to which pupils are able to act spontaneously and creatively, to participate in make-believe [and] to adopt and to sustain a role or a character in a piece of dramatic action (Arts Council, 1992:10/0).
To achieve success, the Arts Council (1992:6) states that ‘Pupils need to learn the significance of how things look in performance in terms of design, to enhance the meaning of a play, in terms of shape, colour and texture which can be used as powerful communicators of mood and character’
(the Arts Council, 1992:6)
The Arts Council (1992:6) believes that ‘cartoons, stories, films, operas and video recorded drama might contribute to the development of dramatic vocabulary’ and that in order to attain success pupils must be ‘expected to participate with fluency in a group performance…of a scripted or improvised episode from a story or a novel’
(1992:32).
Since there is no clear-cut system for detecting and assessing progression in drama performance at Key Stage Three, it is left to the discretion of drama teachers to contend with the planning of learning targets. McGuire ( 1999:33) suggests that Pupils at Key Stage Three [should] be given a colour chart to complete each year as a strategy for maintaining progression. Focus in performance at this stage is laid upon the following skills: role-play, pair-group work, freeze-frame and hotseating’ (McGuire,1999:33)
Neelands (1999:9) enumerates a series of skills that pupils are expected to demonstrate during performance. These include pupils’ ability ‘to communicate different levels of meaning through performance’ and ‘to work effectively in ensemble performance, in terms of acting, reacting and responding to cues’ (Neelands, 1999:9) According to Kempe and Marigold, achievement in performance includes pupils’ ability ‘to work supportively with others during performance… to interpret narrative and to portray characters in performance’ and ‘to manipulate different signs through which drama communicates meaning’ (2000:38). Generally, authors agree about the determination of success criteria for performance in terms of the demonstration of evidence to work supportively with group members during rehearsal and performance, to communicate meaning through facial expressions, movement and gesture, to sustain a role in a group performance, to use space to communicate meaning and to convey simple dramatic narrative. They also generally state that pupils in Key Stage Three must meet the success criteria for: speaking effectively and clearly in front of different audiences, listening and responding appropriately to others and participating efficiently in group discussions.
In the absence of a formal framework, drama teachers must also contend with the management of performance-assessment. Kempe (1996:46) notes that ‘Success in drama depends to a large extent upon the ability of the drama-teacher to manage assessment. If the drama-teacher knows what he is trying to do with a class, he will surely be able to assess the extent to which he has managed it’ (Kempe 1996:46)
In this respect, Saunders 2005:21) maintains that ‘If the pupils have shared and if they have understood the learning objective from the beginning of the lesson, they will know where the lesson is headed and what learning might look like. For example, if the teacher models some appropriate gestures for a character they have all been studying, then, the whole class can brainstorm the criteria by which the appropriateness (success) of these gestures should be judged’
(Saunders, 2005:21)
In the absence of formally acknowledged ground-rules, it is also left to the discretion of drama-teachers to entail the full participation of pupils in Key Stage Three. As Saunders (2005:21) suggests, pupils should express objectives such as:
‘I must show my gestures clearly to the audience…I should use different parts of my body [and] I could use gestures to show what type of character I am meant to be’ (Saunders, 2005:23). Saunders also notes that ‘If the success criteria is to experience fear and to be able to express it, it is the responsibility of the teacher to stimulate children to think about the idea of fear before they start work on their freeze frames. Questions like “what scares you?”, “what were the most frightening moments in the stories you looked at?”, “how do your facial expressions and body language change when you are frightened?”, “are sounds and images more frightening?”, “how can tension be created in a film or story?” can greatly contribute to meeting success criteria in drama’
(Saunders, 2005:23)
Saunders (2005:23) states that If the objective is to show fear, the pupils will need to think about how fear is expressed physically, using their faces and bodies. They will also need to realize that each freeze frame is linked to the next movement and that it will create an atmosphere of tension (Saunders,2005:23)
Saunders (2005:21) suggests that ‘the objective of improving drama work through sharpening pupil-skills in reading and writing is expected to materialize after successive lessons dealing with them’ (Saunders, 2005:21). He also maintains that
The success criteria for a lesson should be prominently displayed in the classroom so that the teacher and the children could continuously use them for reference… success criteria can become a huge part for learning, especially when the children can evaluate themselves and each other against them to set themselves a target for the next drama session (Saunders2005: 23)
The nature of drama-performance is so difficult that it is hardly possible for drama teachers to record achievements in it. Although drama teachers may set targets for pupils to focus on during performance, they may fail to do so because the process of performance is too quick and so multi-dimensional that it is hardly possible to keep track of it. Mcguire (1999:4) comments that
The problem in assessing drama is that the teachers need to know where to look…..Drama is rather varied and this entails the teacher should focus on some of its aspects only during the process of assessment
(Mcguire, 1999:4)
Other obstacles might also present challenges for drama teachers. Mcguire (1999:4) states that usually ‘Drama-teachers do not dispose of a record of evaluation conducted orally, so, they find it necessary to set a target for a written test about sustaining a role for which pupils are not prepared. Consequently, lack of focus upon the practical aspect of assessing performance may stand in the way of substantiating the comments drama-teachers will put on the evaluation form’
(1999:43)
Reason: 3 Role of the teacher: (no unified system of assessment): Absence of consensus as to how to plot progress Drama pulls disparate facets of Learning
Neelands (1999:22) asks the question, ‘how and by what means do we assess drama?’ He suggests that ‘any assessment should provide a fair, reliable and objective means of placing a student’s progress in it’ (Neelands, 1999:22). There is no consensus amongst teachers and local schools as to how to assess and plot the progress of pupils. Each school has its own system of assessing pupils and of reporting on their progress. Disparities between local schools in terms of the lack of a holistic approach to teaching drama that derives its essence from the curriculum might impact upon assessment. McGuire (1999:22) states that ‘in some schools, assessment may focus on the personal and interpersonal behaviour of students and that in others it may be on the assessment of English’ (1999:22). Some schools take note of detailed assessments in drama. Others see little point in providing any detail beyond the assessment of a student level of confidence and willingness to work with others. McGuire also states that ‘in schools that view KS3 as a foundation and recruiting ground for KS4, assessment might focus on students’ preparedness for further studies in drama, leading to a qualification’ and that ‘the demands for accountability in drama may vary from school to school according to the value that drama is given in the curriculum’ (1999:22).
Somers (1994:8) says ‘drama pulls disparate facets of learning,’ which makes base-line assessment of performance difficult. File-data recording statements of attainment targets in drama are transferred to schools in the form of individual profiles. To plot the progress of new comers, hosting schools use baseline assessment to establish a basic evaluation of how much pupils know and what they can do. Deficient new entrants sit a test to provide evidence for the need to make up for deficiencies in drama. The hosting school might have hardly any indication of the real validity and weight of two similar grades emanating from two different schools; one school may barely strive to motivate its pupils in drama while the other strives hard to achieve success in it.
McGuire (1999:22)states that ‘The time given to drama is also subject to local variations. Students who study drama in 35 minutes cannot be expected to achieve the same standards or depth and breath of study as students who have one hour lessons’
(McGuire, 1999:22)
Neelands (1999:22) states that ‘teachers might not only devote little time to teaching drama but also might devote little time [to] assessing pupils [in] it,’ thus reducing the possibility for certain pupils to progress in certain schools
(Neelands, 1999:22)
The scope of access to resources designed for drama might also have an impact upon pupils’ achievement. Neelands (1999:22) notes that ‘In many schools, learners might have limited access to a drama space, to the technical ability to use the contrasts of light and sound, which will affect their abilities to the standards set’ (Neelands,1999:22).
As Neelands (1999:22). notes ‘The frequency, the rigour and the detail of assessment in drama vary according to a number of local factors revealing themselves in arrangements for assessment’
(Neelands 1999:22).
Disparities in terms of learning styles might impact upon the assessment of performance too. In planning assessment criteria during performance, teachers may not consider pupils’ learning styles and how they may impact their achievements. According to Wooland (1993:26), some pupils might be more visually oriented than others, which could cause them to lag behind when they are exposed to cognitive learning.
Mastering English as a second language might affect achievement when performance is made in a group of English native speakers. If the objective is to prescribe criteria for giving meaning to words, the members will need to be assessed on their ability to plan the work, taking into account different sound qualities, stressing the use of tone, pitch, volume and the pace of expression. The process of assessment in this case must adjust to the specific needs of foreigners on the grounds that they will not be as good at presenting evidence of learning sound patterns as native speakers will.
Assessment may be a challenge if performance is to be carried out by a mixed intelligence group. According to Kempe and Nicholson (2008:65), Gardner makes a distinction between group members performing drama in terms of their specific human intelligence. In this light, performance is conditioned by the group of pupils that put it into effect. Each pupil may embody a specific form of human intelligence that derives its essence from different spheres of intelligence; for example, linguistic, mathematical, musicical, body-kinaesthetic, spatial, inter-personal or intra-personal spheres. Therefore, it will be difficult for a single drama teacher to set different criteria for assessing all the creative abilities of all the members of the group performing at once. It will be equally difficult for the pupils to plan a drama piece of work where distinct abilities are highlighted during performance and where evidence that learning is taking place is disclosed.
Drama teachers may need to keep a record of pupils’ achievements in performance as important evidence of their progress over a period of time. However, because drama is group governed drama teachers focus on groups and not on individuals.
Another challenge with the assessment of group performance is that it might be difficult to identify success in a group with great precision. The objective for detecting points of strength in Key Stage Three may be to test pupils’ ability to create character, that is, to test their ability to mime and to move accordingly on the stage. Assessment purposes could also involve speaking Standard English, or listening carefully during pair-work. The problem is that in drama, emphasis tends to be placed upon what is produced by the group rather than by individuals. Neelands (1999:22) states that
Drama teachers, particularly at Key Stage Three, tend to have relationships with groups rather than with individuals….Drama teachers see groups for shorter periods and set goals for groups rather than for individuals…So, it is difficult to keep track of every student’s stage of development if drama is taught to a whole year group (Neelands (1999:22)
In drama, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. As Kempe and Nickolson (2008:65).state ‘While one individual may contribute a lot of successful ideas to a group, another may drop just in one, the value of which outweighs all the others’
(As Kempe and Nickolson 2008:65).
Here lies the danger of assessment during drama-performance, as individual skills may be ignored in favour of group participation. Therefore, given the fact that human beings are all different and succeed in achieving their goals according to the amount of stimuli they receive, would it not be convenient for drama specialists to consider the prospects of a more reliable and valid assessment system.
Eventually, it seems that Drama teacher evaluation is a key element in maintaining the progression of pupils in Key Stage Three, from the opening warm up exercises up to the end of the improvisation task. Therefore, the drama teacher can help pupils overcome the challenges they face during performance by planning deadlines for scenarios. Peachment notes that Sometimes the initial enthusiasm is lost if one or two groups realize due to lack of time that they will have to postpone the presentation of a play for the next session
(1976:28)
To overcome this problem, Peachment suggests that ‘The drama teacher should try to set a deadline for no more than forty minutes. Five minutes should be devoted to settling down and to forming groups. Another ten minutes should be designed for preparations. Twenty minutes should be devoted to the presentation of the play and five minutes must be reserved for criticism’
(1976:28)
According to the Arts Council in Britain, three approaches might be of help to the teachers in their attempt to evaluate pupils’ ‘Discussion with pupils about their work in progress, discussion with colleagues to detect how far common objectives are reached and the consultation of simple written records or profiles of children’s progress in drama… kept or sent to parents to inform them about the contribution of their children to group-drama
(1992:20).
The Arts Council in Britain maintains that ‘Drama teachers are alert to quality so, they gauche how far the elements of learning in drama are being grasped to establish the extent to which children are creative and confident in handling different dramatic forms’
(1992: 20).
Besides, as long as children spend most of their time working independently, drama teachers must ensure that progression is underway. Peachment suggests that one way of doing this “is to encourage the children to think critically during group presentations and to give them the opportunity at the end of the lesson to state their criticisms in general discussion’ (1976:28).
The Arts Council in Britain states that ‘Pupils should demonstrate their ability to make judgements about characters and their actions and to develop those characters and events in their own writing or in drama’
(1992:33).
The Council goes on to suggest that ‘In the earliest years, children learn to stand back, to talk and to write about what they learn and about how they could improve knowledge, skills and imagination acquired through drama’
(1992:19).
In accordance with this principle, pupils at the Model School, Carmarthen internally evaluate themselves in writing in at least three aspects of improvised drama. The first aspect involves the extent to which they can concentrate and remember lines during performance, the second relates to the extent to which they can practice their lines and the third relates to how far they can manage to maintain dialogue during play. It is a common feature of assessment at the Model School, Carmarthen to provide staff with the opportunity to make evaluations in public during Special Days. However, it is questionable whether the absence of a framework of curriculum-assessment and for reasons relating to age, pupils can successfully maintain self-criticism during such discussions.
Conclusion:
The New National Curriculum in Wales reflects the view that drama still exists by proxy and that the assessment of drama-production, performance and evaluation is still tightly bound to a variety of subjects within the curriculum. The assessment of the four productive skills in particular, necessary for making, performing and evaluating drama must be perceived as specific to drama and as separate from English Language and communication. The curriculum should, in this respect, offer drama teachers the opportunity to identify the learning targets relating to drama and establish clear, precise and formal success criteria for drama. The curriculum should, in short, provide enough guidance in terms of the assessment of mixed group abilities during performance. As Bleasdale states: ‘If I am to encourage teachers to incorporate drama into their teaching, it is essential that a teaching programme in drama be produced’
(2003:3).
Parallel to this observation, it is convenient to believe that if teachers are encouraged to incorporate drama into their teaching, they should also be able to find guidance on assessment criteria specific to drama within the school curriculum. Therefore, it is recommended that drama must be considered an independent unit within the school curriculum, and that a clear strategy for drama-assessment must be taken into account.
As long as progression in drama at Key Stage Three is generally still believed to be aligned to progression in at least five subjects of study; for example, English, design, information and technology, music and the visual arts, there arises the need for drama teachers to develop a provision for progress in drama as a distinct subject within the curriculum.
The “prospective” drama curriculum will also be supposed to ensure that all local schools dispose of a unified national strategy for drama assessment and instead provide a nationally unified, sound and explicit guidance to drama-teachers and to pupils as to how to proceed on a national basis in terms of assessment and evaluation.
Other provisions sustaining assessment in drama must be equally positively viewed. Instead of the direct dynamics between actors and audiences, technology must be utilised to give drama teachers the chance to make drama assessment more reliable and valid. K. Taylor (2000:3) notes that ‘the revised National Curriculum dating back to the year 2000 introduced ICT instead of IT.’ So today, Information and Communication Technology must also be institutionalized as a major tool during assessment. This will enable drama teachers to plan future works according to how best pupils can progress in drama effectively. Video must be used as a permanent recording instrument for measuring pupils achievements at the three phases of drama, in making, performing and evaluating the pupils abilities. It must also extensively be used during peer and self-evaluations.
Internet must officially gain recognition for its considerable role in improving the quality of pupils` standards in drama. Guidance on assessing pupils’ ability to use the internet to research factual information, to draw inspiration from downloaded texts, to use specific websites, or to email groups to suggest plays that might be of interest to them must be sought through the drama Curriculum.
As (K.Taylor, 2000:56 ) notes: ‘In drama, learners might review, modify, evaluate work as it progresses. They can use a word processor to draft and to redraft written work. A video camera could be used to record rehearsals for later evaluation. So, ICT helps see evidence for development in drama and in planning it’
(Taylor, 2000:56).
ICT networks binding local schools around a unified process of assessment in Wales must be intensively used to keep track of assessments and progress in drama. This network might help to overcome the challenge of baseline assessment occasioned by new entrants. It must, however, be superseded by the formal establishment of unified national criteria for success in the three elements of drama that will find an echo in the National Curriculum. Schools should be provided with coherent and homogeneous strategies for assessments that contribute to raising standards in drama.
There can be no change in terms of drama-assessment without collaboration. A suitable local environment backed up by strong links between all parties concerned is above all deemed worthy of consideration for the achievement of success in drama. Its potential in improving the status of drama-assessment will be as valuable as any deeply grounded, rule governing, learning and progressing.
References:
ACCAC. National Curriculum for Key Stage 1 and 2 in Wales. Cardiff: ACCAC, 2005.
Department of Education and the Welsh Office.English for Ages 5 to 16. Proposals of the secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales. Cox Report2, June 1989, Act 17.71.
Arts Council in Britain. Drama in Schools. London: ACGB, 1992.
Bleasdale, C. Creating a Teaching Programme for Primary Drama. Unpublished, 2003.
Bleasdale, C. Is Drama Used to Its Full Potential within the Primary Sector? What Factors Have Contributed to Its Present Position within Primary Education? Unpublished, 2003.
Brian, W. The Teaching of Drama in the Primary School. London: Longman Group UK Limited, 1993.
Hornbrook, D. Education in Drama. The Falmer Press, 1991.
Kempe, A. Drama Education and Special Needs. Cheltonham: Stanley Thornes Publisher, 1996.
Kempe, A. and Ashwell, M. Progression in Secondary Drama. Oxford: Heinemann, 2000.
Kempe, A. Drama Education and Special Needs. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd, 2001.
Kempe, A. and Nicholson, H. Learning to Teach Drama-11-18. London and New York: Continuum, 2008.
Lock Educational, W. A Practical Guide to Drama in the Primary School. Bilbao: Elizabeth Morgan Publishers, 1968.
Mc Guire, B. Recording, Assessing and Evaluating in Drama. Cambridge: Pearson Publishing, 1999
Neelands, J. Beginning Drama 11-14. London: David Fulton Publishers, 1999.
Peachment, B. Educational Drama: A Practical Guide for Students and Teachers. Estover: Macdonalds and Evans, 1976.
Sanders, V. Success Criteria. NATE, 2005.
Somers, J. Drama in the Curriculum. London: Cassel, 1994.
Taylor, K. ICT in Drama. Cambridge: Pearson Publishing, 2000.
Webster, A. and McConnell C. Special Needs in Ordinary Schools. Children with Speech and Language Difficulties. Cassel, 1987.
Appendices
Progression Report Made by Drama Teachers:
The following report sheet provides an example about how reporting on a pupil`s group drama work is made through the `Assessment Slip for Drama`= (11) Drama Education and Special Needs, Endy Kempe, Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd, 1969, Cheltenham, England, P221: Figure 25
Child`s name::———————————————————————-
Year/group:————————————————————————-
Work undertaken this term:—————————————————–
The drama group project has involved storytelling, making masks and using them with movement to show different characters
Teacher`s comment:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Pupil`s Comment on the work:————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Unit Drama Evaluation by Made by the Teacher : Key Stage three.
The following is an evaluation of drama group work made by the drama teacher at the end of a unit: `= (12) Drama Education and Special Needs, Endy Kempe, Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd, 19969, Cheltenham, England, P221:
Group——————————Term——————————Year———————–
Unit Title:
Description of the work undertaken:
Cross Curricular Links:
Personal reaction to the success of the project:
Very successful Unsuccessful
1 2 3 4
Perception of group`s reception of the unit
1 2 3 4
Extent to which pupils were able to:
Make drama 1 2 3 4
Perform drama 1 2 3 4
Respond to drama 1 2 3 4
Extent to which pupils learned about the content of the drama:
A great deal Very little
1 2 3 4
The extent to which the social health of the group developed:
A great deal Very little
1 2 3 4
Which particular drama activity worked the best?
What problems were there with organisation and management?
What resources/strategies need rethinking?
What are the main points arising for consideration in the planning of future units?
Group Drama Evaluation Made by Individual Pupils: `= (13) Drama Education and Special Needs, Endy Kempe, Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd, 19969, Cheltenham, England, P221.
Key stage pupils are equally assessed on their ability to evaluate their drama works. The following extract is designed to give the reader an idea about how pupils can evaluate themselves and eventually get a mark for it.
A pupil said that the drama group to which he belonged had built evaluation sessions into their drama meetings to discuss how the group was progressing within the drama structure and to get individual feedback and reactions to drama learning. He acknowledged the fact that their proceedings made their drama work relevant and helped them meet individual needs through changing direction
Pupil`s Comment on the Work:
In addition to assessment, there is the need to evaluate pupil`s knowledge and skills at the end of every session or Unit = (14)Drama Education and Special Needs, Endy Kempe, Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd, 19969, Cheltenham, England, P221. The form stated below illustrates how it can be put into effect
An Example of Group-Drama Evaluation:
Name: Project: Simon and Donna
What did I do?
I played Simon
I helped to build the character of Donna
I wore a hat-a signifier
Somebody drew around me to make the outline of Donna-Role on floor.
I played Simon. I had an argument with Donna
I volunteered to be hot-seated.
I was Simon and Mark was Donna
We worked in groups
We took turns to show our acting
We wrote to an agony aunt in role
What was good?
The acting was good
I really enjoyed working with Katie
I liked wearing the costume
I liked being hot seated
The best thing is getting dressed up
I liked the arguing
What was difficult?
Working with other people
Some people don`t match
It was difficult not to laugh
To think and remember what to say
It was hard to act
It was difficult to look at people and make eye-contact
What did I learn
How to act
How to act with each other
What these Drama words mean-costume, role, hot-seating, signifier, character.
How to communicate better.
foukara 