Ed Psych – Monday AM
Suzy Cox
September 21st, 2008
Inside Out’s School Project
A research report measuring the power of a theatre-based
program for at-risk junior high students
by James S. Catterall
This was a great article researching the effects of an after school program of theatre education for at risk kids. It included the following key measurement areas:
• Ability to work with others with whom a student disagrees.
• Ability to work with others in groups generally.
• Problem resolution skills.
• Sense of self-efficacy (the degree to which a student feels his/her actions make things happen).
• Awareness of one’s own thinking processes (metacognition).
• Attitudes about doing arts.
• Attitudes about acting.
• General outlook for the future.
• General satisfaction, happiness.
The project was experimental research, introducing one variable (theatre education) with a control group of kids from the same school who had applied for the program but weren’t able to be included because of lack of space. This control group and the experimental group both had a desire to be part of the program, making the results of the research more valid. The study was conducted through a treatment comparison design in which seventy-one program students and eighty-four non-participating comparison group students completed questionnaires before and after the students engaged in the program. Specific conditions were built into the study to raise the validity and reliability of the generalized conclusions.’ The study results found students achieving competency in theatre made significant gains in every area but one. This study also backed up other studies that support the same conclusions. That is why I love theatre!!!!
References
While not all the texts and articles listed here are referenced in this research report, each was an important source during the analysis of the data assembled.
Catterall, J. S. and Peppler, K. A.(2004). Arts Education and the Worldviews of Inner City Children. The Ford Foundation, New York.
Catterall, J. S. (2002). “Research on Drama and Theatre in Education.”Chapter in Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development, pages 58-62, Richard J. Deasy, editor. Arts Education Partnership, Washington, D.C.
Catterall, J. S. (1994). Different Ways of Knowing: 1991-1994 National Longitudinal Study Final Report. T he Galef Institute, Los Angeles.
De la Cruz, R. E. (1995). The Effects of Creative Drama on the Social and Oral Language Skills of Children with Learning Difficulties. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Specialized Educational Development, Illinois State University, Bloomington, Illinois.
Eccles, J. (1999). When School is Out: The Future of Children. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Angeles.
Heath S. B. (1999). “Imaginative Actuality: Learning in the Arts During the Nonschool Hours.” Chapter in Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning, pages 19-33.The President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities, Washington, D.C.
Horn, J. (1992). An Exploration into the Writing of Original Scripts by Inner City High School Drama Students. National Arts Education Research Center, New York; National Endowment for the Arts; United States Department of Education.
Kassab, L. (1984). A Poetic/Dramatic Approach to Facilitate Oral Communication. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Department of Speech Communication, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania.
Podlozny (2000). “Strengthening Verbal Skills Through the Use of Classroom Drama: A Clear Link.”Journal of Aesthetic Education, volume34 (numbers 3-4), pages 239-276.
Seidel, S. (1999). “Stand and Unfold Yourself: A Monograph on the Shakespeare & Company Research Study.” Chapter in Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning, pages 79-90. The President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities, Washington, D.C.
Wolfe, D. P. (1999). “Why the Arts Matter in Education: Or Just What Do Children Learn When They Create an Opera?” Chapter in Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning, pages 91-98. The President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities, Washington D.C.
2 comments:
Which area did the students not make progress in?
The no gain area was in life satisfaction. The explanation was that the control group went down in the area alot more over the time period they were testing - fall and spring. Other studies have shown that traditionally life satisfaction goes down over the school year and so the fact that in the study it went down very little is significant. Interesting!
Post a Comment