The effectiveness of drama methods in the development of communication skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drama in education is not a novelty. However, despite the fact that using drama method has been thoroughly developed in European countries, Canada and the USA, the analysis of the Russian scientific literature on this issue indicates that the use of drama techniques in Russian schools and universities is very limited. The didactic capabilities of dramatization have not revealed to the full extent, technology of using drama method in teaching foreign languages has not been developed. Thus it makes further research on the stated problem relevant. The purpose of this article is not to argue that drama is the only way of teaching, but to show the importance of drama as a supplemental tool in teaching and learning foreign languages. For our research we created a special didactic drama techniques program for TEFL students. For a year students of an experimental group have been taught using all methods of drama pedagogy, such as applied drama, reader’s theater, scripted and process drama. Following methods were used to conduct the survey: a questionnaire of students to reveal their initial and post level of interest in theatrical activity; a test for evaluating students’ motivation to learn the English language; a test to measure their initial and post level of speaking skills. Post-tests analysis showed that the use of drama techniques promotes the development of quick thinking, creativity and emotional expressiveness. In comparison to the control group, the experimental group students were able to speak more accurately, quickly and with expression. Their speech was characterized by absence of great pauses. Furthermore, they were more creative in delivering their speech, even weaker students with a low level of vocabulary and grammar remembered and implemented appropriately phrases from the plays they had performed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".