Exploring Drama as an Additional Language through Research-based Theatre
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the social, cultural, and emotional learning that occurred when drama was used with a group of native English speakers and English Language Learners (ELL) to build community. These learners consisted of university Drama in Education students who led a group of elementary students in an after-school drama program in Vancouver, Canada. University of British Columbia (UBC) researchers investigated the potential that drama has to build community with learners from multiple backgrounds and ages. The researchers also examined the potential that theatre methods have to analyze and represent findings discovered within the research data. In reflecting upon the learning that supported the community building, three themes were identified within the data: process and product, negotiation and conflict, and the building of community. ELL Program Leaders' journals were used as data to explore the Program Leaders' perspectives of how the drama program influenced their language acquisition skills and cultural understanding. As the data were analyzed, the researchers transformed recurring themes and significant findings into a dramatic text. This text, created and performed by the researchers at multiple conferences, is integrated into the article. Reflections from the researchers are also shared, along with insights gained while developing and presenting their research-based theatre piece.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it