UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Pedagogy of confidence : auditory accounts of adult ESL classes with educational drama Kim, Won 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2016_september_kim_won.pdf [ 1.14MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0303477.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0303477-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0303477-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0303477-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0303477-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0303477-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0303477-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

  PEDAGOGY OF CONFIDENCE: AUDITORY ACCOUNTS OF ADULT ESL CLASSES WITH EDUCATIONAL DRAMA   by  WON KIM   A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY   in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Language and Literacy Education)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)   May 2016  © Won Kim, 2016   ii Abstract In a move towards more socially-attuned and contextually-situated L2 pedagogies (Atkinson, 2011; Duff, 2014), there has been a steady pedagogical and scholarly interest in aesthetic, creative, improvisational educational drama as a means for creating more empowering L2 learning spaces (Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Roman & Nunez, 2015; Schewe, 2013). These scholars share a strong conviction that educational drama can significantly contribute to supporting educational contexts where L2 learners have dynamic and creative opportunities to develop their expertise in L2 as they “actively imagine and process information through the use of language and other symbolic forms” (Baldwin & Fleming, 2003, p. 33). Nevertheless, there is little empirical evidence concerning what is actually taking place in L2 classrooms and how students’ L2 learning is impacted when drama is introduced.  This ethnographic multiple-case study was designed to document and explore four drama-based adult ESL classes in Canada. Questions guiding this qualitative inquiry focus on the nature of drama-based teaching practices, their impact on classroom discourse, students’ identity work, and L2 development, as well as students’ perceptions of their learning experiences. Drawing on multiple theoretical frameworks (including narrative inquiry, performative inquiry, alternative approaches to L2 acquisition, and transformative multi-literacies pedagogy) and several data sources, I aim to provide reflexive autoethnographic auditory accounts of lived experiences of participants in the focal classes as heard, felt, and interpreted by the researcher (as a differently-abled ethnographer) taking on a participant listener orientation in lieu of that of participant observer. The study is situated at the interdisciplinary nexus of different analytical and representational approaches in exploring possibilities, challenges, and implications of drama-based adult ESL instruction. By combining autoethnography, discourse analysis, and ethnodrama, I aim to provide a richer, multi-layered, and nuanced picture of the phenomenon under investigation. I narrate and explore how drama-based ESL pedagogy contributes to cultivating students’ minds as confident, creative meaning-makers and promoting context-embedded language use and democratic and dialogic classroom discourse. While presenting empirically grounded claims showing how drama-based pedagogy can foster a transformative, empowering interpersonal space (Cummins, 2011), the dissertation concludes with pedagogical recommendations and  iii scholarly/methodological implications of the study.    iv Preface This research was approved by the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board. The ethics certificate (# H12-00660) was issued on May 10, 2012.  A version of Chapter 2 has been published: Kim, W., & Belliveau, G. (2013). Drama in an L2 classroom: Research synthesis. The Journal for Drama and Theatre in Second & Foreign Language Education, 7(2), 6-26. Portion of authorship: 50%     v Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xi Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 2 Methodology Snapshot .................................................................................................. 5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 6 The Structure of the Thesis .......................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworks ................................................ 9 Drama for Learning ....................................................................................................... 9 Growing Interest in Drama in L2 Classrooms ............................................................ 10 Synthesis of Position Papers: Benefits of Using Drama in L2 Classrooms .............. 12 Promoting Intercultural Communicative Competence ..................................... 12 Fostering Imagination ....................................................................................... 13 Facilitating Contextually-Situated Interaction ................................................ 14 Empirical Studies on Drama and L2 ............................................................................ 14 Case Studies of Drama in L2 settings .............................................................. 14 French Classrooms ........................................................................................... 15 Italian Classrooms ............................................................................................. 15 German Classrooms .......................................................................................... 15 ESL/EFL Classrooms ........................................................................................ 16 Reader’s Theatre .............................................................................................. 16 Playwriting ........................................................................................................ 17 Intercultural Learning ....................................................................................... 17 Student Interactions and Talk .......................................................................... 18 Challenges and Issues ...................................................................................... 20 Research Implications .................................................................................................. 21 Theoretical Underpinnings to Threading Language, Story, and Drama .................... 25 Narrative Inquiry (Learning through Story) ..................................................... 25  vi Performative Inquiry (Learning through Performance) ................................... 26 Dialogical/Alternative Approach to L2 Acquisition (Learning through Use) ......... 28 Empowering Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy (Learning in Collaboration) .................................................................................................... 29 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 3: Research Methodology ....................................................................................... 32 Chapter Overview ........................................................................................................ 32 Research Tradition: Multiple Case Study ................................................................... 32 Analytic and Representational Approaches ................................................................ 33 Analytic Autoethnographic Narratives ........................................................................ 35 Participant Listening .................................................................................................... 38 Autoethnography with Participant Listener Orientation ............................................ 39 Discourse Analysis: Understanding Identity Work and Classroom Interaction ......... 40 Research Interviews as Social Practice ...................................................................... 40 Membership Categorization Analysis .......................................................................... 40 Goffman’s Participation Framework ........................................................................... 41 Threading Together MCA and Goffman ..................................................................... 42 Ethnodrama .................................................................................................................. 44 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 46 Chapter 4: Context and Design of the Inquiry ..................................................................... 47 Context and Participants ............................................................................................. 47 Cases ................................................................................................................. 47 Nancy’s Two Classes ....................................................................................... 48 Nick’s Two Classes .......................................................................................... 51 Data Generation ................................................................................................ 53 Participant Listening .................................................................................................... 54 Audio Recording .......................................................................................................... 56 Interviews .................................................................................................................... 57 Survey Questionnaires ................................................................................................ 58 Reflective Data Generation ......................................................................................... 58 Reflexive Data Analysis and Representation .............................................................. 59 Stage 1: Autoethnographic Narratives ............................................................. 61 Stage 2: Discourse Analysis (Membership Categorization Analysis and  vii Goffman) ............................................................................................................ 62 Stage 3: Playwriting/Ethnodrama ..................................................................... 63 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 68 Chapter 5: Entering the As-If World: An Auditory Account of Three Days of Drama with Masks ................................ 69 Day 1 (July 3, 2012) .................................................................................................... 69 Day 2 (July 5, 2012) .................................................................................................... 73 Day 3 (Monday, July 10, 2012) ................................................................................... 80 Chapter 6: Engaging with Language and Stories: The Soundscape of Story Making  Improvisation ......................................................................................................................... 89 Nick’s Class: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 .............................................................. 89 Nancy’s Class: Day 1 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012) .................................................... 94 Day 2 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012) .................................................................................. 97 Day 3 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012) ........................................................................... 105 Summary .................................................................................................................... 110 Chapter 7: Threading Language and Drama: Cross-case Analysis of Nine Themes of L2 Pedagogy with Drama ............................................ 112 Engaging with Stories ................................................................................................ 112 Language Learning through Language Use .............................................................. 115 Students’ High Investment in L2 Learning and Classroom Practices ...................... 117 Purposeful Interaction ............................................................................................... 120 Balancing Accuracy and Fluency .............................................................................. 122 Joy in L2 Learning ..................................................................................................... 126 Cultivating Empathic and Democratic Minds ............................................................ 128 Building a Learning Community: A Collaborative Interpersonal Space ................... 130 Enhance Confidence: Transformative Learning Experiences .................................. 135 Summary .................................................................................................................... 139 Chapter 8: Holders, Makers, and Tellers of Stories: A Micro-Analytic Understanding of Students’ Identity Work in Drama-based ESL Classrooms for Adults ...................................................................................... 141 Purpose of the Analysis ............................................................................................ 141 Identity as a Socially Accomplished Phenomenon ................................................... 142 Analytical Framework ............................................................................................... 143 Context Description ........................................................................................ 143 Analysis: Listening Closely to the Class .................................................................. 143  viii Extract 1: I Have a Double Character ............................................................ 144 Extract 2: Naomi and Reina was Existed ....................................................... 151 Extract 3: Backstage Talk .............................................................................. 154 Extract 4: I am not Naomi .............................................................................. 157 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 160 Summary .................................................................................................................... 162 Chapter 9: It Was Like Really Uncomfortable But Kind of Comfortable: An Ethnographically-Informed Radio Play Script ................................................................................................. 163 Before Reading/Listening .......................................................................................... 163 Chapter 10: Pedagogical Recommendations and Contributions ........................................ 181 Summary of the Findings ........................................................................................... 181 Contributions of the Study ........................................................................................ 198 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 201 I Hope: Closing Remarks ........................................................................................... 202 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 205 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 226 Appendix A: An Overview of the Weekly Course Content for Nancy’s Class ........ 226 Appendix B: An Overview of the Weekly Course Content for Nick’s Class ........... 231 Appendix C: Jeffersonian Transcription Conventions .............................................. 235 Appendix D: A Mask Character Biography Worksheet ............................................ 237 Appendix E: A Transcription of the Final Performance by David’s Group ............. 238     ix List of Tables Table 1: Nancy's class demographics ........................................................................................ 50 Table 2: Rules of drama ............................................................................................................. 51 Table 3: Nick's class demographics ........................................................................................... 53 Table 4: Timeline of field work .................................................................................................. 55 Table 5: Relationship between the chapters, research questions, and analytic and  representational approaches ...................................................................................................... 60 Table 6: Post-performance feedback items .............................................................................. 79 Table 7: Vocabulary for the courtroom ..................................................................................... 99 Table 8: A list of corrected statements after Miyuki's testimony .......................................... 107      x List of Figures Figure 1: Relationship of research methodology, methods, and theoretical frameworks .. 35     xi Acknowledgements   This dissertation was possible because of many individuals whom I want to call my co-authors whose voices have shaped, informed, influenced, and inspired my entire journey with this work over the past six years. First, I want to thank the teachers and students of the four classes under study who have kindly accepted me as part of their lives in the classrooms with educational drama. My heartfelt gratitude goes to my dear co-supervisors, Drs. Carl Leggo and Steven Talmy, whose fatherly care, scholarly guidance, and thoughtful words of wisdom have led me through in my entire academic journey from the time they agreed to serve as my supervisors with a smile of hope and encouragement. You were happy together with me for my achievement and also stood by me with listening ears and hearts when the time was rough.Thank you Drs. Leggo and Talmy for being my true teacher and mentor. I am also very fortunate and thankful to have Dr. George Belliveau on my committee whose passionate scholarly and pedagogical voice has inspired my exploration into the world of creative, embodied, and multisensory ways of learning. Thank you Dr. Belliveau for your inspiration. I also want to thank Drs. Margaret Early, Shauna Butterwick, and Madonna Stinson for willingly agreeing to read and review my dissertation. I am greatly thankful for their thoughtful comments, helpful suggestions, and appreciation of my work. I am also deeply indepted to many other professors in the department who have nurtured me to grow as a scholar and educator. I thank Drs. Marlene Asselin, Geoff Williams, Theresa Rogers, Bonny Norton, Bernie Mohan, Lee Gunderson, Ronald Jobe, Judith Saltman, and Dianne Fouladi for all their teaching over the years. I especially thank Dr. Patricia Duff who has shown me what it means to be an educator through her inspiring teaching both inside and outside classrooms,. I would also like to thank wonderful staff in the department including Anne Eastham, Lia Cosco, Christopher Fernandez, Laurie Reynolds, Angela McDonald who  xii always had answers for my desperate questions and made me feel like a family member of the LLED community. I can not forget to thank Drs. Sandra Zappa-Hollman and Reginald D’Silva for their caring support and leadership in the Rits programs where I have grown as a more mature educator over the past 10 years. My appreciation also goes to Sheri Wenman who always offered her kind hand whenever I needed practical help in preparation for my classes. I owe my sincere gratitude to my dear colleagues and friends in the department and the Rits programs. Thank you Genevieve Brisson, Tim Anderson, Christi Kramer, Amanda Wager, Ava Becker, Jin Kim, Dennis Murphy Odo, Liz Chiang, Joel Heng Hartse, Nasrin Kowkabi, and Tomoyo Okuda, for your both intellectual and emotional support throughout the years in my academic journey. My sincere thanks and respect also goes to Mi Young Kim for her warm and caring hands and generous heart that have taught me how one’s giving heart can make a difference in our lives. As well, I feel deeply grateful to my discourse analysis working group. All the thought-stimulating conversations, constructive feedback on each other’s work, and practical support and advice have deepened my engagement with my research project in many ways. Thank you Ryan Deschambault, Bonggi Sohn, Rae-Ping Lin, and Meike Wernick for supporting me as part of the DAWG team over the years. I will not forget our colloquium at AAAL in Orlando where we celebrated our first collaboration scholarly at the panel table as well as our fun, comforting, and stimulating conversation at the bar table over beer, pizza, and ice cream till 2:00 am. There are also so many individuals who have touched my heart with their warm support and friendship during my learning journey. Thank you Thomas and Tuulikki Abrahamson, Professor Lil Rodman, Pastor, Kyungjin Kim, Dr. Joe Greenholtz, Wanggi Hong, Namkyu Kim, Yonghyuk Cha, Kyungsu Kim, Monica and Ron, Minami and Wayne, among many other friends whom I can not name all here. My hearty appreciation also goes to all the professional staff and generous volunteers at Access and Diversity for their countless hours of devotion to produce any printed materials into accessible format, without which my academic growth at UBC would not have been achievable. I would also like to acknowledge financial assistance I received through the Rick Hansen Man in Motion fellowship that  xiii funded this research project. It is difficult to express my deepest gratitude to my family in words for their love and care that have sustained me in my learning journey over the years. Thank you my father and mother for unconditionally loving me and always praying for me. I am blessed to have you as my parents. 아버지, 어머니, 감사해ㅛ. I am also genuinely grateful for kind gestures of support I have received in so many ways from my deer sister, Yoonkyung who always cheered for me, my brother-in-law, Matthew Cash, who was always willing to read my papers, my parents-in-law for their kind patience, and my loving nephews and nieces, David, Ryosuke, Gaella, and Nanako for bringing me smiles. I would not have been able to reach this point without their love and care.  Now, to my daughter, Hana Kim, I would like to thank Hana for coming to me as our daughter. You renew me every morning when I hear you calling me “Abba.” You teach me what is really important in life. Last but not least, to my loving wife, Yukiko Ichizawa, words can not fully express my hearty gratitude to you for your beautiful smiles and unwavering patience for me. Thank you Yuko for having faith in me and standing by me as my biggest supporter. Without your company, this dissertation was simply not possible. We have dreamed together and strengthened one another over the years. Thank you for the hopes, courage, grace, and love you have held and will continue to carry in you for us as we now embark on a new chapter of our life journey.   1 Chapter 1: Introduction I still remember I remember. I remember the dramatic moments I was engaged with. I remember all the thought-provoking and stimulating scholarly discussions we had in the grad course about drama in education. I was new to the research, theories, and practice of drama in education. Even the term, drama in education, was foreign to me at that time as I had not experienced drama in my entire educational journey up to that point. While I remember those moments that fed my scholarly curiosity, what is remembered even more vividly are the moments of dramatic engagement—the imaginative, aesthetic, and emotional moments that I can graphically visualize even with my visual challenge. One of those remembered moments unfolded on one fall evening in 2006 when I decided to leave my white cane where I was sitting and to walk to the open space on one side of the classroom. Under the guidance of Dr. Belliveau, the space was transformed into the collectively improvised, imaginative, and dramatic experience of early French settlers in Canada. I remember how I felt as a Frenchman on the ship heading towards an unknown land, watching what I left behind in his homeland. I remember the scenes and sounds I vicariously experienced during the farewell on the imaginary ship together with other classmates standing as French co-travellers in the as-if world that was temporarily created. What made the moment especially memorable was how such a moment reminded me of my own farewell when I had left my own home country. Another dramatic moment that is frozen in my mind was when I performed a poem in collaboration with two other group members on one fine summer afternoon on the small grassy hill just outside the classroom. I colourfully remember the images and emotions evoked by the poem called “A song on the end of the world”  written by Milosz (1988)). I remember our collective poetic engagement with the poem and conversations my group members and I had to imagine, interpret, expand, and translate into a multi-modal dramatic performance. I remember how much I was touched during the performance where I got dressed in white as a white-haired old man, dancing with a tomato in my hand. I remember  2 how I felt free without my white cane, dancing around the space as the old man, feeling and hearing a cool summer breeze coming through green leaves dancing together on the tree branches above me. I will long remember the imaginary world I have not been to physically, yet was imaginatively and momentarily part of as a white-haired old man with hope.  These are just a few of many profoundly touching dramatic, aesthetic, and creative moments when I was imaginatively, kinesthetically, affectively, and intellectually engaged with language by means of educational drama. Such an engagement was refreshing and filled with possibilities. My previous engagement with language, especially with English as an additional language, was limited to mainly cognitive and textual approaches. My English language learning experience in Korea and Canada was mainly shaped by transmission models of learning where rote memorization of grammar rules and sentence-level literal meaning-making practices were emphasized. While I understand the value of learning about the English language, there was no or little engagement with language itself as a meaning-making resource that involves one’s creativity, imagination, emotions, ideas, experiences, and stories in multi-modal possibilities. Through these dramatic and aesthetic experiences with the English language as a learner, user, and educator, I came to realize the ways in which process-oriented, multimodal, situated, and creative drama can enrich second language (L2) classrooms and potentially cultivate L2 learners’ identities as meaning-makers and enable them to engage more fully with language and narratives. Purpose of the Study Between 2001 and 2011, Canada received over 2.2 million immigrants (Statistics Canada, 2011). The majority were non-English or non-French speakers. Although many of these newcomers attended public/private language institutes and a majority of this population indicated some knowledge of English or French, they still cited their proficiency in these languages as the second biggest challenge to overcome besides employment (Statistics Canada, 2011). Concomitant with these developments and the growing population of L2 learners in private language institute contexts (e.g., in 2007, over 100,000 international students helped fuel Canada’s $1.5 billion language training industry, which was expected to grow 15% annually over the next 5-10 years [Conference Board of Canada, 2008]), there is a  3 continuing concern to develop more effective L2 instruction for adult learners. This concern is reflected in increasing efforts to move towards more functional, socially-attuned, and contextually situated approaches to L2 instruction (Atkinson, 2011; Duff, 2014; Gibbons, 2004; Johnson, 2004). In accord with the continued development of and move towards such L2 pedagogies, this study aimed to explore the possibilities and implications of an alternative L2 instructional approach: drama-based L2 pedagogy. Cummins (2009), an influential educator in Canada, calls for an educational vision among teachers, researchers, and policy makers to transform L2 classrooms into an empowering “interpersonal space where minds and identities meet” and “within which the acquisition of knowledge and formation of identity is negotiated” (p. 45). Such an educational space foregrounds the view that L2 learners should not be seen as passive information recipients, but rather as active meaning-makers or language users. Based on this view, numerous scholars recognize aesthetic, creative, and collaborative educational drama as a powerful vehicle for learning across the curriculum (e.g., Booth, 2005; Heathcote & Bolton, 1995; Fels & Belliveau, 2008; O’Neill, 1995; Wagner, 1998; Winston, 2004). Baldwin and Fleming (2003) speak eloquently to the power of educational drama as a learning medium: Drama, as a multisensory medium, can provide an experiential structure for exploring text visually, auditorily, and kinesthetically. Its participatory nature motivates and promotes affective emotional learning which is the most easily remembered learning whilst at the same time providing intellectual stimulus. (p. 5) In line with such a recognition of educational drama across the curriculum, there has also been a steady pedagogical/scholarly interest in educational drama as a means for creating more empowering L2 learning spaces and contextually-situated L2 learning and pedagogy (Bournot-Trites, Belliveau, Spiliotopoulos & Seror, 2007; Bruer, 2002; Burke & O’Sullivan, 2002; Even, 2008; Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Liu, 2002; Piazzoli, 2010; Ralph, 1997; Schewe, 2013; Stinson & Winston, 2011). Such increasing interest is also evidenced by the emergence of new conferences, an increasing number of on-line instructional resources, and educational guide books in response to pedagogical interest in how to better integrate drama in L2 learning (see Chapter 2 for a more in-depth discussion). This increased interest in drama and  4 L2 points to the conviction of some scholars and practitioners that educational drama, both as a learning medium and an art form, can significantly contribute to educational contexts. Indeed, it offers L2 learners dynamic and creative opportunities to develop their expertise in L2 as they “actively imagine and process information through the use of language and other symbolic forms” (Baldwin & Fleming, 2003, p. 33). However, despite this increased interest, drama has not been widely implemented in classrooms. Even when integrated, the use of drama has often been limited to decontextualized scripted role-plays, memorization of superficial dialogues, or warm-up games that often fall outside the curriculum (Dinapoli & Algarra, 2001; Dodson, 2002; Marschke, 2004; Matthias, 2007). Importantly, Kao and O’Neill (1998) distinguish process-oriented educational drama from a less contextualized and script-based drama by describing it as  drama activities that aim to go beyond short term teacher dominated exercises. Instead, the drama is extended over time and it is built up from ideas, negotiations, and responses of all the participants in order to foster social, intellectual, and linguistic development. (p. x) As noted earlier, such aesthetic, educational drama has yet to secure a meaningful place in L2 classrooms (Even, 2008; Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Liu, 2002; Nawi, 2014). Related to these pedagogical shortcomings, there is also a dearth of empirical research evidence on the impact of drama on learning (Finneran, 2015; Roman & Nunez, 2015; Winston, 2011) particularly on L2 learning (Dodson, 2000, 2002; Even, 2008). Because the potential and impact of creative, improvisational educational drama on L2 learning has been under-researched—particularly for adult learners—there is a pressing need for systematic classroom-based research studies to attain a fuller understanding of the possibilities and complexities of drama-based L2 pedagogy (Liu, 2002; Piazzoli, 2010; Stinson, 2009). Thus, this study investigated how and in what areas L2 pedagogy with educational drama can benefit adult ESL learners particularly in private language institute settings. This research inquiry has been guided by the following research questions:  5 1) How is educational drama used in four focal drama-based adult ESL classrooms in a private language institution?  2) In what ways is L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms? 3) How is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students? 4) What pedagogical insights can be drawn for adult L2 classes incorporating educational drama? Methodology Snapshot This is a qualitative ethnographic multiple case study of ESL courses for adult learners with educational drama as a central pedagogical approach. The study focused on the nature of drama-based teaching practices and its impact on classroom interaction, students’ identity work, and L2 development, as well as students’ perceptions of their learning experiences with educational drama as represented by the students. Primarily, the central aim of the study is to 1) document what goes on in adult ESL classrooms with educational drama and 2) provide classroom-based empirical findings on whether and in what ways it contributes to aspects of L2 development. The documentation, analysis, and representation of empirical findings will be done in three different ways using three methodological, analytic, and representational approaches: analytic auto-ethnography, discourse analysis, and ethnodrama. These approaches intersect in order to offer diverse perspectives on the nature and implications of drama-based ESL pedagogy. Concomitant with a general description of the classes under study, autoethnographic narratives about the focal classes aim to touch on the first research question concerning the use of educational drama and the nature of teaching practices in L2 classrooms and part of the second question about its potential impact on students’ L2 development. Drawing on the method of participant listener (Kim, 2015, 2016), an ethnographically-informed reflexive auditory account of what I heard, felt, and interpreted as a visually-challenged ethnographer/educator in the focal drama-based ESL classrooms will be provided in the first three finding chapters (i.e., Chapters 5, 6, and 7). This autoethnographic account is complemented by a participant-oriented micro-level analysis of students’ identity work and interaction. This is because both perspectives enrich one another  6 and offer richer, fuller, more complex, and nuanced insights into various aspects of the phenomenon under study (Atkinson, Okada, & Talmy, 2012). Such a discourse analysis (represented in Chapter 8) can provide a closely examined and empirically described understanding of what was interactionally taking place in an adult ESL classroom that incorporated educational drama and how it related to students’ identity work and L2 development. Attending to classroom interaction at a micro-level can offer valuable insights and shed light on different dimensions of the first two research questions. Lastly, the third research question concerning students’ perceptions towards their drama-based L2 learning experiences is addressed in Chapter 9, which dramatizes students reactions and perceptions towards their learning experiences with the drama-based pedagogy they had experienced. This fictional yet ethnographically-informed radio-drama play can be seen as a dramatic and evocative representation of students’ reactions to what they experienced in the classrooms with educational drama. While ethnographically and aesthetically attending to the third research question, this radio drama play script sheds light on pedagogical issues and tensions that were audibly and affectively evident in all the classes. This brings the discussion of the final research question on pedagogical recommendations inside the final chapter of the dissertation. More in-depth discussion of each approach and analytic procedures will be presented in the methodology and research design chapters of the dissertation (Chapters 3 and 4). Significance of the Study As Cummins (2009, 2011) argues, creating an empowering interpersonal space in L2 classrooms is an important educational vision. This study is inspired by this educational vision and attempts to empirically describe how an empowering space may be achieved in adult ESL classrooms when educational drama is introduced. By demonstrating what is audibly and interactionally taking place in the classroom, this study makes a unique contribution to furthering scholarly and pedagogical discussions on how drama has a role to play in creating such a space where diverse voices of L2 learners are in dynamic interaction in multiple modes. The study is an effort to deepen our understanding of the potential and actual impact of creative educational drama on L2 learning, which to date continues to be under-researched.  7 The study is situated at the interdisciplinary nexus of different analytical and representational approaches and methods in exploring possibilities, challenges, and implications of drama-based ESL instruction for adult learners. By combining reflexive autoethnography, discourse analysis, and ethnodrama, the study can provide a richer, fuller, multi-layered, and nuanced picture of the phenomenon under investigation while addressing the methodological shortcomings of previous research on the topic (see Chapters 2 and 3 for a more in-depth discussion). Furthermore, the diversified forms of representation of the research findings (i.e., autoethnographic narratives, a discourse analysis of classroom interaction, a radio drama play script) are significant in that they provide different modes to widely disseminate knowledge in order to better reach wider audiences.  This study also makes a distinctive contribution to the widely accepted methodological notion of participant observation in the field of ethnography. As part of a reflexive methodological effort by myself as a differently-abled ethnographer with a visual challenge, this study has adopted a participant listener orientation in lieu of the participant observer. This repositioning enabled me as the researcher to transform putative limitations into a fully engaged listening to the research site. As a process and outcome of adopting the participant listener orientation, a reflective and reflexive auditory account of the research findings has been generated. This methodological position highlights the significance of participant listening as an alternative and legitimate way of developing ethnographic records and enriching ethnographic understanding. Moreover, this study is significant in that it raises questions about latent ableism in qualitative research in which visuality is presumed to be a central or more legitimate means of developing ethnographic understanding, given the primacy of participant observation as a central ethnographic method (Berger & Lorenz, 2015; Daza & Gershon, 2015). With this study I also strive to make a pedagogical contribution by drawing implications for integrating L2 pedagogy and drama. The ethnographically-based pedagogical insights can inform L2 practitioners who are interested in the educational possibilities of drama in their own L2 classrooms in pursuing and empowering learning experiences for their L2 learners as creative and competent plurilingual meaning-makers beyond deficient non-native speakers of the target language.   8 The Structure of the Thesis This dissertation is organized into 10 chapters. The ensuing chapter is an overview of the research literature, research implications and theoretical frameworks that underpin the study. Chapters 3 and 4 address the research design of the study, including descriptions on the analytic and representational approaches, research methodology, general descriptions of the participating classes, data generation methods, data analysis, and credibility of the study.  Chapters 5 to 9 represent findings of the study in three different forms. Chapters 5 and 6 are autoethnographic accounts that empirically and auditorily narrate selected lessons of the two focal classes: the first three days of Class A (Chapter 5), one day of Class B, and three days of Class A (Chapter 6). What is narrated in the previous two chapters and the overall teaching practices of all four sections of the course will be thematically interpreted and discussed in Chapter 7. A total of nine themes have been coded and identified as prominent themes that characterize a drama-based pedagogy integral to all the sections taught by two different teachers. Such ethnographic interpretations are followed by Chapter 8 where a micro analysis of classroom interaction and students’ identity work in a few selected audio-recorded moments of the classes is presented. In this chapter I explore how classroom interaction shapes and is shaped by drama-based meaning-making practices and how the students position and are positioned by themselves and others in the classrooms, using two complementary analytic perspectives (i.e., Goffman’s footing/participation framework and Membership Categorization Analysis [MCA]). In Chapter 9, I dramatize my ethnographic understanding of the students’ perceptions of their experiences with the drama-based class into a fictional yet ethnographically informed radio drama play script. Pedagogical tensions which were audibly witnessed across the classes will be explored and dramatized in this research-based drama piece. The dissertation then closes with Chapter 10 where empirically-grounded pedagogical recommendations and contributions of the study are explored.    9 Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworks In this chapter, I will provide a review of the research literature of the last two decades on the topic of drama in second language (L2) learning. Based on the review, research implications will then be discussed in line with the purpose of the present qualitative inquiry that I conducted in an effort to fill the scholarly and methodological gap of previous research studies on the topic. I will then conclude the chapter with a discussion of theoretical frameworks that underpin my study.  Drama for Learning Drama in the language classroom gives learners the chance to use their imagination. It draws upon students’ abilities to imitate and express themselves, and if well handled, it can arouse interest and foster personality development. Drama encourages adoptability, fluency and communicative competence. It puts language into context and, by giving learners experience of success in real life situations, has the potential to arm them with the confidence to tackle the world outside the classroom (Davies, 1990, p. 97). Drama has been recognized for its pedagogical contributions to learning by a number of scholars: drama/theatre in education (Anderson 2012; Heathcote & Bolton, 1995; Neelands, 2000; Nicholson, 2011; O’Connor, 2010; Wagner, 1998); process drama, role drama, story drama (Booth, 2005; Bowell & Heap, 2001, 2005; Eriksson, 2009; Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Miller & Saxton, 2004; O’Neill, 1995; O’Toole, 1992); and drama and literacy (Baldwin & Fleming, 2003; Grady 2000). Through various drama-based approaches to teaching and learning, these scholars consider aesthetic, creative, imaginative, and educational experiences that students might encounter. These authors (as well as others) offer insights and strategies regarding how and why the application of drama fosters learning in multiple ways, in multiple contexts, and with multiple learners including second language (L2) learners.  A sub-set of scholars have focused on ways in which drama can support L2 learners (i.e., Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Schewe, 2013; Stinson, 2009; Stinson & Winston, 2011; Wager, Berriz & Poey, forthcoming; White, 1984; Whiteson, 1998; Winston, 2011). Their work points to ways in which educational drama can support L2 learners to develop expertise in a  10 second language as they “actively imagine and process information through the use of language and other symbolic forms” (Baldwin & Fleming 2003, p. 33). Most often students who participate in educational drama activities are engaged with a story, looking at the narrative and characters from multiple perspectives and interpretations, and then responding to the work in diverse and often interactive ways. These kinesthetic as well as cognitive and emotional educational experiences that drama can foster are empowering to students in L2 classrooms (as well as other learning contexts). As such, a pedagogical and scholarly interest in the role of educational drama in L2 learning has evolved in tandem with pedagogical attempts towards more contextualized, communicative, and socially attuned L2 learning experiences (Roman & Nunez, 2015; Schewe, 2013).  To offer a critical perspective on the landscape of recent scholarship in drama and L2 learning, published scholarly work and research studies in English within the last 25 years were closely reviewed and synthesized. This research synthesis, largely North American-based, along with some European studies, extends the work of two key studies that gathered research in areas closely related to educational drama: Deasy’s Critical Links study (2002) looked at over 120 arts-based studies, of which 19 were in drama and its potential impact on learning, and Podlozny’s (2000) meta-analysis about drama instruction and student verbal achievement reviewed 80 studies. This survey looks at studies published until the present, and narrows the scope of Deasy and Podlozny’s meta-analyses by specifically looking at drama and L2. This review builds on the scholarly interest ignited by Stinson and Winston’s 2011 special issue of Research in Drama Education where an insightful editorial essay along with seven key articles on the topic of drama and second language learning were gathered from international scholars. What follows is a synthesis of the literature grouped into teacher resources, position papers, empirically grounded studies and classroom-based case studies. The chapter closes by addressing research implications drawn from the critical review together with theoretical frameworks of the study conducted in response to the research implications.  Growing Interest in Drama in L2 Classrooms  The use of educational drama has increasingly been of interest to teachers and practitioners  11 from primary to tertiary levels in the field of second language learning and teaching. Such increased interest is also evidenced by the emergence of new scholarly conferences (e.g., International Association of Performing Language), workshops within conferences (Conference of the German Association of Foreign Language Research, 2011), journals specific to the field of drama and L2 education (e.g., Scenario: Journal for Drama and Theatre in Second and Foreign Language Education, which commenced in 2007), the 2011 Research in Drama Education special issue mentioned earlier, Winston’s (2011) teaching guide book on using drama in diverse teaching settings, Roman and Nunez’s (2015) edited book on The Application of Drama with Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), and an edited book of research/pedagogical works that integrate the arts including Drama In Learning An Additional Language in K-12 Educational Settings (Wager, Berriz, & Poey, forthcoming) have been important additions to the growing database of resources for L2 practitioners and educators and researchers utilizing drama. Building on earlier resources of teaching L2 through drama (e.g., Di Pietro, 1987; Maley & Duff, 1984; Smith, 1984; Wessels, 1987), the last two decades have witnessed a proliferation of teaching resources (e.g., Burke & O’Sullivan, 2002; Wessels, 1991; Whiteson, 1998; Winston, 2004, 2011) in response to a growing pedagogical interest in the question of how to integrate drama into L2 learning. Whiteson’s (1998) collection of practical dramatic activities and strategies as part of the New Way series published by TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) has initiated over a decade’s worth of growing interest in using drama in L2 classrooms, and this is evidenced by numerous online teacher resource websites. The following list contains examples of resource sites: • Bringing Language Alive through Process Drama: SYLLABUS: http://drama2010evo.pbworks.com/f/Bringing+Language+Alive+through+Process+Drama+SYLLABUS.pdf. This is a six-week, online workshop in process drama in ESL/EFL classrooms offered annually by Gary Carkin and Shin-Mei Kao in the TESOL-Drama Forum. • My Album: http://gary-carkin.magix.net. Gary Carkin’s collection of video drama activities.  12 • Drama Education Network: www.dramaed.net. This is a commercial site that provides services, teaching resources, and products for schools and teachers to promote the use of drama in arts, literacy, and language education. • Improv Encyclopedia: http://improvencyclopedia.org. This is a resource for improvisational activities in classrooms. • ESL Flow Role-Plays: http://www.eslflow.com/roleplaysdramatheatregames.html. This provides information and resources for using role-plays on a range of different topics and themes in ESL/EFL classrooms. • Drama in the ESL Classroom: www.esldrama.weebly.com. This resource offers a collection of drama techniques, lesson plans, strategies, and further resources in the use of drama in ESL/EFL classrooms. • Resources for Teaching Drama: https://www.msu.edu/~caplan/drama/biblio.html. Sarah Dodson, drama educator, presents a resource for language and literacy teachers interested in incorporating drama into classrooms, including scholarly articles, books, lesson plans, and online sites. Synthesis of Position Papers: Benefits of Using Drama in L2 Classrooms Promoting Intercultural Communicative Competence Because it is important to have engagement with dialogical learning experience in L2 learning, Dinapoli and Algarra (2001) argue that “learners need to be involved in discourse at a more personal level and the efficient and effective use of language in conversation” (p. 3). With its learner-centerd and multi-modal nature (Dodson, 2000), drama can create an environment where L2 learners communicate with one another meaningfully and purposefully by means of verbal and non-verbal signs in a social context (Even, 2011; Marschke, 2004; Matthias, 2007; Stinson & Freebody, 2006; Song, 2000). Matthias (2007) states that dramatic activities invite L2 learners to experience language “as a system of communicative choices” (p. 2) where they negotiate and exchange information and ideas in a make-believe setting. As such, drama-based L2 pedagogy facilitates opportunities for L2 learners to use language, experience it contextually, and develop intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997). Byram (1997) emphasizes that language learning involves  13 developing one’s intercultural communicative competence, which encompasses elements such as an open, curious, and critical attitude, knowledge of sociocultural practices, skills of relating and making sense of cultures, abilities to discover and perform knowledge/attitudes/skills in and through interaction, and critical cultural awareness. In these processes of interaction, scholars suggest that drama pedagogy may be one of the optimal ways to foster and realize communicative language teaching (Cumico, 2005; Even, 2008; Song, 2000).  During improvisational process-oriented drama, learners are engaged in numerous moments to understand and be understood by others (Boudreault, 2010). Even during product-oriented scripted theatrical activities, growth in fluency in the target language occurs as learners experience the complex nature of authentic communicative aspects of language (i.e., hesitation, intonation, repetitions, incomplete sentences), as well as engage in rehearsals and performance, which calls for collaboration, negotiation, and meaning exchanges at personal and public levels among participants (Burke & O’Sullivan, 2002; Butt, 1998; Fukushima & Fujimoto, 2009). Fostering Imagination L2 learners should not be viewed as passive information processors, but rather as astute “thinkers and language users” (Donaldson, 1978, p. 121), inquirers (Fels & Belliveau, 2008), meaning-makers (Cox & Boyd-Batstone, 1997), capable experts (Heathcote & Bolton, 1995), or “active goal-oriented hypothesis-generating symbol manipulators” (Wagner, 1998, p. 17). In this light, it is important that imagination and creativity be regarded as an integral part of the art of learning and teaching (Broom, 2011; Kelly & Leggo, 2008; Leggo, 2005, 2013, 2014). A number of scholars call for more attempts and efforts to be made to transform L2 classrooms to where imagination comes into play in the process of language learning through dramatic exploration (e.g., Boudreault, 2010; Donnery, 2009; Even, 2008; Hristozoa, 2009; Liu, 2002). While allowing for ample opportunities to reflect on social, affective, and linguistic experiences in and through drama, a dramatic engagement with language and communicative situations can evoke learners’ imagination to an extent where they may step out and move beyond the walls of the classroom.   14 Facilitating Contextually-Situated Interaction  Drama can create an environment where language is presented, learned, and used in and through interaction that is situated in social contexts. Educational drama invites learners into contexts where they are encouraged to interact with their environment in meaningful ways (Cumico, 2005; Eun & Lim, 2009), experience different registers, styles, and discourses (Dodson, 2000; Even, 2011), and develop skills of discovery and interaction (Byram, 1997), while collaboratively constructing imaginative worlds. In addition to the prominent benefits mentioned above, the following contributions of using a drama-based pedagogy in L2 learning are addressed in the position papers reviewed: creating an environment for developing overall language and literacy skills in a holistic manner (Evatt, 2010; Rieg & Paquette, 2009); enriching reading experiences with both literary and non-literary texts through a more intimate and deeper engagement with the texts (Boudreault, 2010; Even, 2008); connecting language, literature, and culture (Hoecherl-Alden, 2006); enhancing learners’ confidence and motivation in learning and using language (Aita, 2009; Athiemoolam, 2006; Ralph, 1997); and fostering alternative ways of learning and knowing (i.e., embodied, performative, interdisciplinary, or kinesthetic inquiry) (Bas, 2008; Donnery, 2009; Even, 2011; Wagner, 1998). Empirical Studies on Drama and L2 Case Studies of Drama in L2 settings  While the majority of the literature encountered for this review were either position papers or teacher resources, 30 classroom-oriented empirical research studies concerning drama in L2 education have been identified, most of which are descriptive case studies. Given that the studies were conducted in various second language contexts, the result of the review speaks to a widespread interest in drama for L2 learning. What follows is a review of a selection of these empirical research studies, followed by research implications drawn from this review. The descriptive research studies examined the integration of drama in various second language classrooms, including Italian (Piazzoli 2011; Ryan-Scheutz & Colangelo, 2004), Spanish (Wilburn, 1992), German (Lauer, 2008; Matthias, 2007; Ronke, 2005; Rothwell 2011), French (Dicks & Le Blanc, 2009; Early & Yeung, 2009; Giaitzis, 2008; Ziltener,  15 2011), and Arabic (El-Nady 2000).  French Classrooms Positive outcomes of drama on L2 development and L2 learning experiences were witnessed by researchers in French classes for younger learners in Canada. One research project was an exploratory case study with a secondary French class where French learners created original picture book stories in French and then dramatized them for French-speaking children (Early & Yeung, 2009). Two separate descriptive case studies on the use of various drama activities with elementary core French students for the enhancement of motivation and L2 learning were respectively conducted by Giaitzis (2008) and Ziltener (2011). In addition, a survey-based research study in an elementary French as a second language class in Canada where participants engaged in a drama project on global simulations was undertaken by Dicks and Le Blanc (2009). Italian Classrooms Ryan-Scheutz and Colangelo (2004) undertook a case study to explore the feasibility of engaging in a full-scale theatre production for Italian learning. The 11 participants in the research were part of a 10-week Italian language workshop at the post-secondary level. In preparation for a theatre production that would take place at the end of a term, the participants were grouped into one of three roles: actors, designers or stage managers. Over the course of 27 rehearsals and the performance, participants engaged in various interactions and communicative tasks. Findings of this descriptive case study suggest that, during the process, not only actors but also stage managers and designers demonstrated linguistic growth because of a constant need for meaningful interactions among all participants for a common goal of performing the play on stage.  German Classrooms Similar findings were evident in German language classes. In Lauer’s (2008) study, a group of advanced German learners at Georgetown University participated in the dramatization of a German novel. Lauer’s observational data reveal that throughout the process of rehearsals and performances, the participants appeared to improve their language abilities while enjoying drama-based learning experiences. Matthias (2007) reports on another case study of  16 German learners in an experimental three-week improvisational theatre workshop. This anecdote-based descriptive research study demonstrates how beginning German learners benefitted from using improvisational drama exercises and physical enactment (of a short story) to investigate intercultural foreign language situations. Ronke (2005) found that the integration of drama in the German language classroom positively impacts language learning ranging from oral language competence, affective, cultural, and social learning.  ESL/EFL Classrooms Contributions of various dramatic approaches to L2 development are also evidenced in numerous English language learning contexts. For instance, Miccoli’s (2003) case study explored the value of using drama to help 37 EFL students develop their oral linguistic competence in a conversation-based class at a Brazilian university. Instead of a conventional transmission model of language learning, the class prepared for a theatrical production and during the process the students kept reflective journals to document their learning. Findings gained from student self-reports suggest that they experienced an improvement of oral skills, and an increased confidence in speaking in the target language. Miccoli explains that drama created a purposeful and meaningful context where learners used language while jointly making cultural and linguistic analysis of their characters.  Reader’s Theatre In addition to engaging in theatrical productions, Readers Theatre (RT) was also found to be conducive to ESL development. Liu (2000) conducted an action research study with an intermediate ESL writing class in an American university to explore the possibilities of RT in L2 classrooms. Students in Liu’s research were invited to share their favourite part of the reading, write responses to the RT, and create an alternative ending to the story. Liu points out that, throughout these RT activities, the students appeared to be legitimate participants in this creative reading practice. Based on the thematic analysis of data gathered through multiple sources such as researcher’s and students’ reflective journals, a survey on students’ reactions to RT, and students writing assignments, Liu notes three key contributions that resulted from using RT within his language classroom: facilitated students’ engagement with language; promoted peer collaborations; and created a positive class atmosphere.   17 Playwriting Dramatic engagement using playwriting has also been found to benefit ESL learners. Elga (2002) addresses the efficacy of playwriting activities in English language development for her intermediate-level students within a Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) program. In her action research project, she found that when students engaged in playwriting, rich opportunities for intensive language practice involving language skills were generated as well as a sense of ownership and accountability about their own playtexts, which in turn led to enhanced motivation.  Intercultural Learning Along with linguistic benefits, drama-based learning also seems to have a positive effect on emotional aptitude or affective learning. Dinapoli (2009) conducted an interpretive study with a university business class using drama-based approaches. Although an in-depth analysis of wider ethnographic empirical data demonstrating a broader range of students’ emotional engagement was absent, through the author’s interpretation of selected examples of students’ oral/written presentations, Dinapoli’s (2009) findings suggest that drama can promote adult L2 learners’ broader and empathic understanding of underlying meanings of texts because of the contextualized exposure to language, creativity, and emotional aspects of discourse. Of a range of benefits of applying educational drama in L2 learning contexts, the role of drama in fostering a sense of intercultural understanding was explored in a number of qualitative case studies. In their separate descriptive studies, both Isbell (1999) and Donnery (2009) illustrate how the inclusion of improvised drama activities in the curriculum was conducive to the enhancement of cross-cultural awareness of Japanese EFL college students through the description of student self-reports. Increased intercultural awareness was also witnessed by two researcher-teachers who taught content-based ESL classes using drama, Mcgowan-Rick (1994) and Dodson (2002). Mcgowan-Rick argues that his high school ESL students’ experience of performing (versus only reading) Wilder’s American classic Our Town enabled his class to not only learn about the content and themes within the play, but to also discover the emotions and journeys of the characters. The class participants, who were  18 mostly newcomers to the United States, learned about American culture by performing it, and they readily related to, and identified with, the challenges faced by the characters within the play such as leaving home, love, and death. Dodson’s (2002) study with university ESL students describes how her objectives of fostering intercultural understanding through the teaching of language were achieved through various engagements with theatre, and these included reading and discussing academic articles on theatre; reading plays; watching local live theatre performances and responding to them in writing; taking field trips to local theatres; engaging in various improvisational drama activities; and performing a play on stage. Based on their observation and students’ own evaluation of their learning through drama, both Mcgowan-Rick and Dodson’s descriptive documentations of their own classes illustrate how the growth of students’ language competence and intercultural understanding can be fostered through drama-oriented L2 pedagogy. Similar findings were also witnessed in the Bournot-Trites et al. (2007) mixed-method study that compared the learning outcomes of two French immersion elementary classes engaged in a process drama about French Acadians in Canada. Both classes of similar socio-economic status studied the exact same content (Acadian culture), yet the control group used a traditional teacher-directed approach, whereas the experimental group used a drama-based pedagogical approach. The findings of the study based on triangulated data sources reveal that the experimental (drama) group demonstrated higher achievement in overall composition abilities in French, a more positive attitude, and higher motivation towards learning both language and content. The positive contribution made by drama-based pedagogy to students’ increased intercultural understanding were further evidenced by a large-scale cross-cultural research project, carried out with approximately 5,000 students in 12 European countries (DICE 2010; Kuppers 2011). This EU funded project makes use of mixed methods and provides empirical insights into how drama can foster personal development with high intercultural/social/civic communicative competence. This large-scale research project offers a valuable contribution to the scholarly/pedagogical knowledge on the role of drama in intercultural competence with its close attention to measuring the impact of educational drama in L2 learning. Student Interactions and Talk Classroom interaction in the drama classroom has also received scholarly attention. One of  19 very few empirical studies examining this area was a seminal study by Sharrock and Watson (1984). They investigated classroom interaction in one EFL class using simulation and gaming as a pedagogical approach from an ethnomethodological and conversational analytic perspective. They described how a game reality in the classroom was created through practice and interaction by the students engaged in the simulation and gaming activity. They proposed that an ethnomethodological approach can allow a rigorous, close investigation, and explication of the process of understanding and constructing game realities in the drama-based EFL classroom. However, as the authors pointed out, a close analysis of the classroom interactional data was absent in their observational study. Another important study that has examined classroom interaction in a drama-based L2 classroom was conducted by Kao and O’Neill (1998) who used educational drama within a Taiwanese university EFL classroom. Through a descriptive and quantitative investigation focused on student interactions, this systematic study provides insights as to how drama-based pedagogy can encourage participants to become more active language users while maintaining equal participation status. A similar study by Wilburn (1992) was carried out to explore the nature of classroom discourse and teacher talk when implementing educational drama into elementary Spanish immersion classrooms. Based on a descriptive and thematic analysis of transcribed classroom interaction data, Wilburn found that when educational drama was implemented, the students were inclined to play a bigger role in participating and constructing classroom dialogue. Other research studies looked into various L2 learning contexts to explore the learning potential of drama-based L2 instruction in enhancing linguistic awareness and increasing confidence and motivation in L2. These studies include an action research project with an EFL class in Taiwan using dramatic activities based on Shakespeare’s work (Cheng & Winston, 2011); an experimental study on the effect of drama-based EFL instruction on English speaking abilities and attitudes of undergraduate students in Thailand (Janudom & Wasanasomsithi, 2009); a quantitative study on the positive effects of Arabic learners’ vocabulary retention and higher engagement with language learning (El-Nady, 2000); an action research study with immigrant/refugee adult ESL learners in an ESL class using Augusto Boal’s theatre of the oppressed and involving critical pedagogy and performance (Louis, 2002, 2005); the effects of drama on high school ESL learners in social studies content knowledge and English language proficiency (Nazare, 2009); the use of dramatic  20 activities based on a newspaper article on the topic of drug addiction in an English class at a South African university (Athiemoolam, 2006); and a descriptive report of an advanced-level Japanese class at an American university working on a scripted theatre play (Fukushima & Fujimoto, 2009). Challenges and Issues In addition to the positive impact of drama on L2 learning, it is important to note that there are pedagogical challenges and issues around the implementation of drama-based language instruction and these are discussed in some intervention studies (Gaudart, 1990; Louis, 2001; Piazzoli, 2010; Stinson, 2009). These studies speak to the challenges and issues to be taken into account when implementing drama-based L2 instruction (e.g., a need for teacher training; skepticism from teachers and students; product-driven or examination-oriented circumstances; cultural differences in learning styles among others).  To sum up, it seems evident from the case studies discussed above that positive outcomes and effects for L2 learners are taking place when drama-based interventions are applied. The integration of drama in L2 curriculum yield benefits for language learners in their language skills, intercultural understanding, attitudes to language learning and use, content learning, and connection to literature. Also, the studies suggest that significant pedagogical and research attempts have been made in a range of second language learning contexts to explore the affordance of drama-based L2 instruction.  Nevertheless, there is a need for more empirical evidence in the literature on this topic. Literature available over the last two decades consists of few empirical studies that are highly reflexive and systematic in methodology and in reporting of the analysis and findings. Also, despite the affordance of creative and engaging performed ethnography (Goldstein, 2000, 2001, 2008; Saldaña, 2003), representation of research findings on the impact of drama-based L2 pedagogy have been limited to a conventional textual report. The majority of the studies reviewed in this paper are descriptive reports based mainly on personal anecdotes, observations, and intuitive interpretations of researchers.   21 Research Implications This review of recent scholarly works suggests that drama-based L2 instruction is a good approach in L2 classrooms for its range of benefits. Teaching resources, position papers, and research studies affirm why and how the integration of drama into L2 classrooms can be advantageous: fostering communication competence, embodied and engaging learning, contextually-situated interaction, confidence and motivation in learning and using language and deeper engagement with literature, to name a few. However, it seems imperative that more efforts be made by researchers and teachers to undertake more reflexive, systematic, long-term or longitudinal research in order to attain a fuller and more nuanced understanding of the possibilities, challenges, and complexities of second language learning through drama (Bournot-Trites et al., 2007; Even, 2008; Finneran, 2015; Gilmore, 2007; Nawi, 2014; Paran, 2006; Roman & Nunez, 2015; Sam, 1990; Schewe, 2013; Stinson & Winston, 2011; Wagner, 1998).  A specific research recommendation that can be drawn from this review is the need for classroom-based ethnographic studies with 1) a longitudinal component, 2) varied data collected from various perspectives/sources, and 3) research methods and findings represented in reflexive and diverse ways. A more reflexive data-driven ethnographic investigation approach will help further our understanding of how learning takes place in drama-based L2 classrooms (Dodson, 2000, 2002; Even, 2008; Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Finneran, 2015; Liu, 2002; Ronke, 2005; Piazzoli, 2011; Stinson & Winston, 2011; Winston, 2004, 2011). Another recommendation is to broaden the research context to include other sites. Most studies reviewed focused on younger learners (e.g., Bournot-Trites et al., 2007; Dicks & Le Blanc, 2009; Early & Yeung, 2009; Mcgowan-Rick, 1994; Wilburn, 1992; Ziltener, 2011) or university classroom contexts (e.g., Athiemoolam, 2006; Donnery, 2009; Janudom & Wasanasomsithi, 2009; Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Miccoli, 2003). It seems imperative to expand the literature to other educational settings. For instance, a large number of L2 learners participate in private language institute settings, where educators may include drama-based approaches. Most participants in these private schools are adult learners, usually unfamiliar with drama-based learning strategies as they typically come from educational contexts that tend to favor linear, static transmission models of teaching (Dinapoli, 2009;  22 Even, 2008; Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Louis, 2002, 2005; Sam, 1990).  There is also a need for more classroom-based empirical investigation that specifically focuses on the impact of educational drama on classroom interaction and students’ L2 development. The important questions that Kao and O’Neill (1998) raised nearly two decades ago is still in need of close investigation: How is the interaction in drama-based L2 classroom constructed/developed? What learning experiences and classroom interaction are promoted for L2 development? How do students’ verbal/non-verbal practices develop over time in drama-based classroom? These questions can be addressed through a participant-oriented, emic, discourse-analytic lens (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Rex & Schiller, 2009; Richards, 2006; Sharrock & Watson, 1984; Stokoe, 2013, 2014), which can provide insights into what takes place in and through interaction in the classroom. In addition to a discourse analytic lens, alternative approaches to representing data and findings could be considered (e.g., video-essays [Küppers, 2012] and performed ethnography [Belliveau & Lea, 2011; Goldstein, 2012; Saldana, 2003, 2011; Wager et al., 2009]). They can allow a participant-oriented representation of data to illuminate dynamic, imaginative, multi-layered, bodily and performative dimensions of learning and interaction afforded by drama-based pedagogy. A further research recommendation derived from this review surrounds the challenges a number of educators face when implementing drama-based pedagogies with learners mainly familiar with traditional, teacher-centered approaches. Witnessed by Stinson (2009), Liu (2002), Louis (2002), and Gaudart (1990), educators working primarily with students of such educational backgrounds face particular challenges. Student-centerd drama-based approaches are often unfamiliar to these students, as their English learning has largely been confined to grammar and reading skills. In this light, an investigation into how students and teachers perceive and react to their learning/teaching experiences with drama-based pedagogy from their own perspectives could deepen our understanding of the pedagogical challenges. In addition, our understanding of what takes place in a drama-based language classroom can be further expanded through an investigation of identity (Cumico, 2005; Cummins, 2009, 2011; Neelands, 2004; Norton, 2000; Weber, 2005). The interactions during drama-based language activities, along with students’ perceptions and attitudes in relation to aesthetic and  23 educational learning could be examined in light of literature on identity. Antaki and Widdicombe (1998) point out that identity is consequential and pivotal in social action and social order; as such a close analysis of identity work in and through interaction in drama-based classrooms may increase our understanding of how identity shapes and is shaped by the way interaction is developed and constructed, given that classroom interaction serves a critical role in creating an identity-empowering learning experience for L2 learners (Cummins, 2009, 2011; Cummins & Early, 2011; Norton, 2000, 2010; Pittaway, 2004).  Booth (2005) stresses that “a student’s awareness of possible meanings and patterns is vital to that student’s reception and production of language and the student derives this awareness from hearing and using language. . . Meanings are learned through one’s total life experience” (p. 93). In this regard, it is essential that L2 learners experience and experiment with multi-faceted meanings, forms, and modes of human communication systems as active participants, drawing on their previous experiences, knowledge and multiple, dynamic, socially-constructed identities. Drama-based L2 pedagogy may afford such learning opportunities. Cummins (2009) calls for collaborative efforts to make classrooms into “an interpersonal space within which the acquisition of knowledge and formation of identity is negotiated. Power is created and shared within this interpersonal space where minds and identities meet” (p. 45). In such a space, L2 learners’ voices can be empowered and grow in both a literal and a figurative sense (Cox & Boyd-Batstone, 1997). Educational drama may have a role to play in contributing to create an empowering interpersonal educational space where diverse voices are in dynamic interaction with one another in multiple ways.  In drawing this review to a close, I wish to share Leggo’s (2004) thoughts on language learning and poetry: As a language educator, my commitment is simply, but irrevocably, to seek the anima, the spirit, the energy that is at the heart of all discourse. Poetry calls attention to itself as a rhetorical structure, as a discursive practice. Where prose is often perceived as a transparent window on reality, poetry is opaque. Poetry invites readers to slow down. Poetry invites us to listen. Poetry is a site for  24 dwelling. . . A poem is a textual site where a diversity of languages, emotions, and perspectives can be entertained. (Poetry is full of truth, par. 3) Drama also promotes rich, empowering poetic moments in which a wide range of language and other symbolic forms, perspectives, emotions, and interpretations can be purposefully mingled and entertained as students have opportunities to linguistically, aesthetically, and imaginatively engage in active interaction with one another. Nonetheless, as informed in this review, although many educators agree on the benefits of drama in L2 learning—enriching classroom interaction, learning experiences, language skills, and developing a sense of diversity, collaboration, creativity, and aesthetic imagination—these factors have often been overlooked and empirically under-investigated. Further pedagogical and scholarly attention is needed for a fuller understanding of how educational drama can contribute to a more successful implementation of embodied language/literacy experiences.  The present ethnographic qualitative inquiry is an effort to contribute to the pedagogical and scholarly discussion on this under-researched topic. For a fuller, richer, and more multi-dimensional understanding of the impact of educational drama on L2 learning, this study explores four adult ESL classes employing educational drama with a focus on the nature of teaching practices, classroom interaction, students’ identity work, and their described perceptions towards their learning experiences with educational drama. In the remainder of the chapter, I will discuss theoretical frameworks adopted for the present study guided by the research review-informed research questions as re-stated below for readers: 1) How is educational drama used in the four focal drama-based adult ESL classrooms in private language institution settings?  2) In what ways is L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms? 3) How is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students? 4) What pedagogical insights can be drawn for adult L2 classes incorporating educational drama?  25 Theoretical Underpinnings to Threading Language, Story, and Drama This qualitative inquiry is grounded in the interplay of the following theoretical perspectives: narrative inquiry (learning through narratives) (Leggo, 2008), performative inquiry (learning through performance) (Fels & Belliveau, 2008), an alternative/dialogical approach to second language acquisition (learning through use) (Atkinson, 2011; Johnson, 2004), and transformative multiliteracies pedagogy (learning in collaboration) (Cummins, 2009). These have served to provide theoretical stances as I explore processes and ways of learning L2 through stories, drama/performance, and language use in collaborative interaction with others.  Narrative Inquiry (Learning through Story) According to Leggo (2008), “the real purpose of telling our stories is to tell them in ways that open up new possibilities for understanding and wisdom and transformation. So, our stories need to be told in creative ways that hold our attention, that call out to us, that surprise us. What really makes a story interesting and valuable, then, is the way it is told” (p. 8). The present study is framed on the supposition that educational drama can be a powerful means of attending to and telling stories creatively. Leggo (2008) remarks, “we all live stories all the time” (p. 5) and “we are all creatively engaged in processes of identity formation and transformation by attending to stories” (p. 5), reflecting the significance of ways of knowing through stories (i.e., narrative inquiry), not only for language researchers but also ordinary language users/learners. The interconnected relationships of language, drama, and stories are rooted in the premise that creative drama can serve as one way of inquiring into and through narrative, in light of the possibilities of drama as a way to nurture learners to be more reflective story-tellers/interpreters who experience and encounter the world full of stories (which are told from diverse perspectives in multiple modes). Leggo (2008) further contends that “life is abundant, and narrative inquiry is a way of focusing on some particulars of that abundance” (p. 5) and that we (not just narrative inquiry researchers but also all ordinary language users) should attend to our stories and the stories of others, to focus on our languages, experiences, ideas, emotions, particulars in the ordinary, and ways of knowing and being in the world. This process of inquiring into the world in and through narration can “open up possibilities for wide-ranging connections, questions, and insights” (Leggo, 2008, p. 6).   26 Leggo explains that this process of narrative inquiry involves engaging with three principle questions: story (what happened?), interpretation (what is the significance of the story?), and the art of discourse (how do we tell the story?). This study hopes to illuminate that creative educational drama can be one natural way of engaging language users/learners in this entire process of inquiring into story, interpretation, and discourse in wide-ranging modes in and through which learners can “experiment with the discursive possibilities of storytelling, thereby seeking complex and artful and richly nuanced representations of lived experience” (Leggo, 2008, p. 17).  Performative Inquiry (Learning through Performance) As discussed earlier in this chapter, drama, both as a learning medium and an art form, has been recognized for its potential contributions to learning across the curriculum including learning and teaching language and literacy (Booth, 2005; Grady, 2000; Heathcote & Bolton, 1995; Miller & Saxton, 2004; Winston, 2004). In the creative, dynamic dramatic experience, students are invited to share a story with multiple perspectives and interpretations presented in diverse ways of representation.  Concomitant with these beliefs, Fels and Belliveau (2008) argue for the possibilities of performative inquiry as a research methodology as well as a powerful way for learning that integrates “the arts, drama, theatre, music, visual arts, dance, and multimedia for inquiry” (p. 15). By defining performative inquiry as “an umbrella term that speaks to the learning and research possible through a variety of dramatic strategies” (p. 12), they contend:  Performative inquiry invites participants to ask questions, to work collaboratively, to solve problems and to make decisions, and to respond critically and creatively to situations and issues, and to reflect on their learning and choices of action. They are becoming inquirers and learners and it’s a great way to keep students actively engaged in the curriculum. (p. 15)  In light of the emergent (rather than scripted) nature of learning in and through interaction (Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Heathcote, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978), performative inquiry can be a powerful learning vehicle in that it creates a space of dynamic, meaningful interactions where moments of learning occur in the context of inquiry through performance. Fels and Belliveau  27 further argue that curriculum can be jointly explored through performative inquiry particularly by means of role drama that “stimulates creative and critical thinking, motivates and encourages students in their learning, and frames and communicates complex situations and concepts” (p. 43). They put forth that performative inquiry as a vehicle for learning can yield the following benefits: • creative and critical problem solving • collaboration and communication skills • investigation of issues, concepts, and information within contextualized situations • exposure to multiple perspectives and agendas • long term retention of learning • increased motivation • opportunity to draw on and apply to personal experience and knowledge to situations and issues • leadership and peer teaching • effective learning strategies that engage students with different ability levels and interests • active, embodied participation • critical and reflective thinking • performative literacy • meaningful work and participation (p. 43) Additionally, performative inquiry can promote ‘knowledge translation’ (i.e., transferring and applying ideas and information across modes) in which learners have an opportunity to work with information, concepts, and content in a range of formats (Fels & Belliveau, 2008). This can be markedly important because the process of transferring knowledge from one mode to another naturally requires a more complete understanding of the knowledge they deal with. Also, this means that higher competence in multimodal multiliteracy, including linguistic competence, is required. Moreover, performative inquiry promotes embodied participation where learners are engaged in creative, critical, and collaborative meaning-making interaction that demands and  28 appreciates learners’ diverse abilities and experiences (Fels & Belliveau, 2008). They further explain: When doing a role drama, the teacher invites students to take on roles in order to look at a situation, an issue, a problem, or a question through the embodied experience of performance and reflection. Through improvisation, tableau, visualization, and other dramatic activities, students address issues, solve problems, make decisions, take action, and investigate situations and relationships from different perspectives and in different contexts. (p. 61) Fels and Belliveau invite educators to the exploration of curriculum through performative inquiry as “a pedagogical quest for learning that celebrates students’ voice, agency, and empowerment” (p. 229). The present study can be seen as an effort to take their invitation and extend performative inquiry as a pedagogical quest to L2 classrooms in order to learn more about the celebration of collaborative, multimodal learning experiences in the curriculum for L2 development. Dialogical/Alternative Approach to L2 Acquisition (Learning through Use) On the view that language is a social practice of human communication and that language learning is regarded as language use, becoming, or participating, the present study will take a dialogical approach (Johnson, 2004) and, more broadly, alternative approaches to L2 acquisition (Atkinson, 2011). Notably, these conceptual lenses on SLA are grounded in the view that the use of language is inevitably situated in its immediate and larger global contexts and language/literacy development takes place explicitly or implicitly in a constant interaction with the world filled with meanings in various forms and modes. In essence, these perspectives on SLA underline the view that learning of language and social contexts cannot be separated as they are in a dialogical relationship in which language creates social contexts and social contexts create language. Moreover, in such approaches, SLA is regarded as a social issue, and social aspects of meaning-making through interaction are taken into account (Atkinson, 2011; Johnson, 2004).  Coming from these dialogical perspectives on SLA, I will suggest that, in the process of L2 learning through improvised educational drama, both language learning (i.e., language  29 competence) and language use (i.e., language performance) can naturally and simultaneously occur in meaningful, collaborative knowledge building interactive practices around stories. It could also facilitate experience with an exposure to fuller meanings and functions of language as speech inexplicably linked with immediate and global contexts associated with make-believe sociocultural settings of stories. Empowering Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy (Learning in Collaboration) Based on the view that “identities are not static or fixed, but rather are constantly being shaped through experiences and interaction,” Cummins (2001, p.15) states that schools could create a classroom in which empowering learning occurs in and through classroom interaction and in which students’ identities and knowledge are negotiated and affirmed. It is referred to as transformative multiliteracies pedagogy, which involves the affirmation of identities, respect for students’ language and culture, literacy engagement, critical literacy, and orientation towards a school as a learning community (Cummins, 2001, 2009, 2011). In such a classroom, collaborative relations of power rather than coercive relations of power can occupy the space.  Cummins underscores how micro teacher-student interaction plays an important role in building such an empowering space. He encourages “educators to recognize that relations of power are at the core of schooling and also to recognize that, as educators, we have choices regarding how power is negotiated in our classroom interaction” (p. vii). Precisely, Cummins (2001) illustrates an essential role that classroom interaction can serve in learning: When students’ developing sense of self is affirmed and extended through their interactions with teachers, they are more likely to apply themselves to academic effort and participate more actively in instruction. The consequent learning is the fuel that generates further academic effort. The more we learn the more we want to learn and the more effort we are prepared to put into that learning. (p. 2) Such affirmative negotiation of identities can foster and be reinforced by respect and trust among teachers and students, which can likely contribute to the empowerment of both students and teachers. Cummins (2001) defines the empowerment as “collaborative creation of power” (p. 15). This underscores that power is generated in and through collaboration  30 among class participants. He further explains: Students whose schooling experiences reflect collaborative relations of power develop the ability, competence, and motivation to succeed academically. They participate confidently in instruction as a result of having developed a secure sense of identity and the knowledge that their voices will be heard and respected within the classroom. They feel a sense of ownership for the learning that goes on in the classroom and the sense that they belong in the classroom learning community. In other words, empowerment derives from the process of negotiating identities in the classroom. (p. 15)  Understood this way, Cummins (2001, 2003, 2009, 2011) stresses the importance of micro interaction in a classroom as integral to the creation of empowering interpersonal space. Cummins (2003) points out that such an empowering interpersonal space with a sense of respect and affirmation should be established in L2 classrooms. He suggests that, in creating such a space, teachers should view themselves not as someone who simply transmits knowledge as an authoritative figure, but as persons who create an educational environment in which learners become active participants in their learning process together with a teacher who views him or herself as a co-learner. Specifically, in implementing an empowering L2 instructional approach, Cummins (2003) illustrates three essential facets of the L2 instruction: focus on meaning, focus on language, and focus on use. He argues that L2 students should go beyond literal, surface level comprehension, and experience a deeper level of cognitive and linguistic processing (focus on meaning); develop critical language awareness of both the grammar of language and its relation to power (focus on language); and have an opportunity to use language  to amplify students’ intelligent, aesthetic, and social identities if it is to contribute to students’ empowerment understood as the collaborative creation of power (focus on use) so that active meaningful language use is fostered in a way to enhance students’ linguistic competence” and encourage “students to express themselves, in other words to explore their feelings, ideas, and experiences in a supportive context, and thereby become more aware of their goals, values, and aspirations. (Cummins, 2003, p. 14)   31 The present study will empirically investigate how such an empowering interpersonal space may be interactionally created in drama-based L2 classrooms. Such empirically-grounded understandings will allow insights into the possibilities of a drama-based pedagogical approach as an effective way to create such an empowering interpersonal learning space, which involves a sense of collaboration rather than competition, affirmation of identity, and language/literacy engagement. Summary In this chapter, I reviewed the research literature of the last two decades in relation to the topic of educational drama in L2 learning. The literature review revealed areas in need of further classroom-based empirical research for a fuller understanding of the potential and actual impact of educational drama on L2 development. I also outlined the theoretical frameworks of narrative inquiry, performative inquiry, dialogic approaches to SLA, and transformative multiliteracies pedagogy that thread language, stories, and drama together. The ensuing two chapters will describe the research methodology and design of the present qualitative inquiry by discussing the research methodology and an overview of analytical and representational approaches to data (Chapter 3) as well as the reflexive accounts of the procedures of data generation and analysis, backgrounds of the participating classes, and an overview of the content and teaching practices of the classes (Chapter 4).     32 Chapter 3: Research Methodology Chapter Overview In this chapter, the research methodology of the study will be discussed. I will then present an overview of approaches to data analysis and representation of findings. They include participant-listening-driven autoethnographic narratives, discourse analysis, and ethnodrama.  Research Tradition: Multiple Case Study The present study is a qualitative ethnographic multiple case study. A case study is “an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a bounded phenomenon such as a program, an institution, a person, a process, or a social unit” (Merriam, 1998, p. xiii), which affords an in-depth understanding of its characteristics, experiences, practices, and perspectives (Duff, 2008, 2012; Duff & Anderson, 2015; Yin, 2014). With these definitions of case study and its “particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic” characteristics (Merriam, 1998, p. 29), the aim of this qualitative study is to further an understanding of “the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real life events” (Winston, 2006, p. 45) of four adult ESL classes in western Canada that incorporate educational drama as well as to “develop a rich picture of the experience of those involved” in these settings (Richard, 2003, p. 21).  In particular, the present study is guided by Stake’s (2006) perspectives on a multiple case study. According to Stake (2006), a case constitutes a particular collection of cases that a researcher aims to understand thoroughly. Stake (2006) refers to this target collection of multiple cases under investigation as “quintain,” which he construes as “the arena or holding company or umbrella of the cases to be studied” (p. 6). Viewed in this light, the present qualitative inquiry intends to learn about particularistic situated complexities of multiple cases (i.e., four local adult ESL classes with educational drama in a private institute setting in western Canada), which will allow a thorough understanding of the quintain (a target phenomenon) manifested and realized in its multiple cases. In this case, the quintain to be studied in the present qualitative inquiry is an L2 pedagogy with educational drama.   33 Hence, with a central purpose to gain deeper insight into and understand the quintain (i.e., drama-based L2 pedagogy), the interest of this multiple case study is instrumental in nature while, at the same time, being intrinsic with my methodological attention to the particulars of each case (Stake, 2006). Additionally, with respect to its purposes, the study can also be regarded as descriptive (i.e., to provide detailed descriptions of drama-based ESL classes) and explanatory (i.e., to develop possible explanations of the impact of drama-based ESL pedagogy) (Duff, 2008; Yin, 2014). Particularly, one central rationale for adopting the descriptive and explanatory multiple case study approach is because of the need for more classroom-based reflexive empirical evidence on drama-based ESL pedagogy. Merriam (1998) further elaborates:  They [case studies] are useful in presenting information about areas of education where little research has been conducted. Innovative programs and practices are often the focus of descriptive case studies in education. Such studies often form a data base for future comparison and theory building. (p. 38) In addition, Mackey and Gass (2005) argue that the use of case study has prominent advantages particularly in the research area of L2 learning. They include: “Providing insights into the complexities of particular cases in their particular contexts” and “the potential for rich contextualization that can shed light on the complexities of the second language learning process” (p. 172). The investigation in the present case study will concentrate on the nature of teaching practices with educational drama use in ESL classrooms, students’ learning experiences, and the nature of classroom interaction and identity work of the participants.  Analytic and Representational Approaches Given that one characteristic of case studies is an effort to portray faithfully and reflexively the perspectives of the researchers and the research participants (Duff, 2008; Gall et al., 2007), every effort has been made to collect and analyze data in a reflexive manner. In the context of a rich reflexive description of each case, the study primarily employed an interpretational analysis which involves “the process of examining case study data closely in order to find constructs, themes, and patterns that can be used to describe and explain the phenomenon being studied” (Gall et al., 2007, p. 466). This interpretational analysis was  34 enriched, deepened, and expanded with three distinct yet connected analytical and representational lenses, including: auditory autoethnographic narratives of the classes under study, micro analysis of classroom discourse, and ethnodrama. In what follows, I will discuss the purpose and method of each analytic/representational approach employed under the umbrella of a qualitative multiple case study. The relationship between the research tradition, analytic/representational approaches, research methods, and theoretical frameworks of the present qualitative inquiry is represented in Figure 1 below.  35 Figure 1: Relationship of research methodology, methods, and theoretical frameworks   Analytic Autoethnographic Narratives According to Pink (2007), ethnography is a process of creating and representing knowledge (about society, culture and individuals) that is based on ethnographers’ own experiences. It does not claim to produce an objective or truthful account of reality, but should aim to offer versions of ethnographers’ experiences of reality that are as loyal as possible to the context, negotiations and intersubjectivities through which the knowledge was produced. (p. 22) The narratives in Chapters 5 and 6 in this dissertation are autoethnographic. As Ellis and  36 Bochner (2002) explain, autoethnography is “an autobiographical genre of writing and research that engages multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural” (p. 739). As both a method and a text (Reed-Danahay, 1997), autoethnography is considered an approach to research and writing in which researchers critically analyze, interpret, reflect on their personal experiences (auto) to study the culture of a social context (ethno) (Connelly & Clandinin, 1994; Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011; Duarte, 2007; Holt, 2003; Hughes, Pennington, & Makris, 2012; Ree-Danahay, 1997; Richardson, 1994). In this light, autoethnography can be seen as an effort to acknowledge researchers as “representative of a multilayered lifeworld, itself worthy of expression” (Duncan, 2004; Eisner, 1991), and, thus, reflexivity and personal voice are integral to the process and product of research study.  Importantly, such critical and reflexive acknowledgements and recognition of the existence of the researcher as part of the story being told needs to be made visible and represented reflexively in ethnographic texts (Anderson, 2006; Ellis et al., 2011). Also, given the experiential nature of ethnography, autoethnographers need to be reflexive about their positionality and relationship to their research projects and participants, research design, and any decisions in interacting with participants in the research study and in collecting, interpreting, representing data (Freeman et al., 2007; Pink, 2009). Such a reflexive representational effort will allow readers to experience a version of the experience the researcher has had in the culture being investigated, as autoethnographic narratives do not aim for “a record of the world the researcher has visited or been a part of; rather, they will show how the researcher made sense of that world” (Duncan, 2004, p. 29).  While autoethnography focuses on writing (graphy) about self experience (auto) situated in cultures (ethno), autoethnographers emphasize the auto, ethno, and graphy in varying degrees. For example, evocative autoethnography foregrounds reflexive subjective self experience as participants in the culture being investigated (Anderson, 2006; Ellis & Bochner, 2002). Conversely, analytic autoethnography, which the present study has adopted, provides a reflexive account of self experience and that of others in the culture informed by analytic interpretation of different types of ethnographic data sources such as participant observation, field notes, interviews, and artifacts (Anderson, 2006; Duncan, 2004). Similarly, Ellis et al. (2011) speak to the importance of telling scholarly and analytic interpretations of lived  37 experiences of the researcher and other participants disciplined by theoretical and analytic frameworks, scholarly literature, and different types of data. It is through such a data-informed/driven scholarly interpretation of self experience grounded in cultural experiences that autoethnographers can discuss and represent their analytic reflexive accounts of their thoughts, feelings, perspectives, and experiences as they emerged and changed in the course of field work, especially as they interacted with others. Furthermore, bringing multiple data sources, theoretical frameworks, and methods can provide a more nuanced, complicated, contextualized account of multi-dimensional human experiences rather than a simplified objective report (Freeman et al., 2007, p. 28).  Autoethnography is grounded in the idea that stories can be powerful because they allow us to make sense of our life events as well as that of others (Reed-Danahay, 1997) and because stories can build connections with other people (Burdell & Swadener, 1999; Dalton, 2003; Denzin, 2003; Nelson, 2005). As Nelson (2005) puts it, “the narrative form does not simply transmit new knowledges from writer to reader, but invites readers to actively engage in knowledge making processes” (p. 111) as they engage with, ponder, interpret, question, and experience the narratives they read, bringing their own experiences and perspectives from educational contexts they are situated in. With its potential to provoke “situated thinking as opposed to decontextualized thinking” (Canagarajah, 2002, p. 142), autoethnographic narratives can evoke perspectives and critical reflections from readers on their own narratives of learning and teaching through the engagement with the narratives being heard. Viewed in this light, this dissertation aims to tell stories of drama-based classes to gain an understanding of what could be afforded by drama-based pedagogy and to create a space for discussion with other practitioners and researchers.  To this end, I reflexively bring my life narratives as a learner, educator, and researcher in the process and product of interpreting, reflecting on, analyzing, and representing stories of four drama classes. That is, I was not there as an objective mechanical camera (or an audio-recorder, more precisely speaking, given my visual challenge) to capture a visual (or auditory/sensory) record of what went on in the classrooms, but rather as an ethnographer with a range of experiences, dispositions, purposes, and attitudes in interaction with the students and teachers of the classes. According to Holt (2003), autoethnographers should  38 place “emphasis on the ways in which the ethnographer interacts with the culture being researched” (p. 18). Hence, what was important was how reflexively I could tell a nuanced version of the stories of my lived experience and that of the participants in the classes where I took part. This was important because such a reflexive version of the stories can generate more nuanced multiple readings from audiences who could compare the stories (being told in this dissertation) with their own stories about drama and L2. The nature of artful, accessible, and evocative thick descriptions of a lived experience told through “showing and telling” of what goes on in classrooms allows readers to understand the lived experiences of the autoethnographer and the cultural group he or she was a part of (Ellis, 1993; Ellis et al., 2011; Ellis & Bochner, 2002, 2006). For this reason, autoethnography has the potential to be an aesthetic, evocative, and engaging text that can influence a wider community of audiences (Ellis et al., 2011; Goodall, 2006).  Participant Listening Participant observation has long been regarded as a key methodology for a range of qualitative research frameworks (Atkinson, Delamont, & Housley, 2007; Daza & Gershon, 2015; Duncan, 2004). In addition to its primacy in ethnography, participant observation is frequently used in studies of multimodality, including first/second language learning. However, as a construct, participant observation presupposes and prioritizes visuality: it is through vision that phenomena—multimodal phenomena in particular—and the ethnographic milieu are experienced, interpreted, and represented. Such a privileging of the visual displaces the fact that qualitative field work is in fact constituted by multisensory embodied practices (Berger & Lorenz, 2015; Ellis et al., 2011; Pink, 2009), and that other sensory (particularly auditory) experience is similarly crucial in generating ethnographic empirical records (Daza & Gershon, 2015; Forsey, 2010; Hammer, 2015). In the present study, participation observation failed to account for how I participated in and engaged with the practices in the classrooms under study. This was due to a range of affordances and limitations of me as an ethnographer with a visual impairment. As opposed to perceiving researchers conventionally as participant observers, I promote the researcher as a participant listener. I have employed an auditory account as a way to represent my  39 ethnographic understanding, by reflexively narrating what I have heard, felt, made sense, and imagined.  My participant listener role was sustained throughout the research process from the planning stage, field work and analysis, to the representational stage. In lieu of focusing on what was visible, my qualitative inquiry was guided by fully-engaged listening. That is, I was always engaged in close listening to how things were said, including silences, sighs, pauses, and tone (Mazzei 2004; Scheurich, 1995). Such close engaged listening helps create intimate relationships with data (Daza & Gershon, 2015; Forsey, 2010; Gershon, 2012; Hammer, 2015; Mazzei, 2004; Richards, 2003). Mazzei (2004) referred to such an activity as “silent listening” and as a way to “live with the narratives” that allow the researcher to “probe the layers, the complexities, and the contradictions” of what was (not) said (p. 30). This was particularly significant for me as a researcher with a visual impairment. Interacting with the participants as a participant listener throughout the research project, I have made a constant effort to fully engage with the act of listening to spoken and unspoken words, verbal and non-verbal sounds, pauses, tones, and atmosphere. Such close listening during the field work and analysis allowed me to access a fuller, more contextualized, and deeper understanding of lived experiences of the participants. Autoethnography with Participant Listener Orientation My participant listener orientation is closely connected to autoethnographic approaches. Autoethnographic narratives offer unique opportunities for supporting marginalized scholarly voices to speak and be heard (Nelson, 2005, 2011; Tierney, 1998). Tierney (1998) argues that “autoethnography confronts dominant forms of representation and power in an attempt to reclaim, through self-reflective response, representational spaces that have marginalized those of us at the borders” (p. 66). Autoethnography invites a visually challenged researcher to contribute to scholarly/methodological discussions from a participant listener perspective, and therefore can provide readers more reflexive and more expansive ways of understanding.  40 Discourse Analysis: Understanding Identity Work and Classroom Interaction To complement autoethnographic claims, a microanalysis of discourse was undertaken with the aim to develop more enriched, complex, nuanced, and multi-dimensional understandings of the phenomenon under study (Atkinson, Okada, & Talmy, 2012). Specifically, in this study, research interviews were theorized as social practice (Talmy, 2010, 2011) and analyzed using microanalysis. Also, Goffman’s footing and frame as well as Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) were adopted as a discourse analytic approach to examining classroom interaction and identity work of class participants. These perspectives aimed to facilitate an in-depth investigation into how class participants negotiate, describe, represent, accept, resist, construct, or affirm meanings and identities in and through interaction in which they are engaged. Ultimately, such insights can allow a richer, more complex understanding of students’ identity work, the nature of classroom discourse, and their impact on students’ L2 development.  Research Interviews as Social Practice First, on the view that meanings are co-constructed, locally achieved, and contextually situated, adopting the research interviews as social practice perspectives (Holstein & Gabrium, 2004; Deschambault, 2011; Talmy, 2010, 2011; Talmy & Richards, 2011) has allowed an understanding of the status of data as an account of a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a direct report of inner thoughts and feelings by attending carefully to both what (i.e., what is said during the interview) and how (i.e., how it is said by whom in what interactional context) of research interviews. Approaching research interviews from this perspective throughout designing, conducting, analysing, and representing stages could augment the reflexivity of my interview process and its findings, which in turn elevates the credibility and applicability of my study (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004; Richards, 2003; Talmy, 2010). Membership Categorization Analysis Secondly, Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) was employed in analyzing  41 classroom interaction. Rooted in an ethnomethodological perspective on identity as dynamic, locally constructed, and interactionally negotiated, MCA allows a close examination of the identity work done by interlocutors in the unfolding sequences of talk-in-interaction in and through which they employ membership categories (identity) in making sense of themselves, others, activities, contexts, and the surrounding world (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Baker, 2000; Hester & Eglin, 1997). Understood this way, MCA could demonstrate how interactants in particular classrooms, construct, occasion, recognize, and extend identities of themselves and one another in the unfolding moment-to-moment interaction in the classrooms.  Additionally, as Antaki and Widdicombe (1998) point out, identity work is consequential in the social action and social order, and a microanalysis can increase our understanding of how identity work shapes and is shaped by the way the interaction is developed and constructed. Relatedly, Cummins (2001, 2009, 2011) speaks to the significance of classroom interaction in contributing to collaborative relations of power. He further stresses that collaborative relations of power can promote an empowering interpersonal space in our classrooms. MCA, a bottom-up ethnomethodological analytic approach, can empirically describe whether and how drama-based L2 instruction can contribute to creating such an empowering interpersonal space in L2 classrooms by demonstrating how participants interactionally describe and recognize their membership of identity categories in a given situation and how the negotiation of students’ identities and knowledge is done in and through the interaction they are engaged in.  Also, an MCA approach in a longitudinal ethnographic study provides further insight into how teacher and students’ identities are created over time with respect to their language development and learning experiences. Lastly, a bottom-up, data driven ethnomethodological approach provides a participant-oriented perspective as it allows analysts to empirically describe the logic and process of sense making in a social life by examining the fine grained details of human interaction and actions from a participant’s point of view rather than those of the analyst.  Goffman’s Participation Framework Goffman’s participation framework (1974, 1981) has been adopted to understand the nature  42 of classroom interaction and identity work of the participants. Goffman’s perspectives on the organization of social interaction and theatrical presentation of self add insight into the dynamic and complex relationships of the speaker and the listener in a particular social interaction. More specifically, I work with Goffman’s notion of footing and frame, which are central to the display and construction of identity in interaction.  Goffman’s (1974, 1981) term footing can be defined as an alignment (or stance) that we take up for ourselves and others as expressed in the way we receive and produce utterances in and through interaction while frame can be understood as our social, situational, and cognitive understanding of what goes on in particular interaction. Understood this way, footing demonstrates what and how alignments are taken up through linguistic and paralinguistic elements. On the other hand, frame can demonstrate one’s schematic, conceptual, affective, social, and situated understanding of what goes on in a particular time and place, which is revealed and governed by particular (normatively expected) footing work. Importantly, Goffman construes the relationship between footing, frame, language, and identity work as interconnected. That is, people use language (and other paralinguistic elements) that marks a particular orientation to one’s particular footing (stance) and which is constituted by and constitutes a particular frame in a given interaction, which in turn contributes to the construction and display of one’s identity in interaction. Threading Together MCA and Goffman MCA and Goffman’s participation framework can allow a unique participant-oriented understanding of how students and teachers in these classrooms participate in the classroom interaction and how it will shape, affect, and contribute to students’ L2 development. Both of these perspectives can complement one another with their own analytic focus. Specifically, Goffman’s notion of footing/frame and participation framework will allow a dramaturgical insight into which alignments are taken up by the students and teachers to themselves and each other within a particular frame collaboratively constructed and negotiated during drama-based pedagogical activities in the classrooms. Furthermore, Goffman’s notion of the speaker and hearer can afford a close analysis of how the participants take up different aspects of the hearer and speaker in producing a talk. Goffman seems to emphasize how prescribed  43 alignments are displayed through language use and how participants are governed by the social context they are situated in. However, despite its unique contributions as an analytic framework in understanding how talk is organized, what was not substantially considered in Goffman’s dramaturgical perspectives is the co-constructed and interactive nature of the talk-in-interaction where the hearer and the speaker are situated. That is, theoretically, Goffman understands the hearer and the speaker as a separate entity engaged in an isolated interaction. As Goodwin (2006) points out:  Footing contains a framework for the analysis of participation that has had enormous influence. However . . . the framework Goffman offered has major problems. The model of participation in footing consists of a typology of participant categories that are not linked to the model of the speaker presented in a different section of the article. It thus cannot provide the analytic resources necessary to describe how participants build utterances and action by taking each other into account within an unfolding process of interaction as talk unfolds, i.e., the essential mutual reflexivity of speaker and hearer(s). (p. 38) In this light, Goffman’s analytic approach could be enriched by a bottom-up ethnomethodological analytic approach, such as MCA, to understanding identity work and participant orientation in a naturally occurring interaction. This is because MCA highlights the local constructedness of identity categories by locating identity work in the context of a moment-to-moment unfolding interaction and can thus reveal how membership categories are displayed, described, managed, constructed, and resisted in the unfolding sequence of talk-in-interaction. A combination of Goffman’s perspectives and MCA can, therefore, describe how talk in interaction is produced as interactants take up different aspects of the hearer and the speaker and orient to certain footings while presenting a detailed bottom up micro-analysis of social actions and orders achieved through the use of membership categories. By adopting the above discourse analytic approaches, Chapter 8 of this dissertation represents findings of the microanalysis of the question of whether, when, how, and why students and teacher in educational drama-based ESL classes for adult learners describe and categorize themselves and others in and through talk-in-interaction.  44 Ethnodrama There has been a methodological effort by a number of qualitative researchers to integrate playwriting with ethnographic research: performance ethnography (Denzin, 2003; Goldstein, 2000, 2002, 2008, 2012), ethnodrama (Mienczakowski, 2001; Saldaña, 2011; Sallis, 2010), and performed research (Ackroyd & O’Toole, 2010; Belliveau & Lea, 2011). For the present qualitative inquiry, playwriting has also been adopted to analyse and represent findings of the study.  Ethnodrama is recognized by its “artistic rigor and representational power” (Saldaña, 2003, p. 229) in that it offers a unique understanding that is different from that of a conventional representation of qualitative research findings. Many scholars echo the power of dramatic ways of analyzing and representing insights from qualitative research (Belliveau, 2004, 2006, 2014; Ellsworth, 2005; Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Goldstein, 2000, 2002, 2012; Goodall, 2000; Mienczakowski, 1995, 2001; Saldaña, 2003, 2011). In particular, Goldstein (2000) underscores how ethnodrama speaks to her research findings and participants in specific ways rather than simply speaking at them. Goldstein (2000) further illustrates the unique affordances of playwriting as an analytic and representational approach as it allows an ethnographer to 1) ponder the “ethnographic authority” (Clifford as cited in Goldstein, 2000, p. 316) of the conventional realist’s representation of one’s research, given the inherently interpretive and subjective nature of ethnography; 2) present research participants in a more nuanced way rather than in a fixed, stereo-typical way from a perspective of constructionism towards a social phenomenon; 3) with its performative nature, expand and display diverse dimensions of the identities of characters or research participants initially composed solely by an ethnographer; 4) strengthen, revisit, and further the validity and trustworthiness of one’s ethnographic work after each performance by attending to reactions and responses from research participants and audiences to the performed version of the work; 5) present both spoken and unspoken meanings of words, silence, and actions of characters/research participants in a specific way that is not often possible in conventional ethnographic written texts; and 6) reach larger audiences in a more personal, persuasive, and immediate way.  With the unique merits of ethnodrama in exploring, evocatively representing, complicating,  45 and speaking to research findings (Belliveau, 2015; Ellis, 1997, 2004; Goldstein, 2000; Richardson, 2000), the present study has taken this theatrical approach as a way to respond to the third and final research question: How is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students, and what pedagogical insights can be drawn for adult L2 instruction incorporating educational drama? Specifically, concomitant with the participant listener orientation sustained throughout my inquiry, I have adopted a medium of radio drama, which is more auditorily-oriented. In essence, this radio drama script is ethnographically informed while the plot is fictional. That is, characters, themes, and issues in the play are based on the ethnographic data. While the verbatim-based lines of the script speak about how the teachers and students described how they perceived their experiences with drama-based classes, part of the plot is fictional.  In creating this radio play script, my goal was to deliver artfully research content in an engaging way that holds moments of dramatic and artistic awe, sustains reflexivity, and honours and expands a chain of gifting received via data (Belliveau, 2014). Also, inspired by Goldstein’s (2012) work, I attempted to keep in mind Richardson’s (2000) criteria for creative analytic practice in producing my own artistic work and composing an “aesthetically sound, intellectually rich, and emotionally evocative” play (Saldaña, 2003, p. 219). Richardson’s criteria include: (a) Substantive contribution. Does the piece contribute to our understanding of social life? (b) Aesthetic merit. Does this piece succeed aesthetically? Is the text artistically shaped, satisfyingly complex, and not boring? (c) Reflexivity. How did the author come to write this text? How has the author’s subjectivity been both a producer and a product of this text? (d) Impact. Does this affect me emotionally and/or intellectually? Does it generate new questions or move me to action? (e) Expresses a reality. Does this text embody a fleshed out sense of lived experience? (pp. 15-16) Careful consideration of these criteria in creative endeavours will likely enhance its rigor as a qualitative inquiry against criticisms treating it as a self-indulgent narrative (Duncan, 2004; Ellis & Bochner, 2002, 2006; Holt, 2003). In addition to the criteria discussed above, throughout the process of choosing data to be transformed into  46 dialogue for my radio drama, I have considered the following questions (Mackenzie & Belliveau, 2011): what moments arose and resonated from the research data?; does the dialogue carry action?; does the dialogue suggest character?; does the dialogue contain the elements of themes?; does the dialogue capture the essence or spirit of what may be in the research data?; does the play achieve artistic integrity while being grounded in the research data?  A successful ethnodrama can be entertaining and informative (Saldaña, 2003), as it invites readers and audiences to be not just observers but also participants who take part in the emotional process of resolving conflicts or issues (Goldstein, 2000). It is my hope that the ethnodrama represented in Chapter 9 of this dissertation can engage readers and audiences of this story in an entertaining and informative way and invite them to participate in thinking about pedagogical issues that might also challenge them in their own classrooms. Summary In this chapter, I have discussed qualitative ethnographic multiple case study employed as the research methodology of the present study. Under the umbrella of this research tradition, I have also presented an overview of analytical and representational approaches to data and its findings adopted for inquiring about the nature, implications, and challenges of adult ESL pedagogy with educational drama: autoethnographic narratives, participant listening, discourse analysis, and ethnodrama. In the next chapter, I will introduce the context and participants of this qualitative inquiry and the specific procedures and methods of data generation, data analysis, and the representation of study findings.    47 Chapter 4: Context and Design of the Inquiry This chapter will be devoted to the description of the backgrounds of the teachers and students of the classes included in study. I will also provide an overview of the content of the classes. In addition, drawing on the chosen analytic and representational methods of the present study, a detailed, reflexive account of the procedures of data generation and analysis will be presented. Context and Participants Cases Cases under investigation are four adult ESL classes with drama situated in a private language institution in western Canada. The cases were selected through purposeful sampling (Duff, 2008; Stake, 2006). Specifically, typical and convenient sampling was applied, following these criteria that guided the case selection: 1) an ESL class for adults, 2) in a private or public language school setting, and 3) employing a form of educational drama as a teaching approach, 4) and located within accessible distance in western Canada.  With these criteria in view, for the recruitment of research participants, an invitational e-mail was sent out to local private/public ESL schools as well as to fellow graduate students in my university department to ask for voluntary participation in the study. Additionally, the invitation was sent out to listservs of students (who may be pre-service or in-service teachers) from educational drama courses in the department including the summer drama institute and undergraduate/graduate drama in education courses in which theories, approaches, and practices of educational drama are taught and experienced. When possible, I made myself available to introduce my study in person to the students in those courses as well as directors at a number of local language institutions in an attempt to negotiate entry.  The recruitment process took a number of months. The challenge was mainly due to a small number of existing adult ESL classes that adopt educational drama as a central pedagogical approach. Some responded with an interest in the study, but the nature of their classes did not meet the criteria for sample selection: for example, some were for young learners and others used drama only in a specifically limited way (e.g., only as a warm up game). My initial  48 online search for an appropriate case on local language institution/program websites also informed me there was little or no interest in local ESL institutions to offer drama-based ESL courses for their adult learners. However, in the summer of 2012, a positive response arrived from the director of the language institution with which I had maintained a personal/professional relationship over several years. A teacher of the drama-based ESL course in the institute showed an interest in the study. I soon learned that it was the teacher who I knew from the course I took as a student 12 years ago. After a meeting with her, she willingly agreed to participate in the study and allowed me in to her class immediately. The meeting took place in week seven of the 16-week course, and my field work began from week nine, right after the mid term. She also introduced me to another teacher who was in charge of other sections of the same course in the upcoming fall term. Eventually, I ended up with field work in four sections of the drama-based ESL course taught by two different teachers in the institute. Upon recruitment, a consent form approved by the UBC ethics review board was signed by the participating teachers and students. As a sign of gratitude, some incentives in the form of book gift cards were offered to student interviewees and participating teachers. Every effort was made to protect the anonymity and privacy of research participants: for example, all the data gathered from the study were strictly kept confidential and participants’ names were replaced by pseudonyms randomly assigned by the researcher. In what follows, I will describe the backgrounds of the four sections of the course, students, and teachers of the course under investigation. Nancy’s Two Classes Nancy is an experienced, passionate teacher with about 30 years of teaching experience in the field of ESL education. She is a learner of four other languages as additional languages, including: French, German, Portuguese, and Spanish. With her own experiences as a learner of additional languages who is willing to make mistakes without fear, she expressed her sense of empathy with her intermediate level students in the drama classes. She described the significance of her L2 learning experiences in developing her teaching approaches. With her professional dedication as an ESL teacher working with thousands of students over the years, her particular pedagogic interest has been in incorporating educational drama. This interest  49 stems from her educational background (drama major for her undergraduate degree) and local theatre sports experiences. She indicated that these experiences planted seeds of passion in her mind to create her own drama-based ESL class. The classes under study were in their 25th year since she began using drama in her classes.  Two of the four cases under study were the two sections of the drama-based ESL course taught by Nancy: Section 01 was offered during the summer session from May to August 2012, while section 04 ran during the winter term from January to April, 2013. While the maximum number of students in a class in the institute was 16, each class had 15 to 20 students registered for the course including four to five short term students in each class respectively. The student population in each class comprised various nationalities including Chinese, Columbian, Japanese, Korean, Saudi Arabian, and Taiwanese.  50 Table 1: Nancy's class demographics  CHINA COLUMBIA JAPAN KOREA SAUDI ARABIA TAIWAN TOTAL Section 01 2 0 8 4 1 0 15 Section 04 2 1 10 2 3 2 20 Both sections were relatively identical in class content and the types of drama-based activities adopted for the course. An overview of the weekly course content is presented in Appendix A. A majority of the activities were drama-based, involving spontaneous improvisational group work. Nancy characterized her main drama activities as rehearsed improvisation in which students were encouraged to improvise scenes along with some time to prepare for improvisation. She seemed to have a belief in how through rehearsed improvisational drama activities, intermediate-level students would have opportunities to use language in the context of creating stories and performing them to their classmates. Also, she said that students would be encouraged to think ahead and plan or imagine what would be acted out/performed, but not to write up a script to read during the performance. At the heart of her drama-based activities was what Nancy referred to as drama rules that served as essential principles of her creative, improvisation-centered course and that would explicitly be instructed through various embodied dramatic activities as something students could hold on to. The rules of drama are explained below:   51 Table 2: Rules of drama DRAMA RULE PURPOSE Say “Yes” encouraging students to participate and imagine situations by saying “yes” Don’t Think encouraging students to take risks and be willing to speak spontaneously Say “And” encouraging students to prolong an interaction by adding more lines to spontaneous interactions by saying “and” 50-50 Collaboration encouraging students to collaborate on tasks as a member of a group Don’t Laugh encouraging students to be courageous during the performance and be a respectful audience Nick’s Two Classes Two other classes I was part of as a participant listener were two sections of the same course in the same institution. These two sections were taught by another experienced teacher, Nick. With over 20 years of professional dedication in the field of ESL education and under guidance by Nancy, Nick had put an effort into developing his own version of the course with drama while remaining true to the central pedagogical spirit of the original course. He showed his enthusiasm about engaging students, and his teaching practice focused on developing students’ motivations, enjoyment, and creativity in learning through performance. He explained how his keen pedagogical interest in creative and engaging pedagogy led him to teach the drama-based course. Because of his continuous involvement in teaching the course over several years, he wittily said that he had been considered as “vice president of drama classes” at the institution (Nick, interview, Sept. 15, 2012). He described his classes as often involving students in spontaneous and improvisational activities that trigger or motivate a dramatic moment. Similar to Nancy, Nick’s experience as a French immersion student in  52 Quebec informed his approach to L2 teaching that emphasized the importance of opportunities for students to practice spontaneous interactions to overcome fear of speaking. The two sections of the course he taught took place consecutively in the afternoons of the fall term of 2012 from September to December. While eight students were registered for the second section, there were 14 students in the first section. All the students were in their 20s and had been in Canada for less than a year at the time of the study. The nationality of the students included: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French, and Saudi Arabian.  53 Table 3: Nick's class demographics  CHINA JAPAN KOREA SAUDI ARABIA FRANCE TOTAL Section 02 0 8 5 1 0 14 Section 03 1 3 3 0 1 8 With regards to the course content, Nick’s class constituted a combination of drama-based and non-drama-based activities (see Appendix B for an overview of the course content). Non-drama-based activities occupied about 20 % of the class time (i.e., 100 minutes of 400 minutes per week). Non-drama-based activities stem from the required course textbook chosen by the institution which was incorporated into all general speaking/listening courses for the prescribed curricular aims to help aspects of pronunciation and expand students’ repertoire of idiomatic expressions in a conventional manner. Watching movies and retelling the stories was another major activity carried out towards the end of the course. However, a majority of the class time was devoted to more creative and imaginative drama activities where the students were invited to create characters and develop an improvisational conversation-based story to perform for their peers, including, for example, hotseat type talk shows with characters from a movie, interviews with two individuals in a certain relationship, weekend sketches (that tell stories from a weekend), invitation/lending-borrowing simulations, slide shows using tableau, midterm/final drama production projects (Halloween and Christmas play for external guests).  As described above, these four sections of the drama-based ESL course taught by the two different teachers have been selected as cases to be studied for the present multi-methodological qualitative inquiry, which ultimately aims to investigate the possibilities, challenges, and implications of a drama-based L2 pedagogy for adult Learners. In the remainder of this chapter I will describe the specific procedures and methods of data generation, data analysis, and the representation of study findings. Data Generation Data were generated through triangulation of multiple methods. Working within perspectives  54 of post-structuralism and constructionism, the aim of the data method triangulation was not to gather multiple accounts and evidence that point to a single truth of a social phenomenon, but rather to achieve richer, more multi-dimensional, complex, nuanced, and deeper understandings of the phenomenon under study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Richards, 2003; Silverman, 2000; Stake, 2006; Talmy, 2011; Wood & Kroger, 2000). The data generation methods employed for the present study include participant listening, interviews, field notes, survey questionnaires, and researcher’s journals.  Participant Listening Participant listening was integral to this ethnographic multiple case study. To varying degrees, I was part of the four sections of the course. For example, full field work in two sections over a full term, full field work in one section over a half term, and partial field work in one section over a full term (see table below for a summary of varying degrees of field work in the sections).   55 Table 4: Timeline of field work SECTION TERM FIELD WORK PERIOD TEACHER CLASS VISIT FREQUENCY 01  Summer term (May-August 2012) 8 weeks (July-August 2012) Nancy 3 times a week  02 Fall term (Sept.-Dec. 2012)  13 weeks (Mid Sept.-Dec 2012) Nick 3 times a week 03 Fall term (Sept.-Dec. 2012) 6 weeks (Nov.-Dec. 2012) Nick 3 times a week (only during the joint combined class with section 02) 04 Winter term (Jan.-Apr. 2013) 14 weeks (mid Jan.-Apr. 2013) Nancy 3 times a week Primarily, participant listening was conducted to obtain a firsthand account and an understanding of the routines, behaviors, and contexts of the phenomenon. My central focus was on physical context, participants, activities, and classroom interaction as well as the researcher’s roles, behaviors, perspectives, and feelings (Duff & Anderson, 2015; Merriam, 1998; Stake, 2006). I, as a participant listener, attempted to closely interact with participants to build a relationship of rapport, trust, and respect with them. Such a relationship with the participants could contribute to grasping “the meaning of a phenomenon as it was experienced by individuals or groups in the setting” (Gall et al., 2007, p. 458). With a participant listener orientation, detailed field notes of what was heard, perceived, and felt were taken during and/or after each field work session, using a laptop computer with screen-reader software carried to every class visit. Through the entire field work experience across all the sections, more than 150 pages of field note records were generated.   56 Audio Recording Throughout the field work, three digital audio recorders were utilized and placed around the classroom. One of them was usually located in the front near the teacher and the other two on the student tables around the classroom. With such placement of the audio recorders, both whole class and small group interactions were sought to be captured for the purpose of analyzing the nature of classroom interaction and identity work of the students. As a consequence, a total of 135 hours of classroom interaction across the four sections were generated.  The audio recorded data played a pivotal role for this qualitative research inquiry project, particularly because of my visual impairment. The vital role of audio-recording seemed to be also recognized by the teachers and students across the classes as they voluntarily and willingly provided timely and needed assistance in the placement and management of the audio-recorders during my field work. Both focal and non-focal students offered assistance in placing, operating, and collecting the audio recorders for each class, which demonstrated their understanding of and orientation to the audio-recorders as an important and integral part of my research project and also everyday classroom practice. Also, this reflects the co-constructed nature of a research inquiry among researchers and research participants from the perspective of participating in research as social practice (Kim & Deschambault, 2014; Talmy, 2011; Wernicke, 2013). Below are excerpts taken from the field notes, which demonstrate how the students and the teachers oriented to audio recording as an integral and legitimate part of everyday classroom practice: I was waiting for the class to begin, holding the recorders in my hands. Maki arrived, and I asked him to place them around the classroom. Before the therapy session scene, Nancy asked the class to sit in a circle and move the tables out of the way to the side wall of the classroom. Then Nancy publicly asked me about what to do with the recorders, which had already been located on the tables: “Won, what shall we do with the recorders?” I asked her to keep them on the table near the students. Then Nancy asked the students to place the recorders near them. With assistance from Nancy and  57 the students, the three recorders have found the best location to audibly witness what would unfold today. I was very thankful for this. Then Nancy went on to say in a smiley tone, “Won, you will be able to hear everything.” Some students’ gentle laughter followed. The recorders seem to be recognized as an important part of the class by Nancy and the students. (Field note, April 2, 2013) Interviews Two semi-structured interviews with teachers and a few selected focal students from each class were carried out to gain a secondhand account of the phenomenon under study that was not directly audible (Duff, 2008; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Richards, 2003). Four to eight focal students from each class met with me either individually or as a group for two semi-structured interviews: one in the beginning of the course and the other at the end. The first interview was based on the items on the pre-study survey questionnaire seeking students’ personal and educational background information. This interview was also an opportunity to build rapport with the focal students from the outset of the study. The focal students met with the researcher again at the end of the term for a second interview to learn about student reflections on their experiences in the course and track the potential impact of their learning experiences with drama on their attitudes towards L2 learning. Decisions regarding whether to have an individual or group interview were made primarily upon a careful consideration of the availability and convenience for both the researcher and the students. As well, two 40-minute face-to-face interviews with the course instructor were conducted before and after the course. These interviews focused on their teaching philosophy, teaching goals and approaches, and reflections on the course.  The interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed for further analysis—24 hours of individual interviews with 18 participants and 6 hours of focus group interviews with 17 participants were generated for the study. Each interview was carried out with an attempt to be “respectful, non-judgmental, and non-frightening” (Merriam, 1998, p. 85). Interviews were undertaken mainly in English with all the interview participants including the Korean speaking students whose first language was the same as the researcher. Although I made both English and Korean available to Korean learners of English whose English proficiency I  58 thought might impact the quality and quantity of data (Mackey & Gass, 2005), they all chose to speak English during the interviews. Post interview notes as well as transcription of the interview data were immediately made in order to reflect on and “monitor the process of data collection” (Merriam, 1998, p. 87) in a timely way. Survey Questionnaires Two survey questionnaires were e-mailed to all participants in the four sections who consented to participate. In the beginning of the term, a questionnaire was sent to the students to ask for their background information and personal language learning history as well as their learning goals and expectations for the course. Similarly, a second questionnaire was e-mailed at the end of the term to learn about their reactions and reflections with regard to their learning experiences in the course with drama-based pedagogy. Almost all the students (50 out of 57 students in total across four sections) responded to the first questionnaire while 43 students e-mailed back their completed second questionnaire.  Reflective Data Generation Because case study is an emergent process (Duff, 2008; Gall et al., 2007; Richards, 2003; Stake, 2006), I attempted to be open and sensitive to emerging issues, ideas, necessary changes and adaptations that needed to be considered throughout the process of data generation and analysis. The process of data generation and analysis synchronously occurred (Richards, 2003). Specifically, a suggestion by Gall et al. (2007) was followed in an attempt for the researcher to be more reflective and sensitive to the emergent process of case study. According to Gall et al. (2007), strategies such as keeping systematic records of field work and “thinking finish to start” (p. 464) approach are suggested as a way to enhance the rigor of data generation and analysis. For example, my comprehensive and descriptive field notes always recorded what was heard/felt and learned after each class observation in a way that documented daily participant observation/listening and also informed the subsequent data generation. Furthermore, ‘thinking finish to start’ was implemented prior to field work. Gall et al. (2007) state that “this approach involves thinking through one’s entire research project at the beginning…. The thinking finish to start approach thus helps researchers anticipate the  59 types of data that should be collected and in what depth” (p. 464). For instance, as I considered including an autoethnographic narrative and discourse analysis of students’ identity work in the report, appropriate data, such as reflexively-written detailed field notes and audio-recorded student-student interaction, needed to be collected respectively. Reflexive Data Analysis and Representation This section provides a reflexive account of the procedures and purposes of data analysis and representation methods undertaken throughout the present qualitative inquiry. The data were analyzed and represented in multiple analytic and representational approaches as discussed in the previous chapter (i.e., autoethnography, microanalysis of discourse, and playwriting). As a result, the entire analytic and representational process involved three (separate yet related) stages as described below and produced three different types of finding chapters (i.e., Chapters 5 to 9). These chapters framed by each of the three analytic and representational approaches respond to each of the first three research questions respectively while the final research question (i.e., What pedagogical insights can be drawn for adult L2 classes incorporating educational drama?) is answered in the concluding chapter of this dissertation where pedagogical implications are discussed. Table 5 summarizes the relationship between the chapters, analytic and representational approaches, and research questions:  60 Table 5: Relationship between the chapters, research questions, and analytic and representational approaches RESEARCH QUESTIONS ANALYTIC/REPRESENTATIONAL APPROACHES CORRESPONDING CHAPTERS 1) How is educational drama used in four focal drama-based adult ESL classrooms in a private language institution?  Analytic autoethnographic narratives Chapters 5 and 6,   RESEARCH QUESTIONS ANALYTIC/REPRESENTATIONAL APPROACHES CORRESPONDING CHAPTERS 2) In what ways is L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms? Analytic autoethnographic narratives, thematic analysis, and discourse analysis Chapter 7 and 8 3) How is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students? Playwriting/ethnodrama Chapter 9 4) What pedagogical insights can be drawn for adult ESL classes with educational drama? Interpretational thematic analysis Chapter 10  61 Stage 1: Autoethnographic Narratives In writing up my autoethnographic narratives, I have attempted to write “a nuanced interpretation rather than a realist tale format” of the story of the classes under study (Van Maanen as cited in Mazzey, 2004, p. 29). This is also consistent with my constructivist epistemological and ontological stance that “qualitative data and information are always already interpretations made by participants as they answer questions by researchers as they write up their observations” (Freeman et al., 2007, p. 27). Hence, in essence, it can be said that the central aim of my autoethnographic narrative is not to provide a realist report of what went on in the classrooms, but to provide an auditory nuanced account of the audible lived experiences of myself and participants. Over the course of the present research project, my goal was how I could best “listen to, work with, and represent the people” in my inquiry (Freeman et al., 2007, p. 30). As an effort to pursue this very goal, the decision to choose the genre of autoethnography was made. Following Duarte’s (2007) suggestion, I have organized my analytic autoethnography into two parts:  1) A reflexive, descriptive auditory account of events, activities, and experiences that unfolded within two of the four classes based on classroom listening, field notes, interviews, and questionnaires (Chapters 5 and 6), and  2) A reflective, analytic interpretation of salient themes that characterize the events, activities, and experiences across the classes (Chapter 7). Chapters 5 and 6 capture the soundscapes of a few selected days of the two sections by the two teachers. Chapter 5 narrates three days of Nancy’s summer class (section 01) where the students were engaged in speed-dating with use of Victorian masks. Chapter 6 documents one day of playbuilding of student-created stories about lending and borrowing by students in Nick’s class (section 02). Additionally, Chapter 6 also audibly sketches three days of Nancy’s summer class that involved the students in an improvisational, imaginary court trial where the students spoke in role as lawyers and witnesses.  In writing these narratives, two sections (i.e., section 01 [Nancy’s summer class] and section  62 02 [Nick’s fall class]) were chosen because 1) these moments demonstrate and highlight the spirit and essence of all the four sections; 2) the other two sections were identical in course content/activities to Section 1 and 2 as they were taught by the same teachers respectively; and 3) considering the limited space in this dissertation, focusing on two sections allowed me to strike a balance between the breadth and depth of my narratives. With regard to decisions in choosing specific lessons within these sections, the decision was made because 1) they show the salient characteristics of drama-based pedagogy, and 2) they encapsulate how I experienced the classes as a participant listener. Each narrative is constituted of and informed by multiple data sources, such as field notes, audio-recordings, researcher’s journal, interview transcripts, and survey questionnaires.  The second part of the autoethnography text is an analytic reflective interpretation of my understanding of the four sections of drama-based pedagogy represented in Chapter 7. It explores and analyses nine salient themes that characterize the lessons described in the previous chapters as well as all the four sections across terms. All the data (i.e., field notes, researcher’s journal, audio-recorded classroom interactions, interviews, survey questionnaires) have been coded and categorized into nine themes. While writing up these autoethnographic texts, I attempted to consider some of the scholarly and methodological concerns that many (sensory) autoethnographers would share (Pink, 2009). These include how to consistently interweave the subjectivity and sensoriality of evocative autoethnographic texts with theoretical and methodological frameworks; how to craft a reflexive, engaging, and empathetic account of lived experiences of self and others as co-participants in the particular culture of the drama classes; and how to reflect on and represent reflexivity in the role of a researcher who is engaged in research processes that influence and are influenced by lived experiences of research participants. Stage 2: Discourse Analysis (Membership Categorization Analysis and Goffman) By way of an introduction to the analysis of the data, I began by reading 150 pages of written field notes, and by listening to the entire 135 hours of the audio-recorded classroom interactions for any salient patterns or themes that emerged across the interactions. Then, I selected a number of focal classroom interactions from the four sections for close listening.  63 The selections were made because 1) they showcased features of dynamic identity work within a short segment of episodes; and 2) they captured coded salient features of the classroom interactions.  I listened closely to the audio recordings many times in order to get a full understanding of what was happening in the classroom and to transcribe parts of the recordings. I adopted the Jeffersonian transcript convention (see Appendix C), being aware of how transcribing reflects and provides an analyst’s understanding of classroom interaction and identity work (Ayas, 2015; Bucholtz, 2000; Bucholtz and Hall 2005; Ochs, 1979). I was keen to capture the details of how participants orient with one another in the unfolding interaction.  After transcribing the data, I revisited the relevant literature on these micro-analytic approaches (e.g., Antaki Widdicombe, 1998; Baker, 2000, 2002, 2004; Goffman, 1981; Hester & Eglin, 1997; Lapper, 2000; Sacks, 1972; Talmy, 2009) in order to deepen my understanding of, and provide a focus for, the ethnomethodological perspective on social actions. Next, while listening to the recording and reading through the transcript multiple times, I attempted to identify footings and membership categories displayed, made relevant, and oriented by the participants, in concert with their relevant predicates and Membership Categorization Devices (MCDs) or frames which seemed to be in play for the moment. A primary analytic focus was on what aspects of identity were invoked, constructed, understood, and negotiated in the development of the classroom interactions and what that meant in terms of social actions and orders. This whole close listening, data focused, analytic process was repeated numerous times to grasp a better interpretation/analysis of the interactions. In Chapter 8, instances of the identity work by some students and the teachers are demonstrated and discussed.  Stage 3: Playwriting/Ethnodrama In answering the research questions concerning students’ perceptions about their learning experiences with educational drama and pedagogical insights for drama-based L2 instruction, I have adopted ethnodrama as a way to analyse the data and represent the findings. The aim was to identify, interpret, and dramatize key findings in an aesthetically and emotionally evocative way. With such an aim, I carried out playwriting of some of my data. I went  64 through two phases in dramatizing data and findings into the radio drama play: 1) drama workshop, and 2) playwriting. In what follows, I will narrate a reflexive account of the procedures of the two phases in framing and writing up the radio drama play script represented in Chapter 9 of the dissertation. Phase 1: Drama workshop In November 2014, I met with Drs. George Belliveau and Graham Lea (both experts in research-based theatre) to receive their advice on how to frame a chapter using ethnodrama. I believed that ethnodrama would hold rich possibilities in telling a story about the drama-based classes in an engaging, nuanced, and artistic way for readers and potential audiences. However, as a newcomer to this theatrical way of storytelling/analysis, I had many questions: How is a scripted play organized? What constitutes a play, particularly radio drama play? Who will be the characters of this play? Should the text be verbatim? Am I going to create or truthfully represent a story I need to tell? The meeting was helpful. We talked about the possibilities of including a drama technique called chorus as a way to represent the voices of many of my research participants. The meeting was wrapped up with Dr. Belliveau’s suggestion to hold a drama workshop where other fellow graduate students could be invited and collectively explore themes (discovered in my analysis) that I hoped to dramatize in the chapter. I was excited for this creative process and open to discovering what my ethnodrama chapter might entail. Meanwhile, my mind was also occupied with the question of how I could make the play aesthetically sound, intellectually rich, and emotionally evocative as advised by Saldana (2003). I wondered in what ways and to what extent the research data could inspire, inform, or shape the play script. I could take one of two approaches to playwriting, or a middle ground between them: verbatim based approaches or impressionistic approaches. The latter could offer more artistic options while the first was more ethnographically based. These puzzling moments are reflected in the following excerpt taken from my journal:  But perhaps the story shouldn’t be about myself but about the participants. Also, instead of dramatizing pedagogical insights, I could talk about pedagogical issues, which could be discussed in the following chapter in relation to pedagogical  65 implications (e.g., tensions that existed between students, within students, between school expectations, teachers’, and students’ expectations, etc.). The conflicting views on learning could be interesting. (Researcher’s journal, November 29, 2014) After an invitation to the drama workshop, there was an enthusiastic response from more than 10 graduate students to the call for participation. In preparation for the drama workshop, I selected some themes and relevant data to be explored. I came up with three themes and excerpts from transcribed interviews with the students and the teachers across the sections. The chosen themes were: 1) transformative learning experiences towards more confident meaning-makers; 2) students’ varied perceptions towards learning and drama; and 3) teachers’ perceptions and views on the role of drama in L2 learning. I came to the workshop with copies of the data set and home-baked cookies for the participants. Dr. Graham Lea was already at the venue, setting up the space for the drama workshop. Soon, the participants started to arrive. I welcomed them as they entered the space. I had three audio recorders turned on to capture the group’s creative exploration of some of my data. About 10 participants sat around in a half circle and began with a brief introduction to one another under guidance by Dr. Belliveau. I spoke last to introduce myself and the purpose of my research. Dr. Belliveau then made two groups of 4-5: teacher data group and student data group. Each was given a copy of a data set representing students’ or teachers’ perspectives. First, the participants were asked to sit with their groups and start reading the extracts in any order by highlighting three lines/phrases that resonated with themselves. After a few minutes of silent reading, each was invited to share their chosen lines with their group by reading a line and giving a brief personal response. Soon, the space was filled with the voices of the participants sharing their responses to part of the data. After this, everyone came back to their original seat in a circle. Everyone was invited to perform the reading of their chosen line. They repeated the reading by adding a movement as an embodied interpretation of their chosen lines. All voluntarily and enthusiastically enacted their chosen lines.  Next, the teacher group and the student group were invited to sit, facing one another, speaking in role either as a teacher or a student. Each pair started a conversation with their  66 chosen lines and continued conversation. What was impressive to me as a participant listener was how everyone seemed to attempt to make sense of the dramatic context they were situated in and how they were open to the possible affordances of what that might lead them to. After this, each group was asked to go back to their group and debrief or reflect on what they had gone through up to that point. Then, each group was invited to create a tableau of any idea that resonated with them. Everyone eagerly participated in making a tableau. The teacher group came up with an image of being boxed that spoke to the idea of taking risks, being willing to look silly, and issues around teaching grammar. On the other hand, the student group was working on the image of collaboration amongst teachers and students in a drama L2 class. One group worked together to embody the image of being connected which perhaps symbolized the challenge and affordances of collaboration. What was meant to be a dress rehearsal naturally turned out to be an actual presentation/performance as the student group keenly engaged in their tableau. The rest of the participants standing around the tableau attended to the frozen image in a conversation about the question: “what do you see?” The audience offered their reactions and interpretations of the tableau. I also shared with the audience my own impression/interpretation of the image that I audibly captured and imagined. Having heard the student group working on the tableau of being connected in collaboration, I was reminded of the line that one participant chose from the student interview data set earlier in the workshop: “It was uncomfortable but kind of comfortable.” This was taken from an interview with one of the students who talked about how she felt in the class with drama. The drama workshop concluded with a group debriefing. My reflection on the workshop is represented in the following excerpt from my researcher’s journal:  This was an inspiring, exciting session with kind support from fellow PhD students and professors in LLED. The two images that the participants explored and came up with could possibly be included in my ethnodrama chapter. Also, the theme of being uncomfortable but kind of comfortable in the drama class may speak to how some students might perceive their learning experience in creative, embodied, and collaborative drama classes especially for those students who are less familiar with such ways of learning. At this point, I am not sure how what came out of the workshop will help me craft the ethnodrama chapter. I also need to figure out how I can account for collaboration by 9 people who brought their own personal  67 interpretations of the fragmented data that they were asked to interpret without knowing much about my study. I need to ponder on this further. Meanwhile, I think of what Goldstein (2000) said regarding the idea of challenging ethnographic authority: ethnography is ultimately a value-laden interpretive and subjective text. In part it is as much creation as representation of research data and analysis. (Journal entry from after the drama workshop, January 9, 2015) As I began framing and writing up a play script, I arranged to meet individually with the two teachers who participated in my research study. At the meeting with one of them, I heard unexpected news about the closure of the drama course in the institution. The news was surprising because the drama class had been part of the institution for more than 25 years, and regarded as one of the favorite courses for students. The course survived in the program—even after the program reform that took place a few years ago when all other non-academic ESL courses had to be closed. This (unfortunate) news led to shaping the direction in framing the plot of my radio play. One primary reason was because of how the closure of the drama course seemed to be consistent with the tensions that were evident within and among some individual students in relation to the value of creative educational drama in L2 learning.  Phase 2: Playwriting Phase 2 began after deciding that the ethnodrama chapter in the format of a radio drama play would focus on the third research question regarding students’ perceptions towards their experiences with drama-based ESL pedagogy, as well as part of the fourth question concerning pedagogical insights into L2 instruction with educational drama. Since the previous chapters speak to the affordances of drama-based L2 pedagogy in students’ language development and identity work, I considered the ethnodrama chapter a space that speaks about students’ perceptions about their learning experiences in the course and pedagogic challenges of drama-based L2 instruction.  With this goal in mind, I went over the research data that related to any resistance, pedagogical issues, and students’ positive and negative perceptions concerning L2 learning through drama. The relevant excerpts were selected from all the data, including interviews,  68 survey questionnaires, field notes, and my journal. As I considered these relevant data, I selected a few moments of what could be regarded as tensions that arose and resonated from the research data (Mackenzie & Belliveau, 2011). The research data that speaks to such moments of tension were then transformed into a dramatic dialogue as part of the play script. In writing up a scripted radio play, I kept the actual research participants as characters but with pseudonyms. The story developed around the news about the closure of the drama class, which was ethnographically informed. While the plot is fictional, the dialogue reflects the perceptions of a majority of students and teachers towards drama-based ESL classes as many lines were verbatim. Summary In this chapter, I outlined the design and context of my qualitative inquiry by describing the context and participants of the present study and providing a reflexive account of the procedures and methods of data generation, analysis, and representation. In the following five chapters, the findings of the study will be provided in three different ways as a response to the research questions. First, two chapters (Chapters 5 and 6) document and describe in detail what went on and how drama was used in the classes with drama. The chapters are framed as a reflexive autoethnographic auditory account of a few days of the two focal classes with educational drama. They are followed by Chapter 7 which discusses nine salient themes that characterize the teaching practices and students’ L2 learning experiences. Chapter 8 then presents a micro analysis of classroom interaction and students’ identity work, which provides participant-oriented perspectives on the impact of educational drama-based ESL pedagogy on students’ L2 learning. These four chapters speak to the first two research questions (i.e., how is educational drama used in four focal drama-based adult ESL classrooms in a private language institution, and in what ways is L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms?). In Chapter 9, the third research question (i.e., how is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students?) will be addressed in the form of a dramatized radio play script.    69 Chapter 5: Entering the As-If World: An Auditory Account of Three Days of Drama with Masks Qualitative researchers need to be storytellers, and storytelling needs to be one of their distinguishing attributes. (Wolcott as cited in Holt, 2003, p. 20)  The next two chapters include three autoethnographic auditory narratives of my experiences and those of the class participants in the two focal sections of a drama-based ESL course. Following Duarte’s (2007) suggestion, my autoethnography is organized into two parts: 1) a reflexive, descriptive, evocative auditory account of events, activities, and experiences that unfolded within two focal sections of the course based on participant listening, field notes, interviews, and questionnaires (Chapters 5 and 6), and 2) a reflective, analytic interpretation of themes that characterize the events, activities, and experiences narrated in the two chapters and also across the sections (Chapter 7). More specifically, Chapters 5 and 6 capture the soundscapes of a few selected days of the two classes with each teacher: three days of Nancy’s summer class where the students were engaged in speed-dating with the use of Victorian masks (Chapter 5); one day of playbuilding of the students’ created stories about lending and borrowing in Nick’s section (Chapter 6); and three days of Nancy’s summer class that involved the students in an improvisational, imaginary court trial where the students spoke in role as lawyers and witnesses (Chapter 6). The subsequent chapter (Chapter 7) offers a theme-based analytic interpretation of my ethnographic understandings of the audibly experienced lessons described in the previous two chapters and across the sections over the term. Like other autoethnographers, I seek to demonstrate how autoethnographic research can be rigorous and analytical while at the same time affective, artistic, and personal (Anderson, 2006; Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011; Pink, 2007, 2009). Day 1 (July 3, 2012) Today is the first day of my field work, and also the first day after the midterm break for the students at Ocean Institution (OI). Holding my white cane tightly, perhaps a little more tightly than usual, I wait outside Classroom 101 for Nancy, the teacher. I am a bit anxious, wondering how my research project will turn out, yet at the same time, thrilled that I am  70 finally beginning my doctoral research project.  There are 15 students including five new students (four short term exchange students from the same university in Japan and one student from Saudi Arabia). I also hear a few other Japanese students as well as students from Korea and China (10 female and five male students in total). One student is absent. I hear the students. The fan is running about two meters away from where I am sitting on the side of the classroom, just by the door. The sounds help me visualize how the classroom is structured with the students sitting in a horseshoe configuration. The teacher sounds energetic and welcoming. Her sense of humor, energy, and clear tone of voice create a comfortable, welcoming atmosphere. Despite the presence of five newly arrived students in the classroom, the teacher creates a sense of community even at the beginning of this first day after midterm. I feel a smell of high engagement from almost all the students in the class. I wonder, “How did she do that?” A smell of excitement fills the classroom. Nancy asks the new students to introduce themselves, turning to a student sitting right across from me. “We have a lovely lady here. What’s your name?” “Aki Sato,” the student answers shyly. “Everyone, please say hi to Aki,” Nancy cheerfully asks the class. “Hi, Aki,” the whole class welcomes her in a harmonious chorus. After the introduction, she draws students’ attention, “We are going to do something to get you ready for your next scene. Before we do this, because we have new students, we need to tell them the rules of drama. So, who can say what the first rule of drama is?” Ben immediately says, “Say yes.” “Right, the first rule of drama is yes, which means if someone says something to you, you need to agree,” Nancy nods. I also hear nodding from the new students. The class briefly goes through the five rules of drama: “say yes,” “say and don’t think,” “don’t be afraid to make a fool of yourself,” “50-50 collaboration,” and “don’t laugh.”  Nancy then moves to the discussion of questions on dating. “Today we are going to be working on dating because the next thing we are going to do is a big scene about dating. What do I mean by dating. What is dating?” Nancy asks. Immediately Mary follows, “Go out  71 with a person you like.” Nancy then distributes the handout with questions on dating. The students are asked to work in pairs. Lively talking and laughing in their groups soon fill the air in the classroom. Interestingly, both the new and continuing students seem to mingle well in this first class. I hear Nari, Aki, Kona, Ben, Kai, Rara, Tom, and Miyuki. Almost everyone is audible to my ears. Nancy almost has to shout to bring the students to the whole class discussion. As the whole class goes over the questions on the worksheet, Nancy explains that dating means when you first get to know someone you don’t know. Then, I hear “aha”; perhaps students find this explanation different from their own cultural definition of dating. What makes this ordinary teacher-student interaction interesting was how Nancy often dramatized class discussions by speaking in role: for example, she explained the meaning of ‘dating’ by instantly dramatizing a situation where she modulated her voice as someone asking for a date:  Nancy: . . . I wouldn’t because you do not date your boyfriend and you don’t date your girlfriend. Dating is when first you get to know somebody. Students: (surprised) Ahh Nancy: So for instance, let’s say, sorry Ben. Let’s say I think Ben is a really nice guy and I’ve been thinking about him a lot. And one day in class, I go up to him and I say, (walks slowly and shyly to Ben) “Ben!” Ben: (in a dramatized flat uninterested tone) Yes. (giggles from some students) Nancy: (After some hesitation that leaves silence in the classroom. I can feel that the students are eagerly waiting to hear what Nancy will say.) I was wondering (hesitatingly) ……do you have time to have some coffee? Ben: Umm (acts out his hesitation) Erm, yesss. Students: (Loudly laughs) Hahaha. Nancy: Great, here is my number. When you want to go for coffee, give me a call. Ben: (uninterested) Okay. Students: Hahaha. She continues her dramatized explanations throughout the discussion, often initiated with the  72 phrase, “I’ll show you.” What is impressive is how the students are willing to take Nancy’s frequent invitations to engage in a dramatic mode. This typical teacher-fronted class discussion is interspersed with laughter. In the meantime, I am thinking, “It is skillful how Nancy discusses all the questions as a narrative and through enactment. Her dramatic performance to explain a North American understanding of dating provides relevant information for the students while also audibly and physically embodying to them the rules of drama: not to be shy, not to think, and not to be afraid to make a fool of yourself in this classroom.”  On this first day, I wonder how the new students are finding the drama-based pedagogy. Later, Kona recalls the first day, “I was nervous, I think the relationship with classmates is important. If you don’t know them, we can’t communicate well.” Sitting next to Kona, Aki empathizes with her, “I felt nervous too. I didn’t know how difficult this class was, so I wondered if my level was correct.” “We didn’t know much about this class before.” Aki, a little more cheerfully, speaks about how she felt after the first week, “Some classmates talked to me, so I made friends, I didn’t feel nervous so much. Kona echoes Aki, “The biggest factor for me was the teacher. She was not scary and a very happy person, so I could take it easy in this class. While I hear quiet Naka’s convinced nodding, Rara jumps in, “Every classmate’s motivation was high, I was surprised, and I also felt lucky everyone’s motivation was high. Everyone talk to us and the atmosphere was welcoming so I felt glad to join the class.” After the engaging discussion, Nancy turns to the students and asks in an enthusiastic tone, “Has anyone heard of speed dating? Then she explains with excitement in her voice, “The reason I am talking about that is we are going to have a speed date. You are not going to be yourself. Quite a few of you are going to be men because we have only five men in this class. You are going to speed date wearing a mask that represents a different person than you. I am going to bring the masks tomorrow. Each chooses a mask and then you need a partner to create a biography.” With this preview of the next class, Nancy wraps up the class. In closing the lesson, she remembers to introduce me to the class. “We are going to stop a little bit early because our wonderful Won Kim who is in the corner is going to introduce himself and tell you a little bit about himself. We can find out who he is and why he is sitting in the corner.  73 I’d like to introduce you to my good friend and former student Won Kim. He was my student 12 years ago. He is now doing his PhD. Won Kim is going to observe this class because he is writing his PhD on drama in the classroom.” I hear some students nod and smile, “Ahh” or “Mmmm.” Nancy welcomes me to the front of the classroom. Feeling curious glares from the students, I open up my white cane and slowly walk to the front. With a bright smile, I speak nervously yet with much anticipation about my research project. The students seem to be interested in my study as it took only a few minutes to find four focal participants (Ben, Mary, John, and Yuna). With a warm welcome from Nancy and the students, my first day of field work comes to a close. Packing up my stuff to leave the classroom, I whisper to myself: “Whew, my first day in the classroom… I think I’ve found the right classroom for my research. I am glad that I am here.” Exiting the building and feeling a cool summer breeze on my face, I walk back to the office, pondering the questions popping up in my mind: Why was the topic ‘dating’ chosen? The course is divided into two eight week sessions. How does this affect the 16 week curriculum? The classroom seems to be small for 16 students. How is Nancy going to deal with the space issue? It seems that there is no textbook or literature for the course. How is drama going to be used? Is it perhaps going to be a series of drama-based activities on different themes? How am I going to represent my observation of the class? Indeed, I was not observing the class. I was listening rather or feeling perhaps? How can I answer the first and second research questions? How am I going to better access and obtain students’ pair or group interaction on audio? How should I go about placing and managing audio-recorders in the classroom every time? Perhaps I can ask those focal students for assistance with the recorders.  Day 2 (July 5, 2012) As I arrive in the classroom, Mary and John return their signed consent forms. I ask them if they could help me with the recorders. They sound willing, and I am so relieved that, with their assistance, I will not have to worry about the management of the recorders. Three digital audio-recorders are now placed around the classroom. One of the recorders placed on the table near Mary immediately grabs the attention of playful Tom: Tom: (looking at the recorder) What is it?   74 (Tom and Yuna start playing with it.)  Yuna: (speaking to the recorder, jokingly) Tom, I love you. Mary: (in an embarrassed tone) This is from Won. (speaking to the recorder) Won, sorry, please cancel it. The playing with the recorder continues when Mary volunteers to answer the question about the difference between two vocabulary items, toilet and washroom (which was asked by one of the students during the question asking time, which is a routine time period allocated in the beginning of each class where students can ask any questions from their everyday lives in Canada). I hear Tom putting the recorder close to the mouth of Mary while she talks. Laughter fills the classroom. It is nice to hear how the students are not intimidated by the audio recorders.  Then, the class resumes the speed dating activity from yesterday: “Today what we are going to do is speed dating. There are 14 people here today, so you will have 7 dates. Of course, you are not dating yourself. Some of you will be men.” Nancy asks how many men are in the room today. Kaka answers, “five,” counting one absence and my presence. Then, Nancy laughs, “Won Kim is not going to be in the activity, he will only observe.” Gentle laughter follows. In the midst of laughter, Nancy clears her throat, as she turns on her performative gear, and enthusiastically announces the start of the speed dating activity: “We are going to begin speed dating.” Then, Nancy hands out a mask character biography worksheet (see Appendix D), “First, I am going to give you a sheet that will help you create a biography. It’s called a mask biography. You are going to be a character. It’s not going to be about you. You need to make up a name for your character.” Nancy first goes through vocabulary items on the handout, such as hobby, dating history, name, profession, and social status.  “Look here everyone. I have beautiful masks,” Nancy announces proudly. “Some of them are women and some are men. Please come up here and choose a mask.” I hear giggles of curiosity and excitement from some students as Nancy displays a collection of over 30 Victorian masks. While the students are picking a mask, Nancy approaches me, explaining to me about the masks, perhaps reading a curious look on my face. I wish that I could visually  75 observe and get a visual sense of how the masks look. Nonetheless, I still manage to audibly and imaginatively grab a sense of the high engagement and excitement these Victorian masks have generated in the students. I remind myself that I should stay after class and study the masks by touching. The students are having fun with the masks. Boisterous energy and excitement fill the classroom while some are eager to take pictures of their masked peers, laughing at and with one another. It is interesting to hear how a prop like a mask can magically spark an innocent excitement in these adult learners. When 14 masks have found their homes, Nancy encourages the 14 actors to imagine themselves as somebody else, “Now, if you have a mirror, you can stay here. If you don’t, I’d like you to go to the bathroom and see what you look like. You have five minutes, and it is important that you think about who you are when you look at yourself in the mask.” Hearing students’ excitement, Nancy instructs the students to create the biographical backgrounds of their imagined characters: “Now I’m going to give you a partner. You and your partner work together for this biography. You need to come up together with the names and biographies of the characters.” The students start creating their characters in pairs, getting ready for the speed dating. Nancy walks around the classroom, offering linguistic or instructional help. The students are well engaged with the character creation as many of them enthusiastically request more time to complete the biographies.  The speed dating now begins. The students sit in two rows around tables facing each other wearing a mask. I can already hear several talking in role in a somewhat exaggerated modulated voice as participants in a real speed date. Nancy has to calm down the energy of the class. She clears her throat and starts speaking as an official host of a speed dating experience: “Hello everyone and welcome to speed dating. You have all been chosen because you seem to be people who would like each other. You all get to date each other for three minutes at which time I will tell you to stop. Then, I must go around and ask you if you like the date. . . All right. It is time for your first date. Enjoy your first date. You need to talk to this person for three to four minutes starting now.”   The classroom is soon crowded with lively noise, conversations, and cheerful laughter. On  76 one side of the classroom, I hear Yuna and Sari amiably greeting one another by saying, “Hi, nice to meet you. My name is Alice. I am the owner of a restaurant.” Across from them, Ben and Aki start speaking in role based on the biography they created, busily asking various questions (e.g., What is your job? What is your hobby? etc.). As I overhear the dating of Ben and Aki among others, I am impressed by how the students skillfully manage to sustain their conversation by improvising a train of questions and responses within the given time frame. After one date, the students sitting on one side of the row move to their next partners. During the fifth date, the gentle voices of two normally quieter girls, Jin and Sari, catch my ears. It is a pleasant surprise that, this time, these two usually reserved intermediate-level English learners are vividly audible. Here is a transcribed auditory snapshot of the well-sustained improvised conversation between Jin and Sari in their imaginary speed date: Sari: (laughs) My name is Richard. Jin: (smiles) My name is Ellena. Sari: Illena? Jin: Ellena Sari: Ellena. Oh, good. Jin: What is your job? Sari: My job is cook. Jin: Cook? Ahhh Sari: Cook. I am the owner of many restaurants. Jin: (interested) Ohhh Sari: (proudly) So I can cook Italian and French. Jin: Oh, I like Italian food (grins). Sari: Oh, Italian? Do you like it? Jin: Yes.  Sari: Oh, that’s good. Sari: What’s your job? Jin: I- my job is making carpet. Sari: Making carpet? Jin: Yes. Sari: Oh, interesting!  77 Jin: Yah. Because I am from India (with a smile). Sari: Uhh? Jin: Because I am from India. Sari: Oh India.  Jin: Hahaha! Sari: Oh, that’s why. I see. Jin: What is your hobby? Sari: Hobby? Of course, cooking and driving. Jin: Driving? Sari: I like to drive, sea and mountain. Jin: Mmmm Sari: And you? Jin: My hobby is sleeping (laughs). Sari: Sleeping? Jin: Yah. Sari: Why? Jin: Sleeping on the carpet… hahaha Sari: Hahaha. On your favourite carpet? Jin: Hahaha I hear Nancy humming and walking around with chocolates to serve for the speed dating participants. After each date, Nancy surveys the participants about their date. After the seventh date, looking at her note with a list of matches, Nancy announces the end of the date. While sitting and listening to the class, I record my thoughts: “The class sounds lively and vigorous, enjoying the imaginative improvisational activity. In part, this was perhaps because of the opportunity to speak freely in role as an animated character, wearing a mask, which creates a safe zone which would make them safer to talk” (field note, July 2012). Mary and Aki’s reflections below display some of the students’ positive attitudes towards this imaginative activity:  I enjoyed speed dating very much, talked with each student around five   78 minutes. It is good experience to talk with the people I meet first time.(Mary, survey questionnaire, August, 2012)  Date simulation was the most enjoyable. Absolutely, teacher doesn't take dating simulation during class in Japan, so this was so fresh for me, and also so fun. (Aki, survey questionnaire, August, 2012) The speed dating is followed by an error correction session, which is a routine post-performance practice of the class. Nancy begins the practice by saying: I will explain the next activity, but I will do the corrections. I want to tell you guys that the main reason for this activity is because of the question asking. And you guys did extremely well with questions.  I write in my field notes: “I think the reflection moment after the activity was excellent. Although the activity was fluency-oriented, such a moment to reflect on the utterances that the students produced could possibly balance students’ learning in fluency and accuracy” (field note, July 2012). I feel that the students stare at what is being written on the white board. Nancy calls for students’ attention to a written version of what was uttered by some students during the date. Nancy begins with the first item on the board: “We have the common. I played the piano too.” She asks, “How do you say that when you discover you and someone else are similar with the word, common?” After a few seconds, Kaka attempts to answer. After a few more eager attempts from the students, Nancy decides to write the answer on the board: “We have something in common.” I hear “Ah” from Miyuki. The items on the board (as listed in the table below) are gone through as the students attempt to identify and correct grammatical errors.  79 Table 6: Post-performance feedback items WHAT WAS UTTERED DURING THE PERFORMANCE CORRECTED AS Do you like classic music?  I don’t married yet  One years ago  I am a flower shop  I hate  Do you like classical music I haven’t got married yet One year ago I am a flower shop owner I hate it WHAT WAS UTTERED DURING THE PERFORMANCE CORRECTED AS My friend was died  I can throw away them  I am artist My friend died I threw them away I am an artist Audibly witnessing what sounds like a helpful reflective moment for language learners, I wonder how such a moment may be perceived by the students. A number of students reflected positively on the linguistic feedback on what they had generated during the improvisational performances. For example, John and share their appreciation for such moments: To say ‘he says something,’ I know that grammar rule. When I write I use the rule, but when I speak, I totally forget about final s or tense. But she always corrects my mistakes, so when I talk about that, I question about the grammar, so it is very helpful. (John, interview, August, 2012) When I had a mistake, the teacher always fixed my English, it was very good thing for me. (Yuna, survey questionnaire, August, 2012) I also wonder about how the teacher has decided to integrate an accuracy-oriented linguistic feedback component in her fluency-focused drama-based class. Nancy explains: The main purpose [of the course] is to teach fluency because many students have got grammar, vocabulary lists, speaking exercises, basically they say something by rote  80 that they’ve learned, but they never get a chance to just talk. In this class, however, I don’t just say, talk talk talk. I let them correct their English afterwards when they have time to think about it, but really give them a chance to make mistakes that they always make. Because the only way to learn a language is to make mistakes… So I give them a chance to make those mistakes. (Nancy, interview, August, 2012) Nancy brings the class to an end by announcing the second part of the speed date activity, what she calls “The Strangest Couples from Around the World Talk Show” will happen next week: “Now I have to explain what you are going to do with your date. This is what’s going to happen on Monday. Remember who your date is. You need to make up a reason with your partner on Monday, how you met.” Some students laugh and Nancy continues, “We are going to have a television show called how we met. You will be interviewed by me, but the important thing is that everybody in the class can ask questions of you. The important thing is that you ask your question. Use your imagination.” At the end of the class, John and Mary kindly remember to bring the recorders back. As I say goodbye to the students leaving the classroom, a number of questions are on my mind: “With regard to classroom interaction, I want to think about whether classroom interaction in the class reinforced what Cummins calls collaborative relations of power or coercive relations of power. How are the students viewed by the teacher? How do students view themselves? What identities are constructed interactionally here? How are identities and knowledge negotiated?”  Day 3 (Monday, July 10, 2012) Today is the talk show day. In preparation for the talk show, the students are encouraged to come up with a story of how they met one another: "You will not say that you met this person through speed dating. Everyone is going to pretend that they have met this person in a different way. What you need to do is only come up with a few things. You want to come up with how you really met.” Then she starts writing the questions on the board that help the students develop their stories of how they met: Do you love each other? Are you married now? Do you have children? Do you have jobs? Nancy continues with her instruction, “So basically it is the kind of things that you will expect to ask someone during an interview  81 when they are just getting to know you. . . Anything you want to say is good. Just have fun with it. I suggest you write it down, but you don’t have to write a big speech. Just write notes for yourself.”  The students then find their respective partners and start working on their stories. I listen closely to one of the pairs: John, a continuing student, and Rara, a new student. John: (opening a notebook perhaps to record their discussion, turns to Rara, unsure) Okay. How did we meet?  Rara: How did we meet? Mmmm Mmmm… John: (with excitement) On the ship? Rara: (laughs) Like Titanic. Hahaha. John: (laughs) Rara: Ship? (laughs) John: Mmmm. On the ship.  Rara: Mmmm. John: (perhaps looks at the questions written on the board) Do we love each other? Rara: (Laughs loud) Hahaha. John: Yah, (as if he got an idea) this time is the second time so- Rara: (uncertain) Second time?   John: We don’t know each other deeply.  Rara: Uhh. John: Okay? Yah. Rara: (apprehensive of John’s point) Yah John: Are we married? Or do we have children? Rara: No, we haven’t married. (laughs) John: Okay. While enjoying cookies, they both sound relaxed yet engaged in the story making. Two of them continue making up a story. Noticing Nancy approaching, John asks for help. John: Do we need to make a situation? Nancy: Basically you need to know the situation and people are gonna ask questions.  82 It is important that you know the answer to any questions they might ask.  John: (understood) Ah, other people ask questions to us. Rara: Ahh.  Nancy: But it is really good you prepare for the questions, right? John: Okay (cheerfully), okay. As Nancy leaves, John instantly makes a suggestion to Rara. John: (confidently) I think we don’t need to prepare. We don’t need to prepare. Rara: Mmm mmm John: (confidently) Just someone ask questions. You answer. Rara: Ahh ahh John: The others’ll ask, I will answer following you. Rara: Hahaha. Okay. Rara: Uhh, on the ship. John: Let’s go to funny one, funny thing. Rara: Funny thing, mmm. John: Ahhh, like a movie. Like a movie? Rara: Like a movie? Uh. John: Which movie do you like? The romance movie. Rra: Romance movie? Uh? John: Movie. Rara: Movie? Rara: Mmm. Which movie do you like?  John: Do I like? John: Romance movie…do you like Romeo and Juliet? Rara: Hahaha. Romeo and Juliet? Okay. John: So the concept is Romeo and Juliet. They then start making a story about their relationship based on Romeo and Juliet. John: Okay, so…  Rara: Hehehe John: Uh, my family is Chinese rich guy.  Rara: Yah  83 John: They don’t want me to marry you. You are…  Rara: Yeah, other countries John: Yeah, you are, your fam—yeah, you are from other country? Rara: Okay.  John: So the place is China. Rara: Um um um John: So my family doesn’t want to marry with you, but we love each other. Rara: Um um um. John: Yah. (chuckles) Rara: (smiles) Okay. John: You are just the small flower shop owner, but  Rara: (apprehendingly) Ahhh he is very rich. John: Yah, but I am rich. But you are so beautiful and so kind. Rara: Mm mm mm.  John: Okay? Rara: But— John: Your personality is so nice. Rara: But she have not so much money and she— John: I have money, okay? Rara: Ahh. Hahaha. Okay. John: Okay, okay okay okay.  Rara: (excited) Funny situation. John: Funny? Yah. Rara: Hahaha After a few seconds of silence, they discuss who should lead during the performance. John: We can answer each other?  Rara: Uh uh uh.  John: So you go fir- first you go. You first? Rara: Ahh, you first. (laughs)  John: Me first? Rara: (laughs)  84 John: (smiles) Okay. Rara: (laughs) So I follow you. Hahaha. John: Yah yah yah. You will follow me. Rara: (laughs) Okay. The tone of the classroom is vigorous with lively exchange of ideas and imagination coming from every pair, including John and Rara. When the class sounds a bit calmer and quieter, Nancy again clears her throat and excitedly announces the start of the talk show: This is a television show. Hi, ladies and gentlemen. This is Strange Dates from Around the World. I am your announcer. Today, we’ll meet interesting but lovely couples from around the world. I will ask the first question, which is “How did you meet?” Then everybody in the room is welcome to ask questions. If you don’t, this does not work. You can ask (exaggeratingly) anything, anything you want. . . (in an excited tone). Our first couple is Tom and Nari. Would you please come forward? Put your masks on and come forward please. As Tom and Nari walk to the front with their masks on, I hear Tom drawing something on the board (later, I figure out it was a door with a sign “women’s washroom”). As the couple take their seats, facing their classmates, some giggles already spread around the classroom. I also get curious about how the talk show will proceed. With such a sense of curiosity and excitement in the air, the talk show begins with the first question from the talk show host: “Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Strange Dates from Around the World. I have a lovely couple here today. First of all, I will ask your name.” Tom, without hesitation, explains that they are married, followed by a surprising reaction with laughter from the host and the audience: “Wow.” I wonder why everyone is laughing. Without seeing, I could still figure out that such a reaction was generated by their expressive gestures as a married couple in love. Tom modulates his voice as he and Nari swiftly and spontaneously handle a series of stimulating questions from the curious audience exploring their relationship. The class sounds highly engaged with the story spontaneously unfolding during the interview that is being creatively constructed by all members in the classroom. Nancy thanks Tom and Nari for their performance, and then while recording error corrections  85 on the board, she directs the students: “Now you can talk amongst yourselves while I write the mistakes on the board. You can continue to think about your characters or you can talk about something else.”  The students eagerly talk about their characters. Now it is Rara and John’s turn for the talk show interview. They come and sit in front of the classroom with their chosen masks on. Nancy opens up the interview by cheerfully announcing, “Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second episode of Strange Dates from Around the World. We have a lovely young lady and man, a very interesting looking man. So first of all, I will ask the young lady. Hello, what is your name?”  Rara and John respond passionately and creatively to a train of questions from the audience by speaking in role as a newly married couple in China. I am impressed by how spontaneously and skillfully both Rara and John improvise the details of their story of how they met: Naka: How long have been dating? John: Uh, including today is four days. Students: Hahaha Nancy: Oh you just met. Before we have any more questions, can you tell me how you met? How did you meet? John: Uh we met at the party. Students: (interested) Mmmm mmmm. Nancy: What kind of party? John: The mask party. Nancy: Like a Halloween party?  John: (unhesitatingly) Yeah. Nancy: Oh I see. Kaka: (speaks in an inaudible small voice) Where? Nancy: (perhaps she didn’t hear Kaka’s question) What did you go in (smiles)? John: Pardon? Nancy: What was your costume?  86 John: My costume is prince. Students: (giggle) Nancy: Prince. I see. (turns to Rara) What was your costume? Rara: Princess. Nancy: (in an exaggerated surprise) Hahhh, that’s lovely. Students: (laugh loud) Nancy: Do we have another question? (perhaps notices a hand up from Kaka) There is a question from Saudi Arabia. Kaka: Where did you meet each other? In China or Ireland? John: In China.  Kaka: China? John: At my home party. The party is my home party. Students: (impressed) Ahhh. Ben: (impressed) Oh, what’s your job? (Exaggeratedly and loud) Zhou:: Paaaah! [this is John’s chosen name for his character]! Students: (laugh loud) Nancy: (laughs loud) Well pronounced. John: My job is business. Students: Ahh Nancy: Business? What- Ben: (interrupts Nancy) What kind of business? John: I trade something with USA. Nancy: Ahh, okay, okay. Another question? Kona: So why is she … she is visiting China? Nancy: Good question. Rara: Because my sister lives in China. So my sister invited me. Tom: Do you think your boyfriend is handsome? Rara: (chuckles) Yes, I think so. Nancy: (interested) You fell in love with him immediately or…? John: When I saw her first time, I fall in love. Nancy: Ahhh  87 Students: Mmm Nancy: What was it about her that made you fall in love? John: (hesitates) Because of her eyes. Students: Hahaha Nancy: (seriously yet teasingly) What about her eyes? John: Her eyes are  (some students giggle) John: so dark.  Students: (laugh loud) Nancy: Another question? (perhaps notices several hand ups) There is a question from China, first, and from Japan, Japan, Korea, Japan, and Japan. Tom: Sorry, sir, uh, do your parents agree with you to get married? John: That’s the problem. Students: (interested) Ahha, hahaha John: My family doesn’t want—doesn’t want me to get married with her. Nancy: Why not? Tom: Ahh, why? John: Because my family is too rich and she is Students: Hahaha John: Very poor. Students: (continue to laugh) John: So my family doesn’t want. Nancy: That’s terrible. Who’s next? From Japan? Yuna: Yah, what’s your hobby? John: My hobby? Yuna: Yah John: (hesitates) Tom: Marriage? Students: Hahaha John; My hobby is travel—traveling. Listening to what is unfolding in this improvisational talk show, I am impressed by how  88 stories have evolved in the flood of the audience’s continuous questions attended confidently and imaginatively by Rara and John. There were many questions John and Rara were not prepared for, but they constructed a story about their relationship. For example, in response to the question about the original purpose of her visit to China, Rara swiftly improvised her answer, “I was visiting my sister in China from Ireland.” This has kept Rara and John on the coherent storyline about their relationship. With their skillful and creative improvisation, Rara and John manage to produce a coherent story about themselves that invited questions from almost everyone in the audience.  The talk show interview with John and Rara comes to an end, and they leave the show. The audiences are laughing and clapping in surprise. I am again puzzled about the reaction, but soon I understand what has caused. Nancy says in a jealous tone, “Oh, they are holding hands. So sweet.” As the talk show proceeds through all the pairs, students sound like they are having fun asking a train of stimulating questions, exploring the stories behind each couple. What was particularly impressive to me was that almost everyone asked questions. I heard the voices of almost all class members, even the quieter ones. Along with the sustained questions, laughter also surrounds the classroom. Throughout the talk show interviews, I feel a strong engagement from each pair and from the audience. It wasn’t only the students who were engaged with this dramatic activity. I also found myself genuinely enjoying the talk show as an audience member beyond a researcher. I was simply drawn to the stories unfolding. After the first three days in the classroom both as audience and researcher, I am now even more looking forward to what I will hear and experience in this classroom.     89 Chapter 6: Engaging with Language and Stories: The Soundscape of Story Making Improvisation Nick’s Class: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 On a chilly Tuesday afternoon, the warm afternoon sunshine coming through the windows of the classroom softens the pain in my cheek and lips. I should have slowed down on my way here. I hear the footsteps of some students arriving in the classroom. I take out the three digital audio recorders as I wait for Esther, Sharon, and Sara who are now like my friendly research assistants. Sara’s usual pleasant voice greets me: “Hi, Won.” I ask her if my upper right lip looks okay. “It is a little red, but looks okay.” Esther soon joins us to get another recorder. Esther finds the crackers I was nibbling. Over crackers, we talk about the new place she has just moved into. Sharon joins us for crackers, “Can I have some? I am hungry.” I then hear Nick’s energetic voice as all three hurry to their seats with one of the recorders. The class starts with a routine teacher-centered listening/reading task. Under guidance from the teacher, the students are quietly working on the textbook, interspersed with occasional laughter. After listening to the passage on audio, they answer listening comprehension questions individually and as a group. This listening skill-oriented exercise is included once a week for the curricular purposes of the class with a focus on both speaking and listening skills.  At 2:50, another section (Section 3) of the course joins the class for a joint class (the joint class started in November because Section 3 had only five members as three short-term students have left after midterm, which is a small number for some drama-based activities). The students are invited to return to their groups from yesterday. The class focuses on lend and borrow situations. Nick begins with a text he got from his niece yesterday as an example of a lending and borrowing conversation. The message reads: “Hi Nick, any way I can use the car till about 8? If not, I can try to find alternative transportation.” Nick continues,   90 As mentioned yesterday, our drama follows through on this language we have been playing with and working on our fluency. We need you to come up with a lend and borrow situation. Make it interesting for yourselves, and then we will enjoy listening to it. You don’t have to write out the whole thing, but know what the conversation is. Then, he introduces two suggested situations from which the students are invited to develop a conversation:  Situation A: Person A and Person B don’t know each other, and Person A goes to B to borrow something. They chat, and something begins to happen between them.  Situation B: Person A goes to Person B to borrow something. They know each other, and borrowed a lot of stuff before, and there are some issues between A and B. B is reluctant to lend something. A new relationship is emerging.  There are four groups with a mix of three or four students from the two sections: Group 1: Esther, Hemi, Eva, Ocka; Group 2: Randy, David, Sally, and Juna; Group 3: Sharon, Sara, Morie, and Lexi; Group 4: Michael, Maggie, and Kevin.  Lively verbal sounds soon spread from the four tables. The students are actively making up storylines and characters. In the midst of the students’ voices, I can hear Nick’s voice as he moves around the classroom. My ears are drawn, in particular, to two groups sitting close to me. In the group sitting on the right side of me, I recognize Esther’s voice, who is taking the initiative during the discussion. In the group on the left side, Randy and David are more audibly active than the two female students, Juna and Sally. I do not seem to hear much of Sally and Juna’s participation (however, as narrated below later, a close listening of the audio recording of the group reveals that both Sally and Juna were making an equally valuable contribution as an integral part of the group). I am reminded again of the value of close listening as a participant listener. I hear Nick talking to Esther’s group, giving them advice on the use of phrasal verbs when the group inquires about how to use “pick up” with a noun. Meanwhile, I hear the footsteps of David’s group, leaving the classroom, for a rehearsal in a quieter space outside the classroom. I now want to listen more closely to the sounds of each group to hear what goes  91 on in each group.  For zoomed-in close listening, I revisit the audio-recorded interaction of the group with Randy, David, Sally, and Juna, who sound all instantly engaged with this creative task. With a collaborative spirit, all four of them participate in the task. With Randy’s initiative, they made up an interesting story about two neighbouring married couples who lent and borrowed some food ingredients (see Appendix E for A performed version of the story that Randy’s group produced next day). Their performed story has been the outcome of collaborative exchange and negotiation of ideas between all four members. Below, part of the transcribed interaction sketches how a version of the story about two married couples in the neighbourhood developed in collaboration:  (Randy, Sally, Juna, and David are discussing ideas to come up with a story.) Randy: It’s too complicated and… All: Hehehe David: Mmm (a brief silence) Randy: (determined) So let’s go. We improvise it. So you need something… (I hear the sound of turning pages and holding pens) David: Okay  (Eeveryone seems to be attending to the notebook that Remi is writing on) David: First… Randy: (Pointing to David and Sally) You are A and B like that… Sally: (Perhaps looking down at the note) A dash, okay. Hehehe All: Hehehe David: (laughing) Okay With Randy’s initiative, “we improvise it,” all four members put their heads together to create a story about lending and borrowing. Speaking constantly and swiftly in and out of role, they develop their story as involving two married couples whose ordinary conversation of lending and borrowing brings them together as good neighbours. They continue to co-build on each other’s suggestion in creating a story:  92 Sally: I see (in acting tone), oh, nice to meet you. Randy: Uhh? David: (in an acting tone) We just came here.  Randy: (perhaps notices someone taking a note) Uhh, you have to speak. Think you don’t have to write everything. Just speaking.  David: Emmm. Sally: Ehhh? David: (understanding Randy’s point) Just make a … Sally: Outline David: Outline? Randy: Yeah, yeah The story grows as all the members in the group put their ideas together. Each of their ideas is spoken and negotiated throughout the discussion. The students’ engagement with story-making is highlighted when Randy encourages them not to write down a script but to improvise it. They all seem to understand the pedagogical purpose of working on this kind of improvisational drama-based activity. Another highlight of the story-making process is their collective spirit as a story-making team. During the goal-oriented group work, every member is a part of the process, and the students make sure all the members stay on the same page. This is vividly audible in their continued discussion represented below as they work out details of the story:  Randy: (In a clear acting tone) Yes, no problem. David: And something more Randy: Bring? And yah maybe me or or or (perhaps turning to Juna) you (inaudible) say yes no problem. Juna: Ahh Randy: (turning to Juna) You go bring and after that I told you maybe that (inaudible) refrigerator is empty. And after that you ask us if you we want to come with you eat with you. David: (cheerfully) Okay Randy: Good?  93 Sally: (understood) Mmm David: (understood) Mmm (A brief silence for a few seconds) Juna: (apologetic) Sorry (with an apologetic smile). I don’t understand. Randy: (unhesitatingly) Like (perhaps grabbing a pen to write), like uh— Juna: They [David and Sally], they [want to borrow]? Randy: [ask] Yeah Juna: Some eggs and bowl? Randy: Yeah and (perhaps turns to Juna) you go to the refrigerator (inaudible) and when you come back, you told me that the refrigerator is empty. Listening closely to this part of the discussion, what impresses me is when Juna says with an apologetic smile but without being embarrassed: “I am sorry I don’t understand,” seeking assistance in what has been interactively unfolding in the course of developing the story. Without any hesitation, Randy offers help to Juna by summarizing and rephrasing the story that had been jointly developed up to that point. Under the same goal of inventing and performing a story as a group, I hear Juna wanting to make sure that she is on the same page. A seemingly insignificant mundane utterance like “I am sorry I don’t understand” is indeed not always audible in classrooms. I ask myself as an educator: “In our classrooms, how often do hear a student talking openly to his or her peer that they do not understand and need help? How can we create a space where students feel free and not embarrassed to say that they don’t understand?” After intensive story-building work, they volunteer to practice performing the story. As Nick tells them of the availability of the next classroom, they decide to move there for a full practice. They do not forget to carry the audio-recorder with them. The audio-recorder audibly witnesses how they rehearse their improvised conversation multiple times into a well rounded story. Their performance grows more fluent while the story keeps developing and growing richer. The plain classroom is being transformed into an imaginary world of neighbouring apartments in a small town. My audio-recorder, sitting on a table as an audience of the spontaneously unfolding story, captures the sounds of laughter, joy, creativity, and imagination filling the space as these individual students immersed themselves in their  94 characters and story. Nancy’s Class: Day 1 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012) I arrive in the classroom at the end of the hallway. Wiping sweat from my forehead, I find my way to the seat that I usually take—on the side of the classroom. Nobody has arrived yet. I can hear the fan cooling the classroom on this hot summer afternoon. My talking watch says 1:45 pm. The class must still be in the computer lab for listening exercises. Waiting for the class to arrive from the lab, I get my audio recorders ready. As I hear the light footsteps of some familiar voices, I welcome them entering the classroom.  After checking that the students have done their homework (a sketch of an imaginary character with some kind of phobia (needed for the next drama-based activity), with excitement in her voice, Nancy introduces the next activity (which is also the major drama project of the course), the murder mystery scene: We are going to do a very long scene that will last for several days. First, I am going to run a group therapy session. I am a psychiatrist. My name is Dr. Gillian Corner. I too have a pretend name. First, I am going to get you to introduce yourselves. You don’t say hi I am Tom [the name of one of the students]. You say I am this person. Just say what your name is, a very small thing about your past and why you are here. If you know the name of your phobia please say it. Then I want you to give advice to one another. What are some important words in advice: (she writes on the board) you had better, could, should, ought to. After that, I want you talk about your pictures or doodles to another partner. By the end, I hope I will have cured everyone. After we go through the pictures (in a dramatic exaggerated tone), I will die. I will die. Somebody in this room has killed me. (Students laugh.) Don’t laugh (in an exaggerated and joking tone). I have been poisoned. So that’s part one. I have to tell you everything because that will make it easier to do. Day 2 is a murder investigation. We will find out who killed me. The person who killed me is one of you. Hopefully you will figure it out. But I need to tell you the killer can kill again. So if you do not catch the killer on time, the killer may kill you. Once we find out who the killer is, we will put the person on trial…everything we do is improvised. So you have some time  95 to plan the trial but not very much. I’d like to start today.  Listening to Nancy’s exciting yet carefully planned instructions, I begin to get curious about where this murder mystery scene will lead the class. Nancy leaves the classroom. Then, the door re-opens, and Nancy enters again, this time with dramatic energy. As she enters, Nancy calls out in a loud and serious voice:  Hello everyone. Welcome to the group therapy session. I am sorry I am a little late. I want to introduce myself. I am Dr. Gillian Corner. I will be the leader of this session. First, I want to tell you I have 25 years of experience with running group therapy sessions. For my bachelor’s degree, I went to Yale, Harvard, and Oxford. I hear chuckles from some students. Nancy continues,  And I have helped so many people. You wouldn’t believe I have 25 years of curing people. I have cured many famous people. I’d like you to introduce yourself very briefly. I will see what I can do to help you. Then, Kona speaks: “My name is Sarah, and I am afraid of needles.” Every student introduces themselves in role by giving their pretend name and a phobia they have prepared in advance. Not surprisingly, playful Tom is doing an especially good job with his enactment. He speaks as a person afraid of crowds, mumbling humorously. Tom brings all the class members to laughter. Now, Nancy as psychiatrist Dr. Gillian Korner re-welcomes her clients to the therapy session:  Thanks for coming to the group therapy session. It proves to me you want help. I will do my best to help you. Because it is a group therapy session, you are also supposed to help one another. Then the students are paired up for giving advice. In the midst of hurrying to each other’s partner, Ben calls Yuna to remind her to carry one of the two recorders. Again, as a participant listener with a visual challenge, I am grateful for the essential roles that the students serve in collecting audio data. The classroom is now filled with students’ talk and occasional laughter. Speaking in role, the  96 students are busy giving advice to one another. Nancy then holds a whole group session again to call for a report from everyone on the advice each has received from fellow clients. Everyone takes turns reporting advice that each has received. While reporting, all seem to make a conscious effort to speak in role as a character created in the as-if therapy session. For example, when reporting back the advice he has got from his partner, Mary (a female student), Ben referred to Mary as a male fellow client by using the male third person pronoun “he.” Interestingly, Nancy seems to forget that Mary played a male character, and thus mistakenly corrects Ben. Nancy: (turning to Ben) What advice did you get? Ben: (perhaps pointing at Mary) He gave me advice— Nancy: (noticing Ben’s apparent error with pronouns) She—(perhaps realizes her mistake and laughs) oh, sorry.  At the end of the therapy session, after a brief pause, Dr. Gillian Korner surprises the class and me. She takes out a piece of paper and reads out an imaginary threatening letter she has received: “I received this letter yesterday (opens up the letter slowly and reads). It says, ‘I will kill you.’ I know one of you sent this letter to me, but I am not afraid.” A sense of wonder grows in the classroom. A minute later, Nancy dramatically falls to the floor. Then, each student is given a card with a clue about the murderer (see below for a sample clue). Each student must talk to as many others as possible to share information about the suspect.  Sample clue card: Clue Card Five You are starting to realize that the person you saw this morning was Number One! Tell as many people as fast as you can! After 10 minutes, die. Clue Card Eight You have fallen in love with all the detectives. Tell them you once sold Number One a yellow car. You are also sure Number One is the relative of the doctor. Everyone is participating in the mysterious story they are co-building. Halfway through the rumour activity, as confidentially pre-directed by Nancy, Nari falls to the floor, acting dead  97 while everyone is busy talking. Bringing the students’ attention to Nari who just fell, Nancy shouts out, “Oh, we have another victim.” This has taken the students by surprise, and curiosity in the mystery increases. To further complicate and intensify the scene, Nancy shares more messages about the killer such as another threatening letter, a pre-recorded threat on audio tape, and finger prints.  Then, based on the information and rumours that each has heard, the students are asked to find out the murderer. The students are paired up and select two suspects. While discussing possible suspects, each pair is very much into the discussion, comparing, combining, and analysing the information they gathered. The energy and talk finally calms down as Nancy calls it a day. It feels like the class has gone faster than usual. Day 2 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012) Following the rumour activity from the previous week and yesterday’s lesson on vocabulary related to court trials (led by a substitute teacher to cover Nancy’s absence), today is the first day of the imaginary court trial. As an audience, I am genuinely curious about what will unfold: What kind of story will the students create? Can these intermediate level students manage to carry out what might be a linguistically challenging genre in the target language? The class soon resumes the rumour activity they have been engaged in. “So we have to vote for who is the killer,” says Nancy. Across from where I am sitting, I hear John and Miyuki discussing who the killer might be. The students put their heads together and focus on a final suspect. The killer turns out to be Aki (who picked the clue card Number One [see below for the description on the card]):  Clue Card One: You are the murderer. You need to keep this quiet, of course. Tell people you are pretty sure the killer is the child of the doctor. But you don’t know which of the suspects was the doctor’s son. You saw this in the doctor’s will. Aki is now asked to stand up. Nancy first asks Aki for her name. After a shy pause, “My name is Naomi,” answers Aki as if she has anticipated this. The teacher then asks her why  98 she killed the psychiatrist. I turn to Aki, wondering how Aki will handle this unexpected question. Impressively, she immediately aligns with the question and creatively improvises a logical and believable answer in a somewhat shy voice, “Because I hate her, because she asked me to do something impossible. She pointed something sharp at me even though I am afraid of sharp objects.” Following this, Nancy enthusiastically announces that they are going to have a court trial: Naomi’s going to be on trial for the murder of the psychiatrist. I am the judge. We need two lawyers for the prosecution. You did the vocabulary yesterday (see Table 6.1 for a list of vocabulary covered), right? The prosecution are the people that are against Naomi. And we need two lawyers for the defence. Now while you are doing the trial, if you want to be a lawyer in the middle of the trial because you have a good question, you just have to raise your hand. I will make you a lawyer for one question. Anybody can be a lawyer. But what’s important here is that we need a lawyer to organize the trial. And then the defendant, the defendant is Naomi. Naomi do you have a last name? After a few moments of hesitation, Aki opens her mouth to improvise her last name, “Naomi Erm U-e-hara.”  99 Table 7: Vocabulary for the courtroom	  PEOPLE THINGS WORDS Judge (your honour) Exhibits Objections (I object, your honour!) a) Leading the witness b) Hearsay c) Irrelevant d) Harassing the witness Sustained Over-ruled Jury Bench Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? The defense Witness stand Testimony The prosecution  Opening statement The defendant  Closing statement            100 PEOPLE THINGS WORDS Witness  Examine Cross-examine Re-examine Re-cross-examine   Perjury Contempt of court Nancy continues to talk to Aki (speaking as Naomi for the moment), “First thing I need to know is who do you want to be your lawyers? You can choose anyone in the room. Choose good people you know will win.” Aki shyly suggests, “Maybe Kona?” “Good choice,” answers Nancy. Aki also turns to Mary to serve as her lawyer. Nancy’s voice now directs towards the other side of the classroom, “And who would like to be a lawyer for the prosecution? (jokingly) Who really hates Naomi?” Soon, there was a burst of laughter from the students. “Ben? Thank you.” Nancy then asks for another volunteer: “And I need one more lawyer for the prosecution. Who else is willing to be a lawyer for the prosecution?” Silence tells me that there is probably no hand raised. More words of encouragement come from Nancy: “Everyone (smilingly) was looking down. You will like it. It is really good work, something you will enjoy doing. Trust me. You get to practice a lot of English. Do I have a volunteer?” Perhaps, students’ hesitancy springs from the pressure and fear of having to be on the frontline of a court trial, which may seem to some students a linguistically and intellectually demanding situation managed in the target language. After a brief moment of hesitation and silence, there is a hand up from Kaka, a new student from Saudi Arabia. Nancy appreciates Kaka’s voluntary participation: “(excited) Yeah, Kaka.” The rest of the students are divided into two  101 teams: the prosecution and defence. Nancy moves the story about Naomi forward to the start of the trial scene by talking to Aki who killed the psychiatrist.  So you are in trouble. If you [turning to the class] if she pleads innocent, she will be found guilty because she confessed and there are 14 witnesses. Terrible! So (turning back to Aki) I suggest you don’t plead innocent, but if you plead guilty, that is the end of the trial and you get the electric chair. That’s not good either right. So I suggest that you plead innocent by reason of insanity. This means you did it because you are crazy. Are you willing to say that Naomi? Naomi shyly yet willingly replied, “Yes.” Nancy then sighs in an exaggerated way, “Good. Whew, it makes my job much easier.” She adds,  So this is what I have to do then, lawyers. If you are a lawyer for the prosecution, you don’t prove that she killed the psychiatrist; we know that. You have to prove that she is not crazy. In other words, she had a good reason to kill me. It can be anything you want. For the defence, the only thing that the defence has to prove is that she is crazy, all right? You don’t have to prove she is guilty or not. You only have to prove she is crazy or not. While Nancy is giving the instruction, some of the audio recorders catch the sounds of concerned nodding, “Emmm,” from a number of students. The audio-recorders are not the only witnesses to the students’ confused looks. Nancy reminds everybody:  You’ll have some time to prepare the trial. So if you are a lawyer, I suggest you get the people organized, the people can be anyone you want. For example, Yuna can be Aki’s mother or friend. You can be anyone you want. The important thing is you decide who you are and what are the kind of questions the lawyers are going to ask you. You’ll have some time to prepare but not too much and there is a good reason for that. Nancy reminds the students of one important rule of drama, “Remember the rule: say yes. You can not disagree with anything the other side says.” For example, the prosecution says, I have a videotape of Naomi putting poison in the drink, you have to agree with that. You  102 cannot say that it is not a videotape. You must agree with everything. Which means that during the trial, you may have to change your case a lot because all of a sudden you have a videotape of Naomi putting poison in the drink, and you are going to have to find a way out of that. Maybe you have another videotape that shows somebody else. So you have time to prepare but not much time. Good luck.  As instructed by Nancy, the imaginary court trial proceeds with a series of testimonies with student-created witnesses who are questioned by the lawyers from both sides. Also, recess periods between the testimonies are heard to be important because the teacher and students review progress as well as plan for the next testimony. Nancy speaks about the inclusion of preparation time for students before any improvised performance: One thing I do want to say is I very seldom use scripts. It is almost always improvisation. But it is what I call rehearsed improvisation because it is too hard for students to just come up here and act. So I always give them some time to prepare. Because of that, they get to do acting but also they have so much talking because they are preparing the script, they are going to prepare what they are going to do beforehand. They can take notes but they cannot write a script. (Nancy, interview, August 2012)  The court trial scene gets underway. The sounds of moving tables and pulling chairs fill the air as students find their teams. As everyone settles down in a circle, Naka (who is usually quiet) breaks the silence in the defence team. Naka suggests, “What I am thinking is she hears devil’s voice.” Naka’s contribution sparks the discussion, and everyone starts developing a story about Naomi. The audio recorder is busy catching the voices of all on the defence side including Kona, John, Mary, Jin, Yuna, Naka, and Aki. Aki playing the role of Naomi is anxious, “Oh, I don’t have confidence with acting my role.” Then Nancy overhears Aki and allays her concern, “Don’t worry, it will be fine, Aki.” On the other side of the classroom is the prosecution side with Ben, Kaka, Sari, Miyuki, Rara, Tom, Kai, and Nari. Under the leadership of Ben, all eight members put their heads together in an effort to make a case for how Naomi is guilty of the psychiatrist’s death. From the outset of the discussion, everyone seems to show a great interest and determination in  103 making a believable story about Naomi in order to win the trial. They are occupied with creating possible witnesses related to Naomi and thinking of Naomi’s motives for the crime: “We need the police”; “We need another psychiatrist”; “I want to be a pharmacist”; “Oh, we have to hurry. So what is the reason?”; “Maybe Naomi’s son died because of the psychiatrist. So she doesn’t like psychiatrists.” Amidst students’ energetic verbal exchanges, Nancy suggests that each side make an opening statement. Prior to the beginning of the trial, she reminds them that they can change their case as the trial goes by and then adds important advice: “During the trial, don’t be mad because it can be very competitive. Be ready to lose.” A few minutes later, the trial finally begins as Nancy briefly leaves the classroom then returns, this time as a judge, proceeding to the front and vigorously shouting out, “Oye oye, Western Canada county court house. Judge Gillian Korner presiding. Please rise.” Everyone in the classroom (the imaginary courtroom) stands up as Judge Nancy enters. “Thank you. You may be seated (in a somewhat exaggeratingly serious low tone). Who is Naomi? Please rise.” She turns to Naomi, “I understand you are pleading innocent by reasons of insanity.” Naomi replies calmly, “Yes.” Judge Nancy clears her throat and says in a bright yet formal heavy tone: “Thank you. You may be seated. Does the lawyer for the prosecution have an opening statement?” “Yes,” Ben stands up. “Please step forward and make your opening statement.” Ben confidently steps out of his seat and speaks in a firm tone, “Your honour, today we will meet a very dangerous person, Naomi Uehara. She has killed lots of people. Today she killed Gillian in her office using poison.” Ben’s opening statement impresses me with how skillfully he began his statement with a court-specific expression “your honour” and for the way he presented himself in a formal and engaging way although it was his first time to be in such a social situation. I was impressed again when Kona (speaking in role as a lawyer for the defence side) gives her spontaneous opening statement. The judge turns to the defence side, “Does the lawyer for the defendant have an opening statement?” Kona also stands up and articulates her convincing opening statement in a calm and firm tone, “Hi, everyone, I have to say that Naomi has a mental disease and should not be executed. If she is executed, she will be  104 another victim of the disease.” Magically, it now feels like this intermediate-level ESL classroom has turned into a local court room. I can almost visualize a curious and engaged look on the faces of everyone in the imaginary court room, perhaps wondering about how two dissenting stories about Naomi will be told and how the trial will develop over the next three days. Such curious looks on their faces soon turn to smile as, immediately after Kona’s opening statement, Ben jumps in with a hurried voice, “I object, your honour.” With surprise and humour in her voice, Nancy responds to this unforeseen interruption, “An objection already? (smilingly) You can not object to the opening statement.” Amidst a burst of laughter in the as-if courtroom, The judge now asks all the lawyers to come forward, “Please approach the bench.” Observing the casual clothes of the lawyers, the judge speaks in a teasing yet firm tone, “None of you are properly dressed for the court room." The laughter grows louder when Ben tries to make a statement about Nancy’s equally casual outfit, “My honour, you are also casual” “You mean ‘My honour?” Nancy replies with a smile. These first few moments of the court trial have already set the dynamic tone for the four-day trial mixed with conflicting logic, serious engagement, creativity, imagination, collaboration, and laughter. Looking back, it was also impressive how Kona or Ben did not sound shy or hesitant, but rather was actively immersed in the mode of drama from the very outset of the trial scene. Later, Ben says during an interview with me that he remembers the court trial as his most enjoyable part of the class: “The court scene was enjoyable. . . We had a competition with another group, so we were more motivated” (Ben, interview, August 2012). Ben’s particularly high engagement with drama can perhaps be explained by the way he treats performative aspects of communication such as a face-to-face interview: Acting is not difficult for me. I joined the acting club in my middle school. It wasn’t too difficult. It is the same as now [a face-to-face interview]. I talk to you [the researcher] immediately in a normal situation, so acting is not too different from normal situations. (Ben, interview, August 2012) The main lawyer for the defence side, Kona, echoed Ben’s appreciation for the court trial: I enjoyed the court of law act the most because it was a game. Although I’m not sure  105 how it improved my speaking or not, explaining my own thoughts and giving a question to someone in such a difficult case was challenging and interesting. (Kona, survey questionnaire, August 2012) Following the opening statements, witnesses from each side are brought in. The first witness is Sari from the prosecution side. She performs as a gun seller. The judge asks her seriously yet jokingly, “Can you put your hand on the holy dictionary (placed at the front table)? Can you swear that you will tell only the truth?” “Yes,” Sari answers seriously, trying to swallow her chuckles. After an engaging testimony from Sari, who has talked about multiple cases of her selling guns to Aki, Nancy tells her: “Madam, you may step down. Before we continue the trial, I have to have a little recess to do corrections.” The students take a break from the intense testimony while Nancy is writing down sentences with mistakes on the board. I hear John proudly whispering to his group, “Why did they bring a gun seller?” Kona nods, “Yeah, I know. It is not related.” Meanwhile, the prosecution side sounds busy discussing what to do with the next witness. As if she has heard John and Kona’s criticism, Sari takes a critical stance and says to her group that the gun seller was not meaningful for the trial “because Nancy said focus only on the murder of the psychiatrist” who died from poison. Her group members nod. My curiosity continues growing: What kind of story will be made about Naomi by the students over the next few days? Day 3 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012) It is the second day of the trial. Because Kaka and Rara are absent, the prosecution needs to find someone else in the group to serve as a lawyer. Sari agrees to be a lawyer for her team. Meanwhile, students’ attention is drawn to someone who just arrived at the classroom door. As I wonder who it is, several students sound impressed. Sari says, “Wow, look at Mary. She is so beautiful today.” Perhaps, Mary has seriously taken Nancy’s comment about the dress code for the court. Nancy also sounds impressed, “You look just like a lawyer.” Not only Mary but Ben also seems to have taken Nancy’s words seriously. Laughing with Ben, Nancy says, “Oh you brought a tie. Wow, I am proud of you,” perhaps noticing a tie in Ben’s hand. Ben and Mary’s gestures are a sign of how they are engaged with the court trial scene. Ben’s  106 high engagement was also audible before the class when he said to Nancy that he brought a DVD of the movie Primal Fear. “Yesterday I watched this movie and studied it. It is the same situation as this,” Ben said to Nancy with a proud smile. The classroom is again turned into a court room. Nancy begins by joking that Sari should pay a fine for not being properly dressed. Again, Ben responds, “Your honour, you are dressed casually too.” “Are you objecting to the judge’s dress code?” replies Nancy with a smile.  Then, the court trial resumes with the first testimony of the day. The judge invites a witness from the prosecution side, “Who would you like to call as your next witness?” Today, no preparation time is given to the students. The prosecution has to decide quickly who will speak as the next witness. During a brief moment of discussion among themselves, I hear that Kai is worried about his testimony: “Oh, I didn’t prepare. What can I say?” Miyuki tries to comfort Kai to stay confident: “It’ll be okay. Just guess.” Interestingly, the group decides to choose Miyuki (speaking in role as a pharmacist) as the next witness. Ben officially calls in Miyuki for a testimony, and she accepts the invitation as confidently as she advised Kai.  Ben stands up and turns to the judge, “Your honour, the defence side said Naomi is crazy, but we found that she is fine and prepared for the murder for a long time. We found she bought lots of poison from the pharmacy.” Then, Ben asks Miyuki a series of fair questions regarding Naomi’s purchasing poison from the pharmacist, followed by a few additional sharp questions from the defence lawyers. Not surprisingly, Miyuki’s testimony is not highly accurate in terms of grammar. However, it is impressive to see how Miyuki spontaneously and creatively produces sensible and believable answers on the spot. Overall, Miyuki’s testimony seems to have served well the prosecution side.  At recess while Nancy writes down grammatically incorrect statements from Miyuki’s testimony (see Table 8 for a list of Miyuki’s statements), the prosecution side quickly gathers and urgently discusses what they will do with the absence of Rara who is supposed to speak as a sister of Naomi. Kai suggests that his original character as the husband of Yuna (a psychologist of Naomi) is not necessary and he may need a new role. Ben suggests Kai become a brother of Naomi instead. All the members seem to be receptive to Ben’s suggestion as he leads the group discussion.  107 Table 8: A list of corrected statements after Miyuki's testimony WHAT WAS PRODUCED CORRECTED AS First time she come my pharmacy one years ago  The sign was on the prescription  The doctor was died  The first time she came to my pharmacy was one year ago The signature was on the prescription The doctor died She used to mouse, so I sell it to her  A few people bought mouse poison She used it to kill mice, so I sold it to her. Few people bought mouse poison (to mean not many people) On the other side of the classroom, another audio-recorder is catching the sounds of the close engagement of the defence team with the on-going trial. For example, when Miyuki testified, I could hear their close listening to what Miyuki was saying. The defence side sustains their engagement throughout the trial including each recess period as they discuss how they should frame the story around Naomi’s insanity as a cause of the crime. In planning for the upcoming testimony with John (serving as the boyfriend of Naomi) to be called in as the next witness, the group reaches an agreement that Naomi has a double personality, which was the primary reason for her crime. In pursuing such a narrative, John is acting as the boyfriend of Naomi who thought Naomi had a twin sister named Reina. Kona reminds the group of what has to be kept in mind as the focus of their case: “we have to think about what is the key point to prove her craziness.” Kona turns to John who is going to stand as the next witness: “So you are going to say about how different Naomi and Reina’s characters are, so you have to say something like I thought she was a twin.” After John’s testimony, the defence side has an even more lively discussion during the next recess time. They put their collective efforts into further developing and expanding the story about Naomi by building on what John said during his testimony. Yuna asks, “So, does Naomi have a twin sister?” Naka breaks the silence by saying that “maybe there was a twin  108 before birth, but Reina died in Naomi’s body.” Then, Aki replies with a curious surprise in her tone, “inside me?” Everyone seems to accept Naka’s suggestion. Having decided to build the story on Naka’s suggestion, Kona brings everyone’s attention to the central argument of their case: “So our goal is not to make her executed but we want to make her cure her disease, double personality. And send her to a mental hospital.” John agrees, “Right, we just have to prove her double personality.” I also hear Yuna and Jin (who are generally less verbal) talking about the story. Every group member makes a contribution to the case about Naomi. It is particularly impressive to witness audibly how Naka (who is usually quiet) sounds well invested in the trial, making some key suggestions for the group. In her reflection on the course in her interview and survey questionnaire, Naka selected the court trial as her most memorable moment in the class. A similar reaction was also audible in Jin, who like Naka, was normally quiet and reserved. She speaks about her positive attitudes towards the court scene which she actively participated in: “I enjoyed being in court. We could come up with many ideas, so we could speak a lot during the class” (Jin, survey questionnaire, August 2012).  In preparation for the testimony of the next witness, Yuna (speaking in role as a psychologist), the defence tries to reach a collective understanding of the story among all group members including Yuna about how Naomi’s twin sister, Reina, died at birth and sneaked into the spirit of Naomi. Kona confirms with Yuna: “The most important thing is you have to say she has a double personality. And you have to bring the medical receipt [medical record].” Yuna seems to be a bit overwhelmed as she anxiously says, “Oh, so hard, so confused.” Aki cheers up Yuna, “Don’t worry. I have to even act as two different characters.” It is encouraging to audibly witness how Aki (a new student) encourages her team members. Aki reflects on how she found the court simulation challenging yet saw the benefits: special words used in court are difficult, and we have to explain the details of a situation, so it is difficult and challenging for me. This role playing is a little challenging, but it is useful for improving English skills, and also students can get many chances to speak English, so this is effective for improving English skills. This  109 court trial should be continued. (Aki, survey questionnaire, August 2012)  Together with encouragement from her team members, Yuna (who speaks in role as a psychologist) also receives practical language help from John. He shares a specific technical terminology concerning Naomi’s medical condition of double personality, disassociative identity disorder, which he seems to have just found from his online search. He tells Yuna that she could bring it up as a psychologist when referring to Naomi’s medical condition. Yuna seems to appreciate John’s help and repeats it to herself a few times to practice pronouncing this technical term. Yuna is finally on the stand for her testimony, which intensifies as a series of questions are presented to Yuna from both sides. This reflects both sides’ critical understandings of the importance of the psychologist as the key witness in determining Naomi’s medical condition. The audience is also listening attentively during Yuna’s testimony. Some are taking notes. Particularly, I hear Naka attending carefully to the testimony. The sound of scribbling is clearly audible from where she is sitting. This may be because she knows she will be the next witness to speak tomorrow. Naka, offers her reflective thoughts on the court trial in the interview: “The court trial was very interesting. We separated into two teams and we discussed about how to beat the other team, creating the scenario, it was fun” (Naka, interview, August 2012). The second day of the court trial comes to an end. Nancy announces that the class ran out of time. With an approving smile in her voice, Nancy wraps up the class by saying as a judge: “Your trial is very funny. You are doing an excellent job. I have no idea what to do with it. I am now very confused.” Many students stick around, talking with one another about the trial. Packing things up, several students echo in a rather impressive tone, “Oh, so confused, so complex.”  Across from my seat Yuna is talking to one of her teammates: “Oh Ben is so scary.” Yuna seems to have found Ben’s questioning perhaps intimidating, having been intensively questioned by Ben (the lawyer for the prosecution side). To my ears, however, Ben did not present himself as intimidating, but he asked some sharp questions as a lawyer. “During her testimony, Yuna seemed nervous, but well engaged with answering questions especially. She was making a good effort to understand and handle questions from both sides” (field note,  110 July 2012). Yuna reflected on the improvisational aspects of the drama-based activities such as the court trial scene as the difficult part of the class:  It was difficult to talk with no thinking time, like suddenly you must go and talk in English. It is hard for me because I must search vocabs. I don’t remember lots of vocabs. But it is a good thing for me. (Yuna, interview, August 2012)  Yuna is not the only one feeling nervous during the testimony. Aki also seems to be anxious about her upcoming testimony happening the next day as she is talking to her group members after class, “Oh, I am so nervous.” On the other hand, John is enthusiastically talking to his group, “Wow, it is like a kind of drama.” John laughs with his group members. John was among those who were noticeably and audibly highly engaged with the trial and most of the other drama-based activities. Not surprisingly, he describes his experience with the court trial scene as the most enjoyable part: “We got suspects with our logical thinking. I like that kind of situation. We can make some strategies to prove her guilty or not, fight through our speech” (John, interview, 2012). On the other side of the classroom, I hear Sari and Miyuki chatting to each other about how much they enjoyed the improvisational trial where the story about Naomi has spontaneously been developing through a series of testimonies, “Wow, it is very interesting. It was so fun.” With such excitement, they encourage Nari (who will be their next witness tomorrow) by cheering her up in chorus with other group members, “Good luck tomorrow, Nari. You’re very important tomorrow,” wishing for the win of the trial. The students start making their way out as I collect my audio recorders and start packing up after saying goodbye to the students exiting the classroom. The fan is still on, cooling off the heat from the trial in the classroom. Mixed with the sound of the fan, the voices of Aki and Kona linger around, still talking about the story of Naomi and Reina. Summary In this and previous chapters, I have reflexively narrated the soundscape of a few selected days of the two focal adult ESL classes with educational drama from a participant listener  111 perspective. With these autoethnographic auditory narratives, I aimed to provide a reflexive and engaging account of the soundscape of the experiences of the participants in the adult ESL classrooms with educational drama as heard/felt/interpreted by the researcher as a participant listener. The other main aim of the auditory narratives was to document and vividly describe how educational drama was used in those focal ESL classes for adult learners in an attempt to answer the first research question: How is educational drama used in four focal drama-based adult ESL classrooms in a private language institution? In the next chapter, a thematic analysis of what was heard, felt, perceived, and interpreted in these narrated lessons as well as across all the cases over three terms will be presented.    112 Chapter 7: Threading Language and Drama: Cross-case Analysis of Nine Themes of L2 Pedagogy with Drama In the previous two chapters, my autoethnographic auditory narratives have illustrated a version of the soundscape of the two adult ESL classes where educational drama is incorporated as a learning medium. Drawing on the ethnographic data and based on these auditory autoethnographic narratives, in this chapter, I will discuss how the instruction can be characterized, what learning opportunities were created for students’ L2 development and how it was promoted over the term in these classrooms.  While also furthering the discussion of the first research question regarding the nature of teaching practices of educational drama-based ESL instruction, this chapter will focus on the second research question concerning the impact of the instruction on students’ L2 development: In what ways is L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms? Informed by multiple sources of ethnographic data from all four sections of the course over a total of 10 months, this cross-case analysis will present nine salient themes that have emerged to characterize students’ L2 learning experiences with educational drama for adult learners. Engaging with Stories It [the drama class] was more active and made me feel free while talking, especially the most interesting thing is we can make a script and perform it. It is kind of group work. Whether you want it or not, you have to join and participate with others and make something, so it gave me stress or tense at first time or make me nervous, but now I feel comfortable and I enjoy it. (Esther, interview, December 2012) As exemplified in the auditory accounts narrated in Chapters 5 and 6, at the heart of the students’ learning practices in these classrooms was the construction and performance of stories. A multitude of opportunities to communicate and perform in the target language were yielded in and through the process of engaging with stories, which in turn became language learning materials.   113 As narrated in the auditory accounts of the selected days of the drama-based classes in Chapters 5 and 6 and also observed-heard/felt throughout my field work in all the four sections over three terms, what is salient is how the invitation to be engaged with story making was welcomed by the students. For example, in the lesson represented in Chapter 5, during the preparation for “The Strange Couples Around the World Talk Show,” John and Rara negotiated a story about how they met. In planning for the talk show, John suggested to Rara (a new student) that they would not need to be too concerned about preparing their story in greater detail but just to be ready to improvise the details of their relationship during the performance. John seemed to take a more proactive role and comforted his partner by saying that he would support her. Then, during the actual dramatized talk show, John and Rara jointly managed to handle unexpected questions and successfully improvised their engaging answers on the stage without pre-written scripts. This can be heard as a telling example of how they positioned themselves as a competent, creative, and collaborative maker and teller of stories.  Such a positioning is important in L2 classrooms with drama because it implies that the students understand that what they are faced with is not about creating a particular, prescribed script (that is to be evaluated as right or wrong), but rather about engaging with a meaning-making practice where they are given the power to imagine and create any story in the target language, consistent with a grand narrative that the whole class was jointly co-creating (e.g., “The Strange Couples from around the World Talk Show” [Chapter 5]), the murder mystery scene [Chapter 6]), and diverse lending and borrowing situations [Chapter 6]). As an illustration, students’ creative power as story-makers/tellers was particularly salient in the court trial scene where the students collaboratively and spontaneously decided on what characters to include in the scene and how to progress the story line, which was changing after each testimony. Similarly, such appropriation of creative power was also audible when David and his group negotiated ideas and creatively developed their story about lending and borrowing cooking ingredients between two married couples into several directions to make the story more interesting and engaging for their audiences. The creative power as story-makers/tellers afforded in this drama-based pedagogy seems to be well-recognized by the students. As Yuki, one of the quieter students in Nancy’s class, says,   114 I can imagine, a lot of imagine. If I want to say something, I can’t say without, how can I say, if I can change to someone, I can say everything. I am shy, but if I can be a different person, I don’t know I have courage and then I can say. (Yuki, interview, March 2013)  Helen echoes Yuki’s appreciation of a sense of power granted in story-making practices: “Definitely, the most exciting thing was making a story. It was not only acting something but also making our original story. I liked the process to make the scene completely with our hands” (Helen, survey questionnaire, March 2013). As described above by the students, it is important to note that the students were at the center of constructing and performing stories in these classrooms. That is, stories were not pre-given but co-constructed by students in collaboration, drawing on their repertoires of meaning-making resources including languages, gestures, multiple senses, creativity, and imagination. For this reason, the stories these students created could also be understood as identity texts (Cummins & Early, 2011) in which they were invested. Such an affirmation and recognition of students’ own stories (or identity texts) constituted an environment in the classroom where students could feel safe to speak the unfamiliar target language (Cummins & Early, 2011; Norton, 2000, 2010; Norton & Toohey, 2011). Affirming and recognizing the values of students’ personal stories is particularly significant, given the integral part of story in human communication (Leggo, 2008). As Connelly and Clandinin note (as cited in Nicholas, Rossiter, & Abbott, 2011), “people are storytelling organisms who, individually and collectively, lead storied lives. . . and tell stories of those lives” (p. 247). Despite the significant affordances of making and telling students’ own stories (Nicholas, Rossiter & Abott, 2011), opportunities to produce and share students’ own stories are, however, not always actively pursued in L2 classrooms. In these classrooms, students’ stories occupied the meaning-making practices in which the students were engaged as they created and performed the narratives. This has important implications for L2 classrooms because students’ experiences of learning L2 in and through constructing and performing their creative narratives can lead to creating “an empowering interpersonal space” (Cummins, 2011) or “storied classroom” (Wajnryb, 2003) reinforcing and being reinforced by a strong bond amongst the students engaged in making and telling their identity texts (Cummins & Early,  115 2011; Marshall & Toohey, 2010).  Language Learning through Language Use  I never talked in English before. This class has a lot of things to act in English, so this class is really good for me because I can talk. We can talk English in a lot of situations. We learned new expressions. It was a good class for me. (John, interview, August 2012) One potential pedagogical advantage of educational drama is to provide an as-if world beyond the wall of classrooms that can serve as a context for language use (cf. Cumico, 2005; Dodson, 2002; Even, 2011; Wagner, 1998; Winston, 2011). While preparing for and performing a story, students get to use the target language. This can allow the students to experience the pragmatic sense of language in association with its context for particular communicative purposes. For instance, in the classrooms under study, the students could encounter and experiment with the meaning and usage of various words (e.g., court-related lexical items such as your honour, opening statements, exhibits, prosecutor, or trials during the court trial scene; household items or lending/borrowing conversational gambits during the lending/borrowing scene, etc.). Then, students drew on expressions learnt from a previous lesson to juxtapose them within a story or dialogue they created. Randy’s group, for example, was drawing on the expressions/sentences they learned in the intonation chapter in the textbook while making a conversation about borrowing food items. They also imitated and integrated the previously experienced forms and intonations of sentences from the intonation chapter in the textbook into their performance (e.g., You mean chopsticks? Our refrigerator is practically empty [as narrated in Chapter 5]). It is encouraging to see how students attempted to use previously-learned linguistic items in producing a story. This could be one significant merit of educational drama as students can have ample opportunities to (re)contextualize lexical forms in a particular imaginary communicative context as argued by a number of drama scholars (Evatt, 2010; Cumico, 2005; Dodson, 2000; Rieg & Paquette, 2009; Ryan-Scheutz & Colangelo, 2004; Ziltener, 2011).  116 Students’ language learning through drama was also audibly noticeable outside class settings. For example, Esther fluently managed to integrate one of the previously learned invitational gambits (i.e., why don’t you come over too) in an unplanned small talk with me before class, inviting me to a local Halloween party at Nick’s place. This was a few weeks after the lesson on invitation where the students were introduced to commonly used invitational phrases and dramatized a story of invitation to perform to the class. Esther approached me for an audio recorder and unexpectedly initiated a conversation to invite me to the party. A similar case was audible during a post-study interview with one of the focal students. Sam happened to use a formerly learned expression from an improvisational drama-based activity called High/Low Status from the beginning of the term. Sam and his group had to improvise and perform an imaginary situation in which a social status was suddenly reversed among characters. Sam and Chen played a role as business investors whose business went bankrupt, resulting in a lower social status. During the post-performance feedback session, with Nancy’s correction, the students were taught the expression “be broke” which seemed to have not been part of their linguistic repertoire at the moment of the performance. Interestingly, during the post-study interview, Sam succeeded in remembering and using the expression when recalling the activity during the interview.  The above example of Sam’s fluent use of a new phrase corresponds to what previous research studies suggests regarding how vocabulary can likely be remembered through contextually-situated dramatic performances (Elga, 2002; El-Nady, 2009; Lauer, 2008; Miccoli, 2003). Such incidental learning moments were further evidenced throughout the term across all four sections. As an instance, during the trial scene in Nancy’s summer section, the word “perfectionist” popped up during the group discussion and his testimony when Kai struggled to find an appropriate word to describe Naomi as a person who “does everything complete.” Then, Nancy introduced the word and brought the students’ attention to it during the error correction time (later Kai took up and used the word fluently in other occasions). Likewise, in the court trial scene in Nancy’s winter section, as Sam on the defence side and Ken from the prosecution side got into a conflict about the legitimacy of two medical diagnoses of the imaginary character, the defendant, Mr. Jackson, an incidental teaching moment occurred naturally, where the class got to differentiate the sense of the two  117 words (i.e., psychiatrist and psychologist) and what medical responsibilities would be bound to those two words. Sam reflects on his learning experiences with drama as follows: I learned basic grammar in this class. For example, for my presentation, I studied grammar. For my role in the trial scene, I had to study more grammar. Because I had to study simple past tense [to describe events in the past in the trial]. I also had to study more vocabulary, for example, psychology or psychiatric problems. I had to explore Wikipedia and find psychological diseases. For example, in my case, I found anti social personality disorder. I shared it with my classmates. We did the trial for a week, and everyday we had to explore more and more details to finally have successful results [in the court trial]. (Sam, interview, April 2013) Sam’s account above suggests how participation in the court trial as the character, Mr. Jackson (the imaginary accused person in the court trial), helped Sam be more invested in learning new vocabulary and grammar in order to participate more fully in the trial. It was impressive to learn how he made up a formal written medical diagnosis as an exhibit to describe the anti social personality disorder, which his group ended up using when defending him during the trial. Students’ High Investment in L2 Learning and Classroom Practices What was demonstrably audible in all the classes was a high level of student engagement in learning practices in these particular classrooms with educational drama. The classrooms were filled with the sounds of students’ enthusiasm, energy, lively group work, and active participation. The students’ high engagement in drama-based practices was vividly exemplified when I heard about the effort made by Sam to research mental diseases and review the rules of past tense in preparation for the trial. As noted in the previous section, he actually came up with an imaginary formal medical document to substantiate the case in favour of the defence side. As narrated in Chapter 5, high investment was also audible when I heard Ben talking to Nancy in an excited tone about the movie (Primal Fear) he watched the day before the second day of the court trial scene: “This movie is very similar to our trial. I watched this again yesterday to help our trial” (Ben, interview, July 25, 2015). Also, the students showed their eagerness as participants in the court trial with an aim to win the case  118 by making up imaginary exhibits in preparation for the trial (e.g., an audio recorded threatening phone message, a doctor’s medical diagnosis, imaginary photographs, etc.). The entire class was also impressed when some students playing a role as a lawyer for the court trial showed up in a formal dress code for the trial after Nancy jokingly warned them for being underdressed.  Also, as audibly sketched in the narrative, the high engagement of the students was showcased through a boisterous and vibrant participation in the speed dating and talk show as everyone’s voice was audible. During “The Strange Couples Around the World Talk Show,” each and every member of the class asked questions and showed a great deal of interest in each couple.  Participation and engagement came also from less verbal students. For example, it was encouraging when I heard the contribution from normally quiet Naka or Yuna involved in the trial. High engagement of relatively quieter students in classroom practices was also audible with the group with Randy, David, Sally, and Juna (as narrated in Chapter 6). My close listening-based auditory data of their group work indicates how these comparatively passive-sounding individual students were well invested in producing and performing their own story. Their engagement was sustained throughout the preparatory discussion, and they even voluntarily moved to another classroom for multiple self-initiated rehearsals. With the increasing number of their voluntary, sustained improvisational rehearsals, their story continually developed while attending to the contextual details of the story and characters. As a consequence of their high engagement and investment, their performance proved its quality as a story in that it highly enticed and engaged the audience including me with their performed story. As documented above, the soundscape of high student engagement characterizes the drama-based ESL classes under investigation. High engagement in learning has prominent significance for students’ L2 development (Atkinson, 2011; Cummins, 2009; Cummins & Early, 2011; Duff, 2002; Norton & McKinney, 2011; Norton & Toohey, 2011). In Norton’s (1995, 2000, 2010) terms, engagement in learning can be understood as investment in learning and by extension one’s identity. Understood this way, the students in these classes can be heard as learners highly invested in the language practices of the drama-based pedagogy, L2 learning, and ultimately their identities as legitimate language  119 learners/users/meaning-makers. The audible soundscape of the students’ high engagement in the learning practices afforded in these classes indicates that the minds and hearts of the students were cultivated as active, invested learners of the target language. The significance of high engagement in learning was also recognized by some students in the classes. Below a few students’ accounts of their engagement with drama-based learning practices made evident in the following recommendations of the course:  Last week we attended the meeting for continuing students. Next session, there is the drama class. I recommended my friend take the class next term. I talked a lot about the class to my friend many times to take this class. (Mimi, interview, April 2013) I had to say opinions in English. In other classes, I can ignore, like I can just follow other people. But here I have a role in the drama. So I had to understand a story and play the role, so if I didn’t understand, I had to ask my friends in English. So it is really good and it is very different from other classes. (Hemi, interview, December 2012) I was glad to join this class. I have never enjoyed English class like this class until this class. (Kevin, survey questionnaire, December 2012) The above accounts indicate how these students were invested as active engaged participants in the language practices in these drama-based classrooms and how they recognized the importance of it in L2 learning. It is particularly worth noting how Mimi and Kevin (two of the quieter, reserved participants in the class) indicated that they appreciated the course (their appreciation is also indexed in their overall evaluation of the course as 9 out of 10). Based on my auditory ethnographic understanding, it is difficult (or not desired) to determine how much they were actually engaged in the course. However, the recommendation made in Mimi’s account and a strong sense of appreciation for the learning experiences in Kevin’s account index that they should be seen as active-minded engaged participants in these particular drama-based ESL classes in specific ways (although they could have been seen mistakenly as uninvested participants in more conventional learning contexts).  120 Purposeful Interaction The interactions in the three lessons described in Chapters 5 and 6 represent the goal oriented purposeful communicative nature of classroom interaction afforded by drama-based L2 pedagogy. In creating and performing a story, the students jointly worked towards a particular communicative goal. As an illustration, David’s group (in Chapter 5) pursued the same goal of making an interesting dramatic story involving lending and borrowing that could entertain the audience while complying with the guideline from the teacher (Chapter 6). During the speed dating, the students communicated with multiple individuals in role to learn about each other and find their date. To perform at “The Strange Couples from Around the World Talk Show,” each pair exercised freedom to determine and negotiate their relationship before and during the talk show where they had to spontaneously handle unscripted questions from the audience (Chapter 5). During the therapy session and the court trial (as narrated in Chapter 6), the whole class worked together to jointly construct the imaginary group therapy session and court trial, which was likely an unfamiliar social practice to a majority of the students. Nancy and the students were co-participants in creating the as-if social situation of the therapy session and court trial. During the trial, both the prosecution and defence sides put their heads together for the purpose of coming up with more convincing and believable characters and scenarios for the common goal of winning the trial.  The purposeful, goal-oriented interactions of the present classrooms have important implications for students’ L2 development (Atkinson, 2011; Belliveau & Fels, 2008; Johnson, 2004). That is, as auditorily evident in these classrooms, such interactions situate L2 learners in a communicative context that is conducive to L2 learning because of a sense of the urgency and need to 1) use the target language to communicate ideas/meanings for producing and performing a story and 2) collaborate as a group for the inherent nature of group work involved in educational drama. First, the communicative urgency and need in these classrooms was salient throughout the course. One telling example of such interactions was when Ken and Sam had a tension-filled and meaning-oriented verbal exchange on the final day of the court trial. The following excerpt taken from the field note illustrates the moment: They [the prosecution and defence sides] were intensively arguing about the critical  121 point around two different diagnoses for Mr. Matthew Jackson [the defendant played by Sam]: one from a psychologist and the other from a psychiatrist. This is very different from interactions more common in conventional tasks. The students including Ken and Sam are well engaged with the story that is creatively unfolding. Everyone seemed to be listening to the argument between Ken [the lawyer for the defence side] and Sam as I heard heavy silent engagement from the rest of the class. I was also enticed by the conflict of viewpoints, wondering whose argument might be more logical and convincing. (field note, April 2013) Such an engaging interactive exchange during the court trial scene was also witnessed by some students. For example, Amy remembers such moments during the court trial: Recently, the court scene is very interesting. . . everyone sometimes, I felt we have a debate, it sounds like a fight. No no, I agree, I disagree. We have to say our opinions and listen to opposite opinions and like fighting. Very interesting! (Amy, interview, April 2013) Other students also speak about the difficulties of being engaged in a sustained exchange of explanations and ideas in the target language in order to produce and perform a story as a group. For example, in response to the survey question concerning a difficult part of the class, “students answered that keep talking in discussion” (Eva, survey questionnaire, 2012) and “difficult part is explaining something. I think that conversation is more easy than explaining” (David, survey questionnaire, December 2012) were selected as challenges. Maggie echoes the challenges of having to communicate with others in English for the common purpose of performing a story: Creating a story [was difficult]. We discussed each opinion and created a story. Because I can know others’ opinions and we discuss. Sometimes we misunderstood because of language, but we can use body language or explain and explain and we can understand one story. (Maggie, interview, April 2012) A sense of communicative urgency and need also lay in the prominent collective efforts that are demanded for completing a given performative task. As informed by the ethnographic  122 data, collaborative group work is integral to the drama classes under study. While group work can be seen as a commonly practiced participation structure in many other L2 classrooms, it seemed to gain its larger significance in the drama-based instruction for its inherently intersubjective nature. Sara and Mimi provide their reflections regarding this: “In the drama class, we have to say and discuss to make a story” (Sara, interview, December 2012). Mimi adds,  When I forgot a phrase, everyone supported me. Everyone helped each other to create one drama. If one person creates drama, it is boring. But in this class, four or five people share imagination so it is more interesting. (Mimi, interview, April 2013) Sara and Mimi make a poignant point about how drama demands more engaged collaboration from students towards a common goal. They see the affordance of drama classes in creating such an interaction. Sam speaks further on this collaborative and intersubjective nature of drama-based group work: “The trial was also really interesting. And I had to explain the process with all the people involved. I mean it’s like I had to connect what others said and put them together to defend me” (Sam, interview, April 2013). Sam’s account speaks to how drama creates a space where ideas and meanings are connected and formed in the chain of a collaboratively and intersubjectively constructed story by linking what was spoken to what would come. In the next section I will discuss educational implications of such a space created in and through drama in these particular classrooms in relation to a main pedagogical aim of the course: developing fluency and accuracy. Balancing Accuracy and Fluency As documented in the previous two chapters, one salient characteristic of the classes was the fluency-oriented language use supported by improvisational drama-based activities. There were ample opportunities for all class members to speak both in the process of preparing for performances and during the improvisational performance itself.  One central aim of the drama course was to develop students’ fluency in a way that allows them to handle communicative responsibilities and pressures. To this end, a range of improvisational drama-based activities (e.g., imaginary interviews, improvised simulations of  123 various contexts such as court trials, speed dating, or social status, tableau-based slide shows, etc.) were designed and implemented by both teachers. These drama-based activities serve a pedagogical means of socializing the students into being spontaneous users of and communicators in the target language. This pedagogical aim of the course seemed to be recognized by a majority of students as expressed in the students’ comments below that illustrate their appreciation for and understanding of the potential impacts of spontaneous language use: Drama is someone said a phrase, I have to say as soon as I hear. No thinking time. I think it is important to speak English. . . Nancy said don’t be afraid of making mistakes. In January [the beginning of the term], I was also afraid making mistakes and spoke slowly. But now I was inspired by Nancy, so now I don’t think carefully, but just speak speak and speak. (Mimi, interview, April 2013) The class helped my English. The teacher always said do not think too much to answer the question. We could speak English immediately without thinking. I think my English got better than before. (Mary, survey questionnaire, August 2012) The biggest thing [of this class] is to say something immediately and keep talking. Because of this rule, I became to be able to come up with some sentences what I want to say immediately. (Helen, survey questionnaire, March 2013) The fluency-oriented teaching practice of these classes also attended to linguistic forms of the students’ improvised speech. As described in Chapters 5 and 6, this was done through either the explicit post-performance error correction (in Nancy’s class in which the students, scaffolded by Nancy, reflected on the linguistic forms of their improvisational performances) or the implicit review of the video-recorded performances (in Nick’s class where the students had an opportunity to watch some of their performances on video). This approach seems to have contributed to students’ L2 development. As an illustration, students’ increasing awareness of accuracy-related linguistic issues was audible. In week 14 of the 16 week-long class with Nancy, for example, students worked on dramatizing the same scene into different genres of movies (e.g., science fiction, western, romantic comedy, etc.). During the improvisational performance, one of the lines improvised by John was, “You were such a  124 good student.” This short line can be taken up as showcasing John’s increased self-awareness of the learning that might have taken place after several attempts of trials and errors in articulating the grammatically correct use of the form, “such a + noun” and “so + adjective”.) This particular linguistic form was one of the most frequently witnessed grammatical mistakes throughout the term. Nancy attended a number of times to the students’ grammatically inaccurate use of the form (e.g., “you are so good student” instead of “you are such a good student”) produced by several students during the improvisations throughout the term. In week 14 I heard a student using the form appropriately during what may be a nerve-breaking improvisational performance in front of the class. This was interesting because, as captured in the audio-recording of the group planning session with his group members just before his group’s performance, I heard John still saying “I am so kind father.”  A similar case of the display of a learning moment of self-aware self-correction was also audible with Kai during his improvisation. It was when Kai showcased his self-awareness of the usage of an article, which was another common grammatical issue which the teacher aimed to help throughout the term. During his genre performance, he was improvising a conversation with his group members. As represented in the transcript of the performance below, he appeared to struggle to accurately produce one of his lines, “You are a good student.”  (Kai plays a role as a father of Kona [a daughter], and they are talking about Kona’s trouble at school.) Kai: (talks to Kona) We heard— we heard from your teacher— Kona: Yah. Kai: [You are not good- (repeats and restates several times) you are not- you are not good student, the teacher said. Kona: Yah, actually I am not good— Kai: (self corrects and repeats his line again) You are not good— (laughs at his sleeve) you are not a good student (somewhat proudly and perhaps turns to the teacher or the audience). As described above, Kai was struggling to produce his line. Along with the rest of the class, I,  125 as an audience member, was puzzled, not sure what he was struggling with, but soon we found the struggle was with the use of the indefinite article “a.” After several attempts of self-correction, he finally managed to produce the line he wanted to compose. He sounded relieved and proud, which brought the audience and the teacher to laughter. These episodes with John and Kai can be seen as minor achievements in the course of students’ L2 development, but they may represent the potential pedagogical affordances of how educational drama can 1) foster a self-awareness of what is produced and how it is formed through a series of student-driven rehearsed improvisations, and 2) reinforce both the fluency and accuracy in students’ performance in a dramatic social context they create. The teacher also seems to recognize the students’ increased awareness of the usage of some grammatical forms: I do feel that the students stopped making the same mistakes, and that is the most important thing to me is that students start to recognize when they are making mistakes and self correcting. I did feel that by the end the students were self-correcting, they are still making a lot of mistakes, but I do feel that their fluency level has improved a lot. (Nancy, interview, August 2012) To sum up, in his transformative multiliteracies pedagogy, Cummins (2003) speaks to the importance of creating opportunities in L2 classrooms where students focus on meaning (i.e., experiencing a deeper level of cognitive and linguistic processing beyond sentence level literal comprehension), on language (i.e., developing critical language awareness of both grammar of language and its relation to power), and on use (i.e., having an opportunity to use language “to amplify students’ intelligent, aesthetic, and social identities” [p. 2]). Such L2 instruction can promote active meaningful language use to enhance students’ linguistic competence and encourage students to express themselves. In this light, it is hard to say that all three facets that Cummins suggests for a more empowering L2 instruction are reflected in the classrooms under study. Nonetheless, it can be argued that the particular pedagogical approaches adopted in these classrooms with improvisational educational drama demonstrate one possible way of engaging students in meaning, language, and use in L2 classrooms by fostering creative opportunities to use, explore, and reflect on what is said, how it is said, and  126 for what purposes it is said.  Joy in L2 Learning In addition to the self-perceived language competence, another positive consequence of the experience in these language classes with educational drama was a shift in students’ attitudes and perceptions towards L2 learning. The impact of the shift is significant in that it could potentially contribute to cultivating students’ identities into more enthusiastic learners of L2 who would be invested more in L2 learning (Cummins & Early, 2011; Norton & Toohey, 2011). What was audibly prominent across the three narrated lessons in the previous chapters was the laughter in the classrooms. The educational space was interspersed with the sounds of storying, interacting, performing, moving, joking, collaborating, and laughing. The joy of learning that the students experienced in class was remembered by many students as one essential characteristic of their learning experiences. As a participant listener, I also felt the uplifting and pleasant spirit in the air of the classrooms. Such reactions were also expressed in students’ accounts of the interviews and survey questionnaires:  Drama makes me excited. When I felt so bad, I went to this class. I tried to be not absent at least this class. I was always looking forward to the drama class. (David, survey questionnaire, December 2012) This class is more active. In my previous classes, I studied English only sitting in a chair, I studied grammar and writing only sitting on the chair. But in this class, I speak in front of people and moved anywhere. (Juna, interview, April 2013) Sometimes my friends envy us. They told me your class looks so fun. They use only textbooks. But our class materials is various, movie or puppet or something. (Maggie, interview, April) I think it [this class] is excellent. It is really interesting. You learn English by play. . . I like the idea of learning and playing. (Sam, interview, April 2013) The joy of learning was experienced not only by more active students but also by those who were less audible during class time. For example, Joe expressed how he learned from the  127 drama course that “learning English can be fun rather than a stressful experience” (Joe, interview, February 2013). Naka was another quieter student, but the claim could be made that she also experienced the joy of learning as expressed in the way she responded during the group interview as transcribed below:  (Naka, Rara, Aki, Kona, and I sit around the table for a group interview. I ask a question to the whole group by not calling on someone in particular.) Won: What do you think of this class compared to other English classes you’ve taken? All: Hmm. Hehe. (a brief silence for a few seconds) Naka: (unhesitatingly) This is— this class is really fun. All: (agreed, smiling) Hahaha. Won: Fun? Kona: Yah. Rara: Yah. Kona: It’s not like studying Aki: Yah. As represented above, these four new students echoed the joy experienced with the class. In particular, the way normally less verbal Naka took the initiative in answering the question by saying the drama class was fun might indicate how performative ways of L2 learning can also be accepted positively by less active students. Naka’s voice was supported by other relatively less audible students such as Nari and Maki: You can enjoy your English study in this class. If you want to improve your English skill, you have to join this class. (Nari, survey questionnaire, August 2012) This class was really helpful for improving my English rather than the other SL [speaking and listening] classes. Because I could take this class with fun. It made me enjoy and fast to get English skill. (Maki, survey questionnaire, April 2013)  128 Cultivating Empathic and Democratic Minds Another affordance of educational drama audibly witnessed across the four sections lies in how it could stimulate students’ minds and attitudes to become more efficient communicators who are open to thoughts, viewpoints, and cultures of others. This is because, as discussed earlier, educational drama inherently calls for collective work from all participants to reach an intersubjective understanding of a particular story they jointly prepare to perform (Fels & Belliveau, 2008). This collaborative and collective work encompasses a constant need for the exchange and negotiation of ideas, emotions, and perspectives throughout the process. Consequently, students are invited to a multitude of opportunities to learn to engage in diverse ways of being, thinking, doing, and living. This is significant because it helps L2 learners not only practice the target language but also possibly fosters personal development with a higher sense of acceptance, collaboration, interpersonal skills, and empathic intercultural understanding as echoed by a number of previous research studies on the impact of educational drama (e.g., Bournot-Trites et al., 2007; DICE, 2010; Dodson, 2002; Donnery, 2009; Kuppers, 2011; McGowan-Rick, 1994). The present classroom-based study contributes to the existing scholarly discussion by providing further ethnographically-grounded support for the positive contributions of educational drama to personal growth for L2 learners especially adult learners. Auditory narratives in the previous chapters and the reflexive ethnographic data of multiple cases, such as students’ accounts expressed in the surveys and interviews, point to how such learning opportunities nurture students’ collaborative, democratic, and empathic minds and hearts. The students were invited to work in collaboration, listening to one another and negotiating ideas. Some students share their reflections on their enhanced attitudes as more sensitive, collaborative, and empathic communicators: While we make a story, we can share opinions of each other, I could listen to other students’ previous experience. I could enjoy my friends’ personality or background and also culture. In Japan I didn’t have a chance like that to learn other countries’ cultures. (Sara, interview, December 2012)  Similarly, the following accounts have been offered by other students in response to the  129 question of what else was learned besides the English language:  I think how to make a story or how cooperate with classmates, also how to tell my feelings or words to other people. (Sharon, interview, December 2012) In acting, we had to communicate with my members, so to participate in the group, we needed to communicate. We couldn’t do it alone. (Hemi, interview, December 2012) I learned how to communicate with other students and cultures of other countries from other countries’ students!! (Helen, survey questionnaire, March 2013) These accounts suggest that educational drama can call for collective effort towards a performative meaning-making project in L2 classrooms. Students’ understanding of the impact of ample communicative opportunities afforded by educational drama on their collaborative and empathic behaviour is also implicitly reflected in the advice they were asked to provide for any prospective students of the course. For example, Kai speaks about the importance of active verbal participation with having a sense of respect for others in the class: “Talk a lot but we have to respect other people” (Kai, survey questionnaire, August 2012). Sam also offers similar advice to be an active speaker with open-minded attitudes in order to more fully benefit from ample communicative learning opportunities that the class can offer: Speak a lot with your classmates. Try to be open-minded about other cultures. I like this class because I discover other cultures and people, other ways to express ideas, and multiculturalism. For me that was really valuable. (Sam, interview, April 2013) In addition to the growth in their attitudes as more collaborative, democratic, and empathic communicator/language users, students’ personal development was also noticeable in their critical awareness of the significance of multimodality in communication. Such an important awareness was nurtured through a range of improvisational educational drama in and through which the students had to express and make meanings with various semiotic systems such as language, gestures, facial expressions, drawing, clothing, voice tones, sounds, masks, and puppets. The slide show activity (where the students had to describe their imaginary trip  130 without language but only using their body and gestures) was, for example, a space for the students to directly experience the importance of multimodal aspects of meaning-making or communicating. Another direct opportunity for enhancing multimodal awareness was created by the puppet show (where the students were engaged in performing their created story by means of puppets). Esther and Sharon provide their thoughts on how the multisensory aspects of dramatic activities such as the puppet show they were engaged with allowed them to experience the importance of paralinguistic ways of communicating. In response to the question concerning any difficult part of the class, they both selected the puppet show: I think it’s the puppet show. Because when acting, we usually can use our body, but in the puppet show, we can use only hands. Of course everyone couldn’t see our faces, so everyone can’t understand our feelings. It was done with only our hands. (Sharon, interview, April 2013) Puppet performance…. well, I am performing someone else. I couldn’t see the audience or they couldn’t see me. So I couldn’t feel feedback. I needed their reaction, face. So I forgot my lines. So it was more difficult for me. (Esther, interview, April 2013) The above accounts explain how the puppet show engaged students in coping with specific challenges as they had to rely on the movement of puppets and verbal dialogues without being able to access any other aspects of communication during the performance (e.g., facial expressions, gestures, non-verbal reactions from counterparts in interaction including co-performers and audiences, etc.). This suggests how educational drama created a space in the classrooms where the students were invited to reflect on the important roles of non-linguistic means or other multimodal aspects of human communication and experience.  Building a Learning Community: A Collaborative Interpersonal Space Another prominent feature of the classes in this inquiry was a strong sense of a collaborative learning community formed among all class participants. Ethnographic findings suggest that the learning community comprised the following elements across all four sections of the course: teachers as co-participants, student-driven curriculum, and a bonding relationship  131 among participants in the classrooms. The learning community audibly witnessed in these classrooms can be understood as exemplifying what Cummins (2003, 2009, 2011) calls an empowering interpersonal space where identities and knowledge of all the participants are affirmed and grow together in dynamic interaction. At the heart of the learning community formed in the classes was a bonding relationship among the class participants. As audible in the narratives in the previous chapters, most students are heard to work within the same circle of companionship as they walked through various creative drama-based activities that called for inherently collaborative group work. Nancy describes her perspective as the teacher: I felt the class bonded really well. Even when we got the new students, they accepted them very easily. They were outgoing. They were also leaders. They were willing to lead each other. They weren’t afraid to do anything. I think by the end, their confidence level was a lot higher. I would say by the end, I had a group of 11 leaders [4 out of 15 students were short-term students who left in week 14] that were willing to help out each other at the same time. Also they weren’t afraid to let each other lead either. (Nancy, interview, August 2012) Such a positive perception towards the class as a bonding community was also echoed by her students in her summer section: This class is a chance to meet good friends. This class draw us closer together. (Nari, survey questionnaire, August 2012) This class was very comfortable for me, because the classmate was so nice and the teacher was great!!! The atmosphere of class was so nice, so I can enjoy studying. I could get many chances that speaking English, it was act and conversation with friends in the class. (Yuna, survey questionnaire, August 2012) A strong sense of a caring community was also clearly evident in the other two sections with Nick. The telling highlight of such a strong bond was when every class participant showed care for Sara who sustained an eye injury at a local event in which the teacher and some students participated. Her classmates send her flowers along with a sympathy card with  132 everyone’s message on it (I was also invited for a message). When Sara returned, she was welcomed by warm smiles and clapping (and home-made cookies by Esther). Sara and Esther recall what could have been a tragic moment in Sara’s study abroad experience in the final words they shared with their classmates:  I don’t want to say goodbye. I can say just thank you because they helped me to improve English. When I got hurt, they came to my house and cheered me up. They supported me every time. Sometimes, we went for dinner. Good relationship. We made a good relationship. (Sara, interview, December 2012) Sometimes we had an accident about Sara. It was not good. We worried about her. We shared many feelings. I was very happy with them. I baked cookies for Sara. I feel lucky that I met Nick and classmates. (Esther, interview, December 2012) A strong sense of bonding is significant in L2 learning experiences. Blackstone and Onn (2013) state that “bonding can create a class in which ‘no one is a stranger’ and which allows each and every student to ‘learn with and among friends’. The anticipated effects are to enrich the learning experience while maximizing learning” (par. 4). Others also speak how a sense of bonding enhances students’ investment and participation in learning (e.g., Cummins & Early, 2011; Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Martin, 2014). In turn, this bonding contributes to connecting class participants closer as members of a collaborative learning community (Belliveau, 2015; Grady, 2000; Martin, 2014).  In addition to bonding, a sense of learning community was sustained and further strengthened by teachers as guiding co-participants. Such teachers’ position work serves an essential role in building a community in classrooms as it can lower power relationships with students and contribute to higher learner investment and engagement (Cummins, Early, Leoni, & Stille, 2011; Norton, 2000; Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Pittaway, 2004). Both teachers, Nancy and Nick, positioned themselves as co-participants throughout the term. This was done through their active and explicit participation in dramatic performances as a supporting character whenever appropriate and needed. Nancy was, in particular, frequently involved in a number of dramatic activities. In Nick’s case, he did not join students’ performances as actively or frequently as Nancy did, but still positioned himself as a co-participant in alternative ways.  133 Nick stepped back during the actual performances of the students in order to be a part of the audience or to video-record the presentations. However, he always communicated his willingness to serve his co-acting participant position as needed by his students (e.g., he willingly served a substitute actor role during the public performance of the major drama projects). Nancy and Nick were also both co-participants because they always actively demonstrated examples and possibilities to the students prior to their performances. By showing (not just telling), they reminded students that risk taking was necessary and the classroom was a safe space. My hearing of their positioning work as less authoritative co-participants is echoed by the below comment by Nancy:  It is important because it is not giving the instructions, it is showing how to do it. And the other important thing is that I am looking silly in front of my students, so they are not afraid to look silly in front of me. so if I am willing to, if the teacher is willing to look really silly, then the students will be willing to look silly too. (Nancy, interview, August 2012) The teachers’ co-participant positioning work seems to be recognized by the students. Several students expressed their recognition and appreciation of learning with the teachers as approachable, and sensitive co-participants. For example, Maggie expressed her appreciation, “Nick is fun, and every time Nick led us to attractive class or motivation. I would remember support from Nick” (Maggie, interview, December 2012). Maggie’s comment was shared by some of Nancy’s students: “Nancy is so easy to talk. I feel like I can talk to her anytime. . . I could always ask any silly questions to her. She always tried to make us understood” (Amy, interview, April 2013), and “the teacher made us feel comfortable to participate” (Rara, interview, August 2012). These accounts suggest that the teachers’ co-participant identity brought a positive impact to students’ roles as active participants in the classroom, which is both a prerequisite to and an outcome of community building in classrooms.  Finally, in addition to bonding and teachers’ co-participant positioning, a sense of community was reinforced through the student-centered focus in the classes. Students’ ideas and voices shaped and sustained the L2 learning experiences. I, as a participant listener, heard the energy and voices of all class members engaged in dramatic activities throughout  134 the term. Almost every class was occupied with less teacher talk and more student talk. The students carried each class forward as all the students were responsible co-learners who exchanged and negotiated ideas, created stories, and found ways to perform their stories. This collective effort by all the participants in the class created an environment where these intermediate students could feel their voices affirmed and heard. Nancy succinctly speaks to the central role that the students served in her drama class: What really made me happy was that the students accepted all the exercises. For the most part, the students were engaged…. What will determine the success of the drama class is the student not me. I did the same exercises every term. Sometimes they were enormously successful and sometimes they just fall in their face, and that’s determined by the students. (Nancy, interview, August 2012) The spirit of collaboration amongst students as an integral part of drama classes resonated with the students. Hemi speaks to this point from a student perspective: We should be more friendly. It is one of the key to making a story and acting I think. Because if we can’t understand each other, it is difficult to say my opinions. (Hemi, interview, December 2012) Yuna and Sally also seem to recognize the value of drama based L2 pedagogy in affirming the voices of the students as agentive and legitimate members of a learning community:  My advice for future students is you should speak by yourself, because you can get a chance of speaking English in this class, but you should speak more. You should get a chance by yourself. So you should raise your hand and volunteer. (Yuna, survey questionnaire, August 2012) The main character of the drama class is us (students) . . . in the drama class we could create story and practice ourselves. (Sally, survey questionnaire, December 2012) As narrated in the accounts above, the students seemed to recognize that they were at the heart of learning experiences in the drama class where they had to make and tell a story while witnessing and supporting each others’ work. The students in these classes were given power  135 to create and tell a story in collaboration. Students’ equal rights to participate in conversation and to speak were exercised, and their voices were affirmed as legitimate members of a community in the classroom. This is significant because it can contribute to creating a bonding space in L2 classrooms that promotes identity-empowering (Cummins, 2009; Cummins & Early, 2011; Marshall & Toohey, 2010) and dialogic and democratic interaction among teachers and students as co-participants (Kao & O’Neill, 1998).  Enhance Confidence: Transformative Learning Experiences One main purpose of the study was to understand ethnographically how educational drama promoted students’ L2 development in these particular classes. One aspect of students’ L2 development was students’ perceived attitudes and confidence as language users affected by their experiences in the course with educational drama. Based on my ethnographic records and as narrated in Chapters 5 and 6, in all four sections throughout the term, there was a steady flow of students’ participation in different activities. It can be said that such active engagement promoted and was promoted by students’ growing sense of confidence as language users and performers. As an illustration, in the episode narrated in Chapter 5, John and Rara collaboratively worked to complete the task of creating two characters in a romantic relationship in order to perform at an imaginary talk show named “Strange Couples Around the World.” In their collaboration, John took the initiative and lead the discussion, actively making suggestions, drawing on his creative imagination and previous experience with the drama-based pedagogy in the first half of the term. For Rara, who was a new member of the class after midterm, the task might have been an unfamiliar venture as it was her first week at the institution and also, as indicated in her interview, it was her first time to work in a language course with drama. Nonetheless, they both managed to jointly come up with a believable story about the imaginary relationship of the two characters they co-created. In leading the newcomer (Rara), John presented himself as a confident English speaking performer as marked by what he said confidently to Rara during the task, “we don’t have to worry. We just answer questions.” This may suggest the level of his confidence to an extent to which he could handle spontaneous communication that he knew Rara and himself would face soon in the upcoming imaginary talk show where each invited couple was engaged in a spontaneous conversation with the host and audience. Then, both John and Rara, as  136 represented in Chapter 5, competently and swiftly managed the challenging demands of spontaneous communication in the target language, based on and stretching what they had pre-discussed beforehand. In another episode from Nancy’s class (Chapter 6), it was impressive to witness the students’ sustained engaged heated conversation during the trial (which was an unfamiliar social practice/genre to many of these intermediate-level learners). As indicated by several students, the court trial activity was perceived as linguistically and intellectually challenging. Despite its difficulties, the students collectively and spontaneously constructed and performed a complex, engaging, and stimulating story about the case of Naomi (an imaginary defendant character). The students’ high engagement (as confident language user) with the linguistically and cognitively demanding court trial scene was also made evident as it was referred to as one of the most enjoyable and memorable learning moments of the term (about half of the survey respondents from both Nancy’s sections selected the court trial scene as such).  Educational drama can cultivate students’ identities as brave, agentive, and confident learners or users of the English language. First, for some students, this drama-based course seems to have provided a personally transformative learning experience as a language learner. As narrated in the accounts below, the drama class was remembered by some students as transforming their attitudes as learners towards L2 learning: At first, I felt embarrassed to act. I have never act like that before. It is one of the difficult points for Japanese students, I thought. However, it was good opportunity for our behavior in class, not only for drama class. (Rara, survey, August 2012) I could spend such a great time in drama class. At first, I was very shy, so it is difficult and shame for me to act something in front of classmate, but now, I don’t feel like that. I think this class changed me. In addition, this class was everyday exciting, so I could learn English with a lot of fun. (Eva, survey questionnaire, December 2012) It was my favorite class. Because of this class, I used to hate grammar, but finally I got to like to study it. (Min, survey questionnaire, March 2013)  137 The above accounts suggest how the integration of educational drama into L2 pedagogy may have the potential to contribute to a transformative learning journey in which, in this case, Eva, Min, and Rara affirmed their identities as more agentive and active learners who could perceive L2 learning as participatory and enjoyable. Beyond this empowered language learner identity, to some students, the educational experience in the course was perceived as empowering their identities as users of the English language. Sara’s account below speaks to her self-perceived enhanced confidence as a more invested L2 user/learner: When I speak with non Japanese or English speakers, I have mental wall, but I have to destroy the wall. Japanese people tend to focus on grammar, so I also focus on grammar when speaking. So if I make mistake, it is embarrassing. Making mistakes is good for me in improving English. I learned it in this class [drama class] these days. (Sara, interview, December 2012) Similar to Sara, self-perceived increase in confidence as an English user was noted frequently in the accounts of several other students. In particular, it is worth listening closely to Mimi’s account. Mimi comments on the learning practices in the drama class that had taken place prior to her presentation (as she said, “In January to February, I learned many things in this class”) and noted how it boosted her confidence to a point where she could pull off her first nerve-breaking presentation in English. This may indicate how her opportunities to speak in improvisational drama-based activities in which she was engaged for a relatively short period (less than two months from January to February) was perhaps conducive in her sense of confidence as an English user.  Amy provides another telling example of such a transformative experience:  For me, confidence is improved because in the first and second week, I was really shy. English was difficult and acting was difficult. What should I say? How can I create a new story scene? Now I can talk more fluently. When I meet foreigners, my English is not perfect, but now I can talk using English with a smile. Because before, I was really nervous like freezing so just like a robot, English robot. Now I can talk with a smile and more fluently. (Amy, interview, April 2013)  138 Responding to the interview question asking for her general reflection on the course, Amy demonstrated how she now positions herself as a more competent and confident user of the English language who could communicate with English speakers with a smile regardless of linguistic proficiency rather than as someone speaking like a passive information-processing English robot (who perhaps struggled communicating feelings, ideas, and thoughts in dynamic interaction). Such an identity-empowering experience also seems to have taken place in Yuki. She was a quiet, reserved student who decided to pursue English language studies in her forties and came to attend an English class in Canada. Her high engagement and investment in the course with drama seemed to be personally significant for her as she narrated that the drama class helped her grow as a person. Below is the account she articulated carefully during the interview in response to the question about what she learned from the course besides the English language: I learned to break your shyness. For example, Amy has big dreams. I respect her that she wanted to go to a university and study English and other languages like Japanese. I respect her. I thought I have to think about my future more seriously. (Yuki, interview, March 2013) The ethnographic data suggest that Yuki seemed to be inspired by her participation in the course. Yuki added that her participation in the drama-based course was personally significant for her because it reminded her of her dream of becoming an actress, which she pursued in her 20s, and also it inspired her new dream to be an English teacher for children. Her encounter with classmates like Amy and her experiences in the drama-based course served a critical role in helping her overcome her shyness and pursue her new dream.  As described above, students’ sense of their identities as more confident language learners/users was one significant outcome of the drama-based language practices in their collaborative classroom interactions. The increased confidence experienced by many of the students has important implications for their learning journeys in the English language, as argued by other scholars (Aita, 2009; Athiemoolam, 2006; Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997; Ralph, 1997). The students will likely continue to affirm their identities as legitimate users of the English language with a right to speak (Norton, 2000, 2010), and they will likely  139 continue to make efforts to pursue the development of their voices in L2 (Cummins & Early, 2011; Duff, 2014). As Duff (2014) suggests, “The goals of language education should be to help learners find an appropriate ‘voice’ and identity in their target language and feel confident enough as legitimate users of the language to pursue their own educational, career, and personal aspirations” (p. 28). The kinds of student learning experiences heard and discussed in the current and previous two chapters based on ethnographic understanding may suggest that educational drama-based L2 pedagogy can be one possible path in pursuing the goals of language education in nurturing students’ voices and identities as confident users of the target language. Summary In this chapter, I have explored the nature of teaching practices in the four focal adult ESL classes with educational drama in relation to its impact on students’ L2 development, in answering the first two research questions: 1) How is educational drama used in the four focal drama-based adult ESL classrooms in a private language institution? 2) In what ways is L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms? Based on a thematic analysis of my autoethnographic narratives of selected days of the classes (Chapters 5 and 6) and participant-listening-oriented ethnographic data, nine salient themes have been drawn that characterize the students’ learning experiences with the educational drama-based pedagogy centered in these multiple cases of the ESL classes. They include: engaging with stories; language learning through language use; high investment in L2 learning practices; purposeful interaction in collaboration; balancing accuracy and fluency; joy in learning; cultivating empathic and democratic minds; building a collaborative learning community; enhanced confidence.  In the auditory accounts in the previous chapters and my ethnographic records, what is audible is that the experiences seem to have provided students with opportunities to foster their voices as legitimate language learners/users and they started to become confident language learners/users drawing on different meaning-making resources. Building on and in concert with this ethnographic understanding of the potential impact of educational drama-based pedagogy on students’ voices and identities, I will, in the next chapter, look at (listen  140 to) classroom interaction in depth by means of a microanalysis of identity work and classroom interaction through which a moment-to-moment classroom interaction is analysed from a discourse analytic perspective for a more participant-oriented, in-depth and nuanced understanding of the affordances of drama-based pedagogy for L2 students’ identity construction and development.     141 Chapter 8: Holders, Makers, and Tellers of Stories: A Micro-Analytic Understanding of Students’ Identity Work in Drama-based ESL Classrooms for Adults  In tandem with my ethnographic claims presented in the previous chapters, in this chapter, I will present the findings of a participant-oriented micro-analysis of classroom interaction in and through which students’ identity work is done in the focal drama-based ESL classrooms. Through this micro-analytic understanding complemented with an ethnographic understanding, I intend to further address the second research question: How is students’ L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms? To this end, using the Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) approach (Hester & Eglin, 1997; Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Richards, 2006) together with participation framework (Goffman, 1974, 1981), I draw attention to the dynamic identity work of the class participants as they interact with one another. I aim to empirically illustrate instances of interaction in and through which educational drama-based ESL pedagogy contributes to the development of dialogic and democratic classroom discourse (Kao & O’Neill, 1998) and fosters a “transformative empowering interpersonal space” (Cummins, 2009, 2011) in the classroom.  Purpose of the Analysis Many scholars argue that the positive outcome of drama-based pedagogy is closely linked with the dynamic interactive and identity work of students and a teacher. Such interactive identity work can impact the quality and quantity of students’ affective, linguistic, interactional, and aesthetic engagement (Baldwin & Fleming, 2003; Booth, 2005; Brauer, 2002; Wagner, 1998). That is, these engaging, dynamic interactive dramatic experiences should involve active participation from both students and teachers engaged in drama-based classroom activities in a make-believe setting.  However, as addressed earlier in this dissertation (Chapter 2), there is a dearth of empirical evidence on how students’ and teachers’ interactive and identity work is done in a drama-based classroom. As such, the central purpose of the present chapter is to contribute to a  142 growing body of research knowledge on the topic by investigating classroom interaction in ESL classes with educational drama to pursue the questions: What actually takes place interactionally during the class? How are identities constructed and managed in the unfolding moment-to-moment classroom interaction? This analytic perspective on students’ identity work and classroom interaction serves a critical role in the present autoethnographic qualitative inquiry because these ethnographic and discourse analytic perspectives can complement and enrich one another for a deeper, richer, fuller, more nuanced and complex understanding of a social phenomenon under investigation (Atkinson, Okada, & Talmy, 2011; Talmy, 2009; Warriner, 2008). Identity as a Socially Accomplished Phenomenon The argument about identity work put forth in this chapter is rooted in the general ethnomethodological spirit, informed by Garfinkel (1967), treating social life as “a continuous display of people’s local understandings of what is going on,” which are accomplished as people exploit “the features of ordinary talk” (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998, p. 1). Antaki and Widdicombe (1998) state that “an ethnomethodological and conversational perspective on identity” is “not that people passively or latently have this and that identity which then causes feelings and actions, but that they work to this or that identity for themselves and others, either as an end in itself or towards some other end” (p. 2). Thus, identity is “an interlocutor’s display of, or ascription to, membership of a feature-rich category (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998, p. 2), or as “the set of verbal practices through which persons assemble and display who they are while in the presence of and in interaction with others” (Johnson, 2006, p. 213). This means that identity is ever changing, dynamic, locally constructed, contextually situated, and interactionally negotiated. Widdicombe (1998) further stresses that “membership and non-membership of a potential relevant category is an accomplishment rather than something that can just be assumed” (p. 67). Additionally and crucially, identity is conceptualized as an interactional resource through which we accomplish interactional goals and social actions in and through talk-in-interaction in the particular social context of its use (Day, 1998; Goffman, 1981; Greer, 2010; Sacks, 1974, 1992).   143 Analytical Framework Conceiving of identity as a socially accomplished phenomenon (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998), this chapter will rely on two micro-analytic lenses: Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) and Goffman’s participation framework (see Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of these approaches and the rationale for integrating them). A micro-analysis using these approaches can allow a close examination of the identity work done by interlocutors in the unfolding sequences of talk-in-interaction in and through which they employ identity in making meaning of themselves, others, activities, contexts, and the surrounding world (Baker, 2000).  Context Description As described in Chapter 4 of this dissertation, the classes under study are intermediate level adult ESL classes that use improvisational educational drama as a key teaching approach. Four sections of the course were taught by two different teachers, Nancy and Nick (but with a common goal: to develop fluency through drama). For the interest of the depth of analytic understandings and given the space of the chapter, one section of Nancy’s class has been chosen for close analysis in this chapter. The interaction from Class was taken from the major improvisational drama-based project called the Murder Mystery (part of the lessons was also narrated in Chapter 6). Analysis: Listening Closely to the Class In the class, the students are engaged with an improvised murder mystery scene where the class was divided into two groups in an imaginary court trial: prosecution and defence groups. The students as a group had to either defend or accuse an imaginary character named Naomi (a character who was collectively created by the students) by determining whether she was guilty or not of the death of a psychiatrist (who was also imaginatively constructed). Both sides had to come up with five witnesses. There was no pre-written script provided by the teacher, but rather the story developed spontaneously and organically as the students on each side brought in their witnesses for a series of testimonies. In short, the story was developed as the court trial determined whether or not Naomi had a mental health challenge with a double  144 personality. The extracts under analysis come from the first day and last day of the four-day long scene. The first extract is taken from the beginning of the court scene where the defense side with seven students including Aki (speaking in role as Naomi) discusses how to defend Naomi in the trial. Then, the subsequent three extracts represent the scene in which the defence side questioned their last witnesses, Naka (speaking in role as the best friend of Naomi) and Aki. The transcriptions used in all the extracts can be seen as an attempt to capture the sound of the interaction as it was heard by the researcher (as a participant listener) (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998). The transcription symbols are derived from Jaffersonian transcription convention (see Appendix C). In and through this analysis, I aim to empirically demonstrate how students’ identities as story-making co-inquirer participants were interactionally achieved through dynamic footing, frame, and categorical work by the class participants in and through the moment-by-moment unfolding classroom interaction in this particular ESL classroom with educational drama-based pedagogy.  Extract 1: I Have a Double Character ((The students [Ss] in the defence group find their seat around a big table for their first discussion/planning to defend Naomi.)) 01 Ss: ((shyly laughs)) 02 Kona: ((shyly and smiling)) We have to prove she is crazy. Heheh. 03 Ss: Heheh. 04 (4.0) 05 John: ((in a small voice)) Okay. 06 (4.0) 07 Naka: Mm. ((somewhat hesitatingly and shyly)) What I am thinking is (1.5) she hears  08 (1.5) devil’s voice. 09 ((everyone laughs)) 10 John: uh? 11 Naka: ((smiling)) Devil’s voice. 12 Ss: heheheh. 13 Naka: ((laughing)) And (2.0) I ((shyly laughs)) heheheh. 14 John: She has a mental disease.   145 15 Naka: Mmm, 16 Ss: Mmm, 17 John: So (1.0) uh but the mental disease is from that (perhaps pointing at the teacher in  18 front) teacher (1.5) maybe (1.0) uh yah the teacher has done something to her. And  19 that’s why she has a mental disease (1.5) yah,  20 (4.0) 21 Kona: She is afraid of such a sharp things,  22 Aki: Yah yah. 23 Kona: And also (smiling) she has also another mental disease. 24 Ss: Mmm. 25 John: Mm. 26 Mary: So (1.5) when she is alone, she hears somebody talking to her always.  27 John: Hmm. 28 Aki: Uh? 29 Mary: ((turning to Aki)) When you are alone, you hear somebody talk to you. 30 Aki: Ah. Yah yah. 31 Naka: ((in a small voice)) Maybe teacher? 32 ((a few quietly laugh)) 33 John: ((perhaps turning to Aki)) How—how did you kill? 34 Aki: How? 35 John: Uh, 36 Aki: Poison? 37 John: Poison? 38 Ss: ((in a small voice)) Poison.  39 John: But it just happened. She didn’t make a plan but it just happened. 40 Ss: Uh? 41 John: She didn’t make a plan to kill her.  42 Kona: Uh uh. 43 John: It just happened. 44 Ss: ((understood)) Ah. 45 Kona: But we have to focus on if she is crazy or not,  146 46 10 John: Yeah, but crazy men don’t make a plan. It just happened. 47 Kona: Mmm. 48 (2.0) 49 Mary: Mm (1.0) make poison (1.0) [is kind of- 50 Aki: Okay,] I have] I have a double character. 51 Ss: ((in a strongly agreeing tone)) Ahh 52 John: ((approvingly)) Okay okay. 53 Aki: Do you make sense? 54 John: Yah. like a Jekyll and Heidi. 55 Aki: Uh yah. 56 Kona: another character? 57 Ss: (laughs)) 58 (1.5) 59 Kona: So we need another psychiatrist, 60 ((some laugh)) 61 John: Then ((perhaps turns to Aki)) you should act, 62 ((everyone laughs again)) 63 John: Good Naomi and bad Naomi. 64 Kona: We need another witness who proves that Aki has double character. 65 John: I am Aki’s boyfriend and thinks there are twins, good Naomi and bad 66 Naomi, so I thought your sister killed the psychiatrist. ((perhaps looking  67 around the group for agreement)) okay okay? 68 Aki: Okay okay. 69 Kona: This situation needs a very good actress. 70 John: Yeah, it depends on you, you should be a totally different character. 71 Kona: You have to show a different character. 72 ((everyone giggles)) 73 Aki: Okay, hahaha. 74 Kona: ((perhaps turning to Yuna)) can you be a psychiatrist? ((perhaps looking at 75 Naka)) Can you be a best friend? 76 John: ((perhaps pointing at Jin)) she can be a teacher,  147 In this transcribed first group discussion, seven students put their heads together to create characters and a narrative about Naomi. The discussion begins with hesitation and silence as marked by relatively long pauses and shy laughter (lines 01-06). A temporary silence was broken when Naka who seems normally less verbal surprisingly began the discussion with her suggestion in lines 7-8: “what I am thinking is that she hears a devil’s voice.” This initiates a seemingly interesting, seamless, and engaging discussion among the members in the group about the insanity of the character that they are supposed to defend in this imaginary, dramatized court trial. By building on and negotiating ideas about Naomi, the group casts Naomi as an insane person with double personalities while casting themselves as acquaintances of Naomi (e.g., her best friend, a teacher, and a psychiatrist).  This collaborative creation of a story about an imaginary character, Naomi, in an as-if world is done through the dynamic identity work of the students. By attending to the unfolding interactional details of the group discussion (which can be characterized as a group story-making collusion frame in Goffman’s terms), we can see how the interactants take up a creative and collaborative story-maker footing. This is demonstrably made evident when Naka explicitly occasions a story-maker category, “what I am thinking,” followed by her suggestion “she hears a devil’s voice” (lines 07-08). Here, while “what I am thinking” serves its pragmatic role in making a suggestion, it can also be heard as Naka making relevant a predicate of thinking (perhaps as a story-maker). Thinking about the characteristics of a character is a commonly assumed attribute that is attached to and, at the same time, produces the membership category of story-maker.  Important to note is that Naka’s utterance was a self-initiated contribution to the task of creating a story and characters for the purpose of performing in the trial scene. That is, although there was no elicitation nor previous contributions by other members in the group (as marked by two occasions of lengthy pauses and shy laughter tokens [lines 01-06]) prior to Naka’s suggestion in line 07-08 (“what I am thinking is she hears devil’s voice”), Naka agentively and voluntarily initiates the process of making a story about Naomi, presenting herself as a story-maker by linking “thinking” (which may be a relevant predicate to the membership category of story-makers) and “I” (presented as a story-maker). This first move in the group discussion sequence was particularly notable, given my accumulative  148 ethnographic understanding about Naka as generally less audible and vocal during the lessons. Naka’s contribution seems to be well acknowledged and appreciated by her group as it was immediately responded with pleasant mild laughter tokens and then a subsequent series of the ensuing related suggestions from other group members to frame the story as Naomi having a mental disease (lines 14-26).  The dynamic identity work of Naka’s self-initiated utterance can be explained with reference to Goffman’s notion of the speaker (realized in different modes as the animator [delivering/performing the words], the author [originating the words], and the principal [committed to the words]). Naka is exercising her agency as an “author” and “principal” with the power to create a personal and medical condition for the imaginary character, Naomi. In Naka’s utterance in lines 07-08 (“what I am thinking is she hears devil’s voice”), Aki, who is referred to as the third person pronoun “she,” is cast into a character or (“figure” in Goffman’s terms) in the story they are co-creating. In the subsequent turns, the other group members join Naka in taking up the author footing by extending Naka’s idea. Such collaborative creation of the story about the figure, Naomi, who will be animated by Aki, map all the group members into the category of story-maker. This mapping of a story-maker category is audibly extended to and by Aki (i.e., the animator of the figure Naomi) as she also makes an important contribution to the puzzle of how to justify the character Naomi’s murder by insanity, by saying: “okay okay I have a double character” (line 50). What is worth noting is that in her utterance, she refers to herself as the figure Naomi by using the first pronoun “I.” Her use of the pronoun “I” can be taken as indicative of her participating in the story-making practice as the figure Naomi while speaking simultaneously as the author of the story.  Further in Goffman’s terms, importantly, the above negotiation and exchange of ideas for the story about Naomi in this episode can be heard as an example of how all the members in the group participate both as ratified hearers (who are acknowledged as legitimate hearers actively listening to what is being discussed and negotiated at the moment) and as the author (who actively speaks with suggestions for the story). Interestingly, Aki’s speaker role as the figure (Naomi) is also explicitly occasioned by others in the group when John turns to her and asks using the second person pronoun: “how did you kill her?” (line 33). Also, an  149 orientation to Aki as the figure/animator is jointly indexed when John and Kona jokingly say that Aki should do good acting (lines 69-71). All her group members seem to expect Aki to animate (or enact) the figure of Naomi with double characters for the common purpose of winning the as-if competitive court trial they are situated in for the moment. The above group interaction makes evident how the production of a narrative(s) about the imaginary character, Naomi, is achieved through students’ orientation to one another’s story-maker footing, which was made relevant during the interaction in this lesson. The students talked themselves into being the joint story-maker category which was occasioned by its associated predicates, such as thinking (lines 7-8), assigning medical/personal conditions to the character (lines 14-26), casting one another into relevant characters (lines 66-76), to name a few. What is also worth noting is how the students dynamically shift the speaker roles of animator, figure, author, and principal displayed within this short segment of interaction. In doing so, they freely and swiftly cross the borders of four different worlds: the world being imagined and narrated (as figures), the story world to be performed (as animators), the world in which they are currently situated in narrating the story about Naomi (as the author and principal), and the world in which they are situated as participants in the drama activity (as language learners). In addition to the students’ multiple speaker roles crossing the different worlds (or frames in Goffman’s terms), another important point to note is that all the participants here seem to recognize one another as ratified hearers who all belong to the MCD (Membership Categorization Device) of L2 education with drama-based pedagogy. As heard in the case of Aki, the students seemed to be recognized as ratified by one another (even when they were not directly and explicitly addressed) as anyone was welcome to take up the speaker’s role agentively and voluntarily by exercising their right to speak. Even those, such as Jin and Yuna, who are not prominently audible for this moment of interaction are found to display their timely audible contributions with their relevant suggestions and questions in the latter part of the interaction. In and through this constant shift between ratified hearers and multiple speaker roles (as the author, figure, animator, and principal), all the members collaboratively achieve the construction of developing versions of the story about Naomi. Importantly, such a collaborative co-construction of the story about Naomi by all the students as ratified  150 participants demonstrably occasioned a MCD of a collaborative story-making community in the ESL classroom. Everybody’s voice was heard, negotiated, and affirmed, which Cummins and Early (2011) argue is an important feature of an empowering learning community in classrooms.  Viewed in this light, two important insights can be drawn. First, it is important to recognize that a collaborative learning community could mean that all participants in classrooms are affirmed by and affirm one another as ratified participants (whether they are addressed or unaddressed as audibly witnessed in this classroom episode). Another important point to note is that, as heard in this episode in the drama-based ESL classroom, the distinction between addressed and unaddressed participants seems to have little or no significance because in the group discussion, everyone was ratified. This has important theoretical implications. As Goodwin (2007) points out, Goffman’s notion of the speaker and the hearer stemmed from a theoretical understanding of each in isolation without seeing them located in dialogical and interactive social settings. The analysis of this episode demonstrates how the speaker and the hearer are always in dialogic interaction. Informed by this interactive understanding of the speaker and the hearer, in drama-based classrooms, one can argue that it is likely that participants can all be ultimately all (addressed) ratified participants even when they are seen as unaddressed in spoken interaction. Understood this way, the above episode from this particular lesson in the drama-based classroom empirically describes how a collaborative learning community where the voices of the students as ratified participants were affirmed and negotiated was interactionally and momentarily achieved as the students engaged in the process of story-making.  Students’ high engagement with the story-making is further evidenced during the actual performed court trial. The following extracts represent part of the last day of the four day trial lesson where Naka speaks as a witness for the defence side by enacting a character of Naomi’s best friend. Naka is being questioned by a lawyer from the defence side performed by Kona. In response to Kona’s question, Naka begins to offer a relatively lengthy account about Naomi (and Reina, who the students in the defence team created as a devil character living in Naomi).  151 Extract 2: Naomi and Reina was Existed 01 Naka: ((slowly and calmly)) She said that (0.5) umm (0.3) she said that Reina  02 believes me because I am the best friend of Naomi. Actually Reina like loves  03 loves Naomi, and Reina wants to protect Naomi from doctors because Reina is  04 afraid of sharp things, but doctor (0.5) when doctor tried to tried to cure her,    05 doctor used sharp things, so (1.0) Reina Reina get angry and tried to (0.3) tried  06 to protect Naomi from doctors. So (2.0) mmm, (3.5) 07 Kona: ((stands and speaks calmly and seriously) So can I confirm that (1.5) ummm::::  08 the (1.0) Naomi and- ah Reina was existed from uh (0.3) kindergarten? [or before- 09 Teacher: ((corrects Kona’s grammatical error)) They existed,] you don’t need passive  10 voice= 11 Kona: ((sounds somewhat unenthusiastic)) [Yeah hehhh, 12 Teacher: They existed] 13 Kona: So::: Ermmmm::: (1.5) that’s a (.) mmm (1.0) the (1.2) many children   14 played role (0.5) [uh plays the (1.0) 15 John: Role play] 16 ((the teacher and a few students also echo role play, immediately after John)) 17 Kona: [Yeah] role play (0.5) was after The extract begins with the question by Kona concerning the relationship between Naomi and Naka (speaking as Naomi’s best friend). Kona’s standing posture and calm, serious tone, and orientation to her pretended lawyer footing. In lines 1-6, Naka provides a very detailed and carefully articulated answer expressed with occasional pauses and a low yet careful and serious tonal quality, which may index her strong orientation to her pretended witness footing. In doing so, together with other unaddressed ratified participants in the as-if court space, Naka and Kona co-construct what can be recognizable as a pretended court trial frame in the drama world for the moment. Important to attend to is how Naka and Kona establish themselves as belonging to the members of the make-believe court trial world (i.e., as a lawyer and a witness) by occasioning the bound predicates such as Kona’s self-initiated standing posture as a lawyer during the testimony (line 1-16), using relatively formal register such as “can I confirm that…” (line 7), providing a lengthy detailed testimony (lines 1-6),  152 and attentive listening to one another throughout the testimony. By doing so, their categorical work displays their creativity and cultural competence in constructing the court story world by making relevant predicates associated with the categories of the court trial MCD (e.g., postures, obligations, activities, speaking tonal quality of court trial participants, etc.). In terms of Goffman’s production format, it can be claimed that as animators of the figures (i.e., Naomi’s best friend and the lawyer respectively), Naka and Kona successfully present and perform the story they intersubjectively agreed on. In doing so, they present themselves as the co-authors (as well as the principal) of the emerging story that the entire class has constructed and negotiated over the past four days. While engaged in the story-making and telling practice as the animators, authors, and principals in this beginning sequence of the talk, interesting categorical work was done in the subsequent interaction. Following Naka’s response, Kona goes on to ask another question in line 7: “Can I confirm that Naomi, ah Reina, existed from kindergarten?” This can be heard as her attempt to achieve a clearer intersubjective understanding between herself and Naka as well as with all other ratified hearers in the court drama world. This can also be heard as a rhetorical move to substantiate her upcoming argument that Naomi suffered double personality problems from her childhood. In other words, Kona simultaneously serves as the animator (who speaks the words of the lawyer), the author (who creates a version of the larger story about Naomi), and the principal (who is committed to a version of the story being narrated). In and through her turn, Kona exercises her agency to influence and shape an intersubjective understanding about Naomi and Reina among all involved in the imaginary court trial. Importantly, in animating her figure as a lawyer, she exhibits a strong orientation to her pretended lawyer footing (category) by making reflective and contextually-relevant lexico-grammatical choices in accordance with the frame of a fictional court trial. She uses a relatively formal phrase, “can I confirm that,” while speaking in a calm and firm tone, standing to talk.  It is important to note that the pretended court trial frame is unexpectedly shifted by the teacher when she interrupts Kona’s talk in line 9 in order to correct Kona’s grammatical mistake by saying “no, they existed. You don’t need passive voice” (lines 9-10). For the moment, the teacher displays a shift in her footing from a pretend judge to a language  153 instructor through her other-initiated and other-complete repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977), which is a common instructional practice in L2 classrooms. With the teacher’s shift in footing, the omnirelevant MCD of language education is invoked temporarily, and the membership of conventional language instructor category and its standard relational pair category namely student are made relevant. Such teachers’ spontaneous interruption for repair is often considered a normative teaching practice and teacher script in L2 traditional classroom discourse where a teacher often holds power to manage turn taking practices (cf. Hellerman, 2011; Kasper, 1985; Nunan, 1989; Seedhouse, 2004; Van Lier, 1988). Nonetheless, Kona does not indicate any appreciative response to the correction. Conventionally, acknowledging a teachers’ oral feedback by either repeating or showing a verbal or non-verbal sign of appreciation is a bound predicate for the conventional learner category (Kasper, 1985; Van Lier, 1988). However, such a learner membership category seems to be rejected here. That is, for the moment, the teacher locally occasioned the MCD of a language classroom which values accurate usage of linguistic forms. In doing so, the teacher cast Kona into a language learner category. However, Kona showed her resistance to this momentarily locally occasioned learner category and, instead, interactionally managed to maintain her lawyer category by not uptaking the teacher’s recast and correction immediately and rather choosing to continue with her testimony. Consequently, the omnirelevant conventional language instruction frame is not achieved collectively by all the participants, but the frame of pretended court trial is resumed and sustained. This can be taken as evidence for Kona’s high engagement with the story-making rather than with the practice of accuracy-oriented language learning. Alternatively, this could also be understood with reference to Goffman’s the notion of the principal who is committed to his or her words or ideas. Kona’s resistance may display her authority and commitment to the ideas and words that she is animating.  Interestingly, later in the extract, Kona is again interrupted, but this time by her fellow group mate, John, followed by some others in the classroom (lines 15-16), when she appears to struggle to articulate her statement or question, marked by cut-offs, pauses, and hesitations (lines 13-14). This time, she seems to acknowledge and welcome the interruption as indexed by her immediate repetition of what John uttered. This suggests her orientation to her pretend lawyer footing and/or to her collaborative story-maker footing.   154 As discussed above, Kona and Naka’s categorical work make evident how they occasion and recognize their identities as fully engaged in the drama activity where they actively participate in making and telling a co-constructed story about the character they co-created, Naomi. Likewise, students’ strong commitment to the story and their high engagement with the authoring practice is demonstrably evident in the following extract taken from the last group discussion before the final testimony of the trial as they raise questions, respond critically and creatively to issues and problems, work collaboratively to solve problems and make decisions, and reflect on their learning and their choice of actions.  Extract 3: Backstage Talk ((The class just finished the testimony of Naka. The teacher is giving an instruction while the students start talking among themselves.)) 01 John: ((jokingly, to Aki)) When did you kill three times heh? They made      02 another victim. 03 ((the other students and the teacher are talking)) 04 SS: [heheheh 05 Kona: ((talking to Aki)) I don’t know about her past] 06 John: ((talking to someone)) [Can you make another ( )] 07 ((students’ laughters in the background)) SS: hehe 08 Teacher: ((talking to the both sides)) [Two more witnesses, which is a witness for you  09 and a witness for them, which is Naomi herself So ((turning to Naka)) you may step  10 down now 11 ((some students whisper))] 12 Teacher: ((talking to Naka)) Well done. ((turns to the defence team)) May I    13 have your witness? 14 John: ((continues talking to someone in the group)) [They make another victim  15 (inaudible) 16 Kona: ((speaking to Aki)) [This is all about double personality] 17 Aki: ( ) 18 John: ((welcoming Naka back to her seat)) [Naka, good job 19 Kona: ((talking to Aki)) Just you black out] because of memory lack. Lacking   155 20 memory, because I am Reina, so she wanted to cure the, but memory lacking. 21 Naka: So does Naomi know about the disease ( ) 22 Mary: Mmm. 23 ((Teacher talks to another student in the background.)) 24 Ss: (laugh) 25 Yuna: Complicated. 26 Kona: ((laughing and talking to perhaps to Aki)) [Either that’s you- 27 John: How about] just she said that sorry and I want to cure= 28 Aki: =Okay 29 John: And just answer (.) answer about our question and then ((glancing at the other   30 group)) their question. Just that you first mention about the sorry and I want to cure  31 my disease. 32 Aki: ((approvingly)) Okay okay. 33 John: [Okay? 34 Aki: Okay.] As represented in the transcript above, Naka steps down as her testimony finishes, and the teacher makes an announcement about the next procedure: “Two more witnesses, which is a witness for you and a witness for them, which is Naomi herself. you may step down now” (lines 08-10); “Well done. May I have your witness?” (line 12). This indexes her shifting from her judge footing to a facilitator or director of the play within the directing frame (where she facilitates and directs the procedures of the improvisational play). This drama direction frame coincides with the group collusion/discussion frame, which is considered by Goffman (1981) as backstage talk. What is interesting is how the students immediately shift from the drama character/court audience footings (i.e., animators) to collaborative story-maker footing (i.e., authors) again within the frame of group collusion and discussion. This backstage talk or underlife script (which is often considered as irrelevant to official talk) (Goffman, 1981; Guetierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995) by the students is not irrelevant to the official talk by the teacher that goes on in the classroom. In fact, it is closely related to the official talk. As demonstrated in the extract, without hesitation and teacher’s guidance/direction, the students in the defence team (including Aki, Kona, Naka, John, Mary, and Yuna) immediately and voluntarily resume their attention back to their group discussion  156 to work out a testimony for Naomi who is scheduled to speak in the next few minutes as the last speaker of the entire court trial. This is indexed by their being less attentive to the teacher’s ongoing announcement. Instead of attending to the teacher, John makes comments related to Naka’s testimony (lines 1 and 14) and welcomes Naka (line 18) while at the same time Kona and Aki are engaged in discussing Aki’s upcoming testimony (lines 5-20). Halfway through the interaction (lines 19-34), every member in the group resumes their attention to the group discussion as they shift immediately to a collaborative story-maker footing as their leading lawyers, Kona and John, make suggestions with regards to the next testimony of Naomi (performed by Aki). They collaborate to work out the testimony of Naomi, which the students know will be critical to the final judgement. Aki, as an addressed ratified hearer, is carefully attending to what others say to make sure she understands well enough what the whole group jointly produces regarding the murder mystery story. In lines 16 and 19-20, Kona makes a suggestion that the story is all about Naomi’s double personality (as Naomi and Reina) and thus Naomi would not need to remember anything about what Reina had done to Naomi. In lines 27 and 29-31, John suggests that Aki should just answer that she is sorry about what happened and that she should answer “yes” if he asks the question, “do you want to be cured?” As indexed by her immediate response in a small yet firm tone (line 28, 32, and 34), Aki attends carefully to what the group suggests to her as the animator of the figure, Naomi, which may suggest her orientation to a respectful and collaborative group participant category (who understands the vital role that she would play as the animator of a particular figure of Naomi that the group is co-creating). Viewed from membership categorical work perspectives, students’ engagement with collaborative story-making is demonstrated more evidently as their cooperative story maker category membership is used, occasioned, and reinforced during this group discussion on the last day of the four day improvised court trial. Specifically, the collaborative story-maker category is exhibited in and through the predicates, such as being able to critically identify the thematic nature of the narrative about Naomi with double personality issues (line 16), self-initiated questions and self motivated suggestions (lines 21-31, by Naka, Kona, and John), encouraging and acknowledging Naka’s successful telling of the jointly constructed story (line 18), Aki’s determined and firm agreement with the group accompanied with attentive listening (lines 28-34), and joint self-guided group discussion without the teacher’s  157 intervention. Importantly, this categorical work contributes to the display and construction of students’ identities as competent and collaborative drama participants engaged in making and telling a believable story for the purpose of winning the imaginary court trial.  Students’ engagement with the collaborative story-making practice is culminated in the final moment of the court trial scene with the last testimony of Naomi (performed by Aki). The analysis below will demonstrate that this time, importantly, the students’ identity work is extended in a way that the students are positioned as not only collaborative story-makers/tellers but also those who are agentive and creative. As witnessed in the above episode, the defence side has jointly co-constructed the narrative for Naomi for the final testimony, and Aki is now on the stand, animating the figure of Naomi. In what follows, as previously consented by her group (as described in the previous episode), Aki begins answering the pre-planned questions from Kona and John (two lawyers for the defence side). As represented in the transcribed episode below, through her highly dramatic performance as Naomi with double personality disorder, Aki engages all the audience in the court story including the researcher sitting in the corner listening closely to what is going on. However, as demonstrated in the transcript of the episode below, the audience was engaged not just because of how well Aki dramatically performs as the animator but more importantly because of how competently she exercised her agency, competence, and creative power to spontaneously (re)construct the story in the unfolding moment-to-moment interaction at hand. Extract 4: I am not Naomi ((Aki is sitting at the center for the final testimony of the court trial. The lawyers [John and Kona] from the defence side are asking questions)) 01 John: ((standing and talking firmly)) Naomi, do you wanna talk something? 02 Aki: Yeah. ((shily)) Uh. 03 ((some starts laughing, followed by some others’ laughter. Perhaps this might  04 be a reaction to how Aki looks shy or uncomfortable, answering the question.  05 Alternatively, it might be because of Aki’s dramatic performance as Naomi.)) 06 Ben: ((laughs loud)) 07 Mary: Hahahaha.  158 08 Ss: ((laugh)) Hahahaha. 09 Aki: ((try to swallow laughter)) First of all, ((in a controlled and reserved tone))  10 I am very sorry about her death. But umm (2.0) I don’t uh- remember anything  11 about this. (1.0) Sometimes (0.7) I lose my memory, so (1.0) I don’t know    12 about even acting myself. (2.0) yah. 13 (3.0) 14 ((there is some laughter, but it is unclear whose laughter is))  15 Teacher: ((turning to the defence side)) You have other questions? 16 Kona: ((stands up)) I think you::: heard about Reina (1.0) this, uh the first time  17 in this trial and how do you feel about Reina now? 18 Aki: ((in a serious and confused low tone)) I’m really confused now  19 Kona: Ermm hm. 20 Aki: becau:::se:::se:: (0.5) I have never met (1.0) Reina, and mm (1.5) So,  21 Kona: Umm, 22 Aki: I don’t have idea about this. I am very [confused now. 23 Kona: ((in an empathetic tone)) Mmm] yah. 24 Aki: I (0.5) I can’t believe [really 25 Kona: mmm Okay] 26 ((Heavy silence for a few seconds)) 27 John: ((talks seriously, standing)) Do you want to cure about your (1.0) disease?  28 Aki: (2.0) Mmm (4.0) 29 ((Kona whispers to someone near her)) 30 SS: ((a few small chuckles break the silence)) [hehe] 31 ((some students follow laughing, watching Aki acting. Someone claps)) 32 Kona: ((in a small worried tone)) [Don’t cry 33 SS: Hehehe] 34 Teacher: ((in a humorously crying, empathetic voice)) You could talk,  35 Aki: No 36 Teacher: You don’t want to be cured ((in a tear-filled voice)) 37 Aki: ((in a firm tone)) No. mmm. 38 ((some students gasp in surprise))  159 39 Aki: ((acting in a confused, trembling tone)) I don’t know. 40 SS: ((surprised)). Huh? 41 Aki: (in a trembling voice)) I don’t ((perhaps looking down)) I don’t know 42 Teacher: ((in a genuinely worried tone)) Are you all right? (laughing)  43 Aki: (in a dramatic slightly louder voice) I am not I am not Naomi now. 44 Teacher: (surprised) Huh. 45 SS: (surprised) Uh (loud in chorus) uh:::: ohhh::: 46 Teacher: ((in a loud voice)) order ((tapping the table)) order order.  47 SS: ((laugh)) 48 Teacher: ((turns to Aki and asks clearly)) Are you Reina? 49 Aki: ((seriously)) I am Reina. As displayed in the transcribed episode above where Aki (speaking in role as Naomi) is being questioned by John and Kona (speaking in role as lawyers for the defence team), they all together produce the script, which they agreed on in the previous group discussion (as displayed in Extract 3). Aki animates the figure of Naomi as marked by her carefully altered pitch, slow speech, body postures, enacted trembling voice, and lexico grammatical choices (e.g., I am very sorry; I can’t remember; I am confused). Similarly, Kona and John also seem to display and construct their pretended lawyer category by asking questions in a formal serious manner (e.g., standing posture, asking questions in confident and unhesitating manner, speaking in a clear calm and firm tone, which are predicates bound to their lawyer category) in lines 1, 16, 17, and 27. Such ways of interacting can be heard as implicitly categorizing themselves and the audience into engaged participant categories bound to the court drama world at play for the moment.  The students’ high engagement as the animators (i.e., Naomi and lawyers) in a version of the story about Naomi (to which they are also committed as the principals and co-authors) is further evident when Aki handles the question from John in line 27. Up to this point, Aki seems to reproduce and animate the collectively planned group’s script. This pattern changes when John asks the question concerning whether she wants to be cured (line 27). Interestingly, instead of the collectively prescribed answer “yes,” she unexpectedly changes her mind and gives a spontaneous answer: “no” (lines 35 and 37) after somewhat lengthy  160 hesitation (lines 28-34). This move startles many others in the drama space. She dramatically reconstructs the narrative about Naomi and changes the direction of the story. By creating her own individual script as the author and principal and performing it as an engaged animator, her competent, agentive, and creative story-maker category is displayed and achieved for the moment. Interestingly, this individual new script created by Aki seems to be accepted by all the ratified hearers present in the story-authoring world including the defence team as there is no audible sign of interruption or resistance from them but just a rather genuine pleasant surprise in line 45. Then, Aki animates her Naomi character footing, creating a believable dramatic performance (i.e. competence and activity bound to an engaged, competent, and creative participant category of the drama-based L2 education MCD).  What is important to note here is that for the moment, it is only Aki who seems to hold the power of creating and telling the story. The rest of the audience, including the teacher, are not in a position of power and they are unsure what will come next. The exercise of such power and authority by Aki can be heard as emergent evidence of her categorical work as a creative, competent story-maker. As such a competent and creative animator and author (as well as the principal for the moment), Aki brings to the climax of the story about Naomi by saying in line 24, “I am not I am not Naomi now.” Aki’s dramatic and creative move startles all the ratified hearers (including the researcher genuinely engaged with the spontaneously unfolding story) present in the simultaneously co-occurring multiple worlds (i.e., the court drama world being animated, the story-authoring world being created, and the drama-based language education world in which the students are situated).  The above analysis of the four episodes demonstrates how the students in Nancy’s drama-based classroom categorize and are categorized as collaborative, competent, and creative members of multiple worlds of drama, story, and language learning, participating as ratified hearers and speaking as the author, the animator, and the principal in and through a moment-to-moment unfolding interaction.  Conclusion In this chapter, I have demonstrated how the micro-analysis of classroom interactions can shed light on the dynamic identity work through which the interactants in the context of  161 drama-based drama ESL classroom with adult learners interactions display, construct, and cultivate their identities as holders, makers, and tellers of stories. The micro-analytic lenses have allowed a nuanced and deeper insight into how they were interactionally engaged in the meaning-making practices (that were recognizable as court trials) where they raised questions, made decisions, constructed a cohesive story, attempted to accurately choose contextually situated lexicogrammatical items, collaborated together to respond to an issue, question critically and creatively, and reflected on their decisions.  This can also be understood with reference to Goffman’s notion of different modes of the speaker, the animator, the author, and the principal which Goffman states can form the production format of the utterance. The nuanced and locally produced utterances afforded in these classrooms can be characterized by many moments of the classes where the students (as the animator) had to deliver and perform the words and stories, that they (as the author) created and they were committed (as the principal). That is, the students in these classrooms can be heard as belonging to (the MCD of) a creative story-rich drama based learning community which constitutes and is constitutive of the interplay of three essential parties: the animator, the author, and the principal. This is significant in the L2 experiences of these adult students because in many conventional language classrooms especially for adults, it is often normative to observe students as limited as a membership category as a reader or learner of words and stories of others, or, in Goffman’s terms, often just as the animator of the words and stories of others only. The kinds of meaning making practices that the students were engaged in these classrooms could potentially contribute to the cultivation of students as inquirers (Fels & Belliveau, 2008), plurilingual meaning-makers (Lin, 2013), or identities of competence (Manyak, 2004) and confidence (Cummins & Early, 2011). Such identity work has critical implications for L2 classrooms. Drama-based instruction can contribute to the co-construction and promotion of what Gutierese, Rymes, and Larson (1995) called the unscripted third space, which transcends the monologic, dominant teacher script that is often present in L2 classrooms. The unscripted third space brings the convergence of student and teacher scripts. The third space will be filled with both students’ and teachers’ voices that mediate learning and contribute to the curriculum as social practice. After all, it can contribute to creating a strong sense of a responsive and productive heteroglossia  162 (Bakhtin, 1986) or dialogic and democratic interaction (Kao & O’Neill, 1998) in our classrooms where the voices of teachers and students co-exist as equally legitimate voices. From Cummins’ point of view, this third space can also be understood as what he calls an empowering interpersonal space where both teachers and students can be empowered through dialogic, democratic, and collaborative classroom interaction. Cummins (2001, 2003, 2009, 2011) argues that micro classroom interaction plays a crucial role in promoting empowerment for students and teachers in our classrooms. In the space with democratic, dialogic, and collaborative classroom interaction, power is collaboratively created and students’ identities are affirmed and can grow in dynamic interaction.  Informed by my ethnographic understanding in concert with the micro-analytic insights, I argue that educational drama may be (not the only or best way but) one powerful way of creating a space in L2 classrooms that promotes more engaging L2 learning journeys for students. I hope that this chapter has empirically shown how educational drama can contribute to creating such a space in L2 classrooms.  Summary In this chapter, in response to the second research question concerning the impact of educational drama on students’ L2 development, I have provided an in-depth participant-oriented micro-analysis of four episodes of classroom interaction from one section of the drama course. In tandem with autoethnographic accounts presented in the previous chapters (Chapters 5-7), this micro-level discourse analysis allowed a participant-oriented account of what went on in ESL classrooms with educational drama. This micro-analytic account has enriched my ethnographic understanding of how the students were positioned in and through dialogic and democratic classroom interaction afforded by educational drama. In the next chapter, I will respond to the third research question, “how is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students?” in the form of a participant-listening-driven radio drama play in and through which students’ self-described perceptions and reflections on their learning journey in the classes will be dramatized.    163 Chapter 9: It Was Like Really Uncomfortable But Kind of Comfortable: An Ethnographically-Informed Radio Play Script Before Reading/Listening This chapter can be read/heard as a scholarly and methodological effort to answer the third research question: How is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students in the focal classes? Key findings concerning this research question will be represented in this chapter, using playwriting as a means to uncover other insights and understandings. Part of the findings dramatized in this chapter will also form the basis of pedagogical insights that will be discussed in the next chapter in response to the fourth and final research question: What pedagogical insights can be drawn for adult ESL classes incorporating educational drama?  I consider the primary purpose of this ethnographically-informed play script as a reflexive, dynamic, and artistic expression that speaks (about and to) students’ voices concerning their learning experiences in the course as heard/felt/perceived by the researcher as a participant listener in this qualitative inquiry. Also, another central purpose of this chapter is to bring to light potential pedagogic challenges of drama-based L2 instruction in ways that can reach out to a wider range of audiences in a more engaging and accessible manner. With these purposes in view, I have framed this chapter as a radio drama play. In composing this play script, I have listened closely to the research data that related to pedagogical issues, students’ resistance, and their reactions towards L2 learning through drama (see Chapter 4 for a detailed description of the process of playwriting). Then, the research data and the key findings concerning students’ self-described perceptions of their learning experiences were transformed into a dramatic dialogue as part of the play script. I have kept the actual research participants as characters (but used pseudonyms for their anonymity). While the plot is fictional (although the news about the closure of the drama-based course was ethnographically informed), the dialogue reflects the perceptions of a majority of students and teachers towards drama-based ESL classes as described and represented in the data (e.g., interviews, survey questionnaires, and field notes). The majority of the dialogue is verbatim based. Especially, this was the case for the students’ lines with an aim to better represent  164 their nuanced accounts. Characters: Intermediate-level adult ESL students; two drama-based ESL teachers (Nancy and Nick); and the researcher (Won Kim) Act 1: The news Scene 1: Conference presentation room (In the midst of noise in the audience, the researcher, Won Kim, stands in front of the conference room to begin a presentation. Won checks his talking watch for time to begin his talk.) Won: (after a deep breath and with a confident smile) Thank you everyone for coming to this talk entitled “It Was Really Uncomfortable but Kind of Comfortable: An Ethnographically-Informed Radio Drama Play of Adult ESL Classes with Educational Drama.” I hope that this radio drama play will be heard as a version of the soundscape of the vibrant voices and lived experiences of the students and teachers I have heard and experienced as a participant listener in adult ESL classrooms with educational drama. What will unfold in and through this ethnodrama is a story about multiple sections of one drama-based ESL course that seem to have significance in diverse ways for hundreds of adult English learners and the two teachers, Nancy and Nick, in their L2 educational journeys. The play captures some of the voices of the teachers and students as they react to their experiences with the course, which might be discontinued after more than 25 years. (After a brief pause, I look around the audience.) So, I now invite you to close your eyes, but make sure to keep your ears wide open to listen.  Scene 2: The classroom (Nancy and the students stand in a circle, facing one another in the center space of the classroom.) Nancy: (with a proud smile) Wow, it’s already been 16 weeks. Whew, it’s hard to believe how fast the term flew by. You are all now 16 weeks older than before. Ben, you definitely look older (laughs). (scattered grins around the circle of the students)  165 Nancy: It’s been a great time with you all. I won’t forget the imaginative dramatic worlds we’ve entered together over the term. Before we say goodbye, could I ask you guys to stretch your imagination (pauses and looks around the students) one last time? Yesterday, I asked you to write a short letter to your future self, yourself in 10 years from now. (looks around and finds Kevin, smiling) Shall we begin with Kevin? Can we hear your letter, Kevin? Kevin: Sure. (clears his throat) Humm. Here’s my letter.  (all attend to Kevin, wondering) Kevin: Hi Kevin, I heard that you have become a business man traveling all around the world. I am proud of you because I know how much you didn’t like studying English, not until you took that drama class in Canada. You told me you came to like to learn English for the first time with that class. Now you are communicating with the world in English as a business man. Well done! Students: (smile and clap) Sara: Hi Sara, It has been 10 years since I saw you in the drama class in Canada. You wanted to learn English to get closer to your dream. You always want to be a volunteer to help children. You wanted to join an international volunteer group after you had been to China and Indonesia and seen many people in need. You wanted to do something to help them. You have made your dream come true.  Sharon: (smiles shyly and reads her letter) Dear Sharon, today I just read a book translated by you from English. You made it! I was so impressed when I saw your name printed on the book. I am very happy for you as I know how much you wanted to become a translator of English and Japanese or Korean. When you were studying English in Canada, you often told me that you would want to speak fluently like native speakers and translate written work. I don’t know whether you’ve now become like a native speaker, but perhaps it doesn’t really matter. You should be proud of your name printed on the book as a translator. Nancy: Lovely! Anybody else? (finds Yuki, looking down shyly, and gently asks her) Yuki, can we hear your letter? Yuki: (hesitates, shyly lifts her head up) Nancy: (gently) Yuki?  Yuki: Okay. (after a deep breath, starts reading her letter in a small yet cheerful voice) Hello, Yuki, you must be now 50 years old. We met 10 years ago when you came to Canada to  166 study English. I remember you were very stressed and down at that time. You told me how much you once wanted to become an actress when you finished your high school, but you dropped the dream down. You told me that you felt tired from busy and complex relationships your life had brought to you in Japan and left for Canada for studying English. In your quiet and gentle voice, you talked about your new dream of becoming an English teacher for children in Japan. At that moment, I remember how young you sounded. You sounded like a 20 year old with full of hope. I remember how much you tried to break your shyness and get out of the nest you were in. You wanted to be part of every moment of the class even if I couldn’t hear your shy voice all the time. I remember your laughter after finishing your acting in front of the whole class. I remember when you humbly said you were inspired by your younger classmates going for their dreams. You said you promised to yourself that you’d think about your future again more seriously. You did it. You did keep your promise to yourself. I heard that now you are teaching English to kids in Japan. You made it. I am very proud of you, Yuki. (Nancy and the students remain in brief pause. Then, a few students start clapping, smiling, and warmly patting Yuki on the back) Scene 3: School hallway (The teacher, Nancy, stands in front of the meeting room with her face down. The other drama teacher, Nick, walks to her, looking concerned.)  Nick: (concerned) How did it go? Nancy: (looks down and sighs) Nick: (slowly takes a sip of his coffee and seems concerned) Well. Can I (hesitates) um get you some coffee or something? Nancy: Oh, I am alright. Thanks. Looks like the drama class won’t be with us any longer. Nick: Emm. Nancy: Yah. Nick: 27 years. It’s been 27 years since you started the course. Nancy: I know. 27 years of teaching this drama class. Over 100 different sections of the class. Nick: This was the only class, the only class of its kind with drama, story, conversations, movement, and imagination in the program. Nancy: (nods)  167 Nick: What did you tell them? Nancy: Well, I just told them, you know, how much students have been enjoying it, how much we loved teaching it, and how it could foster students’ fluency, engagement and confidence to speak. I told them what we’ve learned from working with students on a daily basis over the last 27 years as an instructor about the positive—  Nick: Impact! The impact that drama can bring, right? Nancy: (looks at her classroom across the hallway) Exactly? Nick: What did they say? Nancy: (resigned) They told me that they had saved the drama class for me for more than 25 years in spite of all the changes to the programs.  Nick: Saved it for you. It was not for you. (turns to students chatting across the hallway) It was for students, for student enriched learning. Nancy: Well, I know the school has been trying to reform the program, also for students. They want to develop it as more academic and more structured. They think that I shouldn’t be afraid of change. Nick: Afraid of change? What change? Change for whom? Nancy: (sighs) Nick: You know this is not about being afraid of change! This is about taking away a unique learning opportunity from students you and I know from our hearts, the learning that has been offered to hundreds of students over numerous years as one powerful way of learning and experiencing languages. (pauses) We know it works. Nancy: Well, (still looks at the classroom across the hallway) honestly, (pauses) I felt resigned, just resigned. They don’t think there is room for courses like the drama class. I couldn’t say a word. I didn’t know how to respond when I was told that learning outcomes of the drama class are not measurable, not in line with the direction of the skill-oriented academic programs. Nick: Why don’t both of us talk to the school again to reconsider the—? Nancy: (shakes her head) I doubt it’ll have any impact. The decision won’t change. I don’t know how to describe in words how I feel, but I feel kind of a bit disheartened, thinking this term might be the last term for the course. Too bad but we won’t be able to give them the same experience any more.  168 Nick: I know. Nancy: (checks the time) I should get going. I have a class at 1. Nick: All right. Take care Nancy! Scene 4: Teacher’ office (Nancy sits in the sofa and looks through letters and documents in a dusty box. She picks up and reads a card from her previous students.) Mary: I really like Nancy. I like how she teaches. I learned about acting. Sometimes during the class, I can act another person, so kind of dream come true because I was interested in going to acting school….so not real me stay in this class. (A soundtrack of a previous lesson plays in the background; the soundtrack captures a scene where Mary performed in one drama activity in front of the class.)  (Nancy continues to read card messages from Miyuki and others.) Miyuki: I think you are the best teacher. You always tried to relieve my shyness. You gave me power to speak English even though I used wrong grammar, but I learned trying to speak is important. I don’t feel nervous speaking English any more, it is a big deal for me.  Yuna: Thank you for the course. I could improve my English skills. With the course, I could enjoy my school life. I was happy to meet this class. (Nick knocks on the door and takes a seat across from Nancy.) Nick: What are those? Look like cards from your students? Nancy: Yeah. This one is from the class about 2 years ago. I remember these guys. Cool kids. Nick: Can I take a look? (reads the card) Wow, I can tell they really had a good time. (He picks up another card from the box). How about this one?  (a sound track of another lesson plays; the soundtrack captures the sound of students’ lively conversations and laughter in groups) Naka: Thanks for your sense of humour, the atmosphere of the class was always good. You never made fun of students’ mistakes, but helped us find fun in making mistakes. We felt free to make mistakes in your class. I was happy talking and acting with my classmates.  Nancy: I was also happy with these guys, too. (notices a thank you card in Nick’s hand) What is in your hand? Nick: (smiles) Well, I’m not as popular as you, but I’ve also just got a card from the class this term. We just had lunch all together after our last class this morning.   169 (a sound track of Nick’s lesson plays; the energetic voice of Nick announcing the beginning of the Christmas drama performance of the students to the public audience with music in the background is captured in the soundtrack) Maggie: I feel sad because some of my classmates will leave. I also feel sad that the class is over. This session is special. Nick, I appreciated you. You gave us a lot of opportunities to learn. You are fun, and every time you led us through an attractive class and boosted our motivation.  Sally: I don’t wanna say goodbye. I will just say thank you. I am really glad to meet you and all my classmates. Also, I will not forget everything. So I want to tell I am thankful to everyone. (another soundtrack of Nick’s class lesson plays; the soundtrack captures the sound of students’ group work on making a story to perform) David: Thank you everyone for the nice time I’ve had here with you guys. I’ll never forget this memory. Thanks and See you again. Scene 5: Cafeteria (Nancy waits in line to order at a cafeteria and finds Ben, her former student, standing in front of her.) Nancy: (taps on Ben’s shoulder) Hey, you must be Ben. Ben: (Looks back) Uh, (smiling) Oh hi Nancy. Nancy: How are you Ben? Here for lunch? Ben: Yes. You too? Nancy: Yeah, I often come here for a quick bite. They’ve got some good sandwiches. Ben: I know. Also they are cheap too. Nancy: Oh, it is your turn to order. (both pick up their order and find a table together) Ben: (takes a sip of his coffee) So, do you have any plans for a Christmas break? Nancy: (takes a big bite of her sandwich) Well, I am planning to go to a concert before I fly away to my sister’s place in Carolina for Christmas. Ben: Concert? (smiles and speaks in a teasing tone) I know what concert you will go to. Steve’s, right? Nancy: Hahaha. You got it! I am his big fan, and this will be his 14th concert I see. How  170 about you? Ben: Wow, 14th! Well, I don’t have special plans. I will probably live in the library. I’ve got a TOEFL exam coming next month. Nancy: Oh, well, it doesn’t sound very exciting as mine. (smiles) Good luck with it. Make sure you take some break though! Ben: Yeah, (smiles) I’ll try. By the way, thank you for the class. I really enjoyed it. I didn’t want to miss your class even once.  Nancy: Thank you. I am glad that you enjoyed it. I enjoyed teaching that class as well.  Ben: Actually I took the class because a friend of mine who took your class a few years ago recommended it to me. Now I understand why he did. In fact, I’ve also recommended another friend of mine who is looking for a class next term. Nancy: I am flattered. (puts down her coffee cup) But unfortunately the drama class won’t be offered next term. Ben: Really? You are taking a vacation next term? Nancy: No, I will be here, but teaching different courses. (sighs lightly) The thing is that the school will change its program, and some courses including the drama class won’t be offered any more. Ben: (disappointed) That’s too bad because I really like that class.  Scene 6: Bus stop (Ben finds Yuki waiting for a bus to downtown.) Ben: Hey, Yuki! Yuki: Hi Ben. How are you? Ben: Good. You going downtown? Yuki: Yah, I’ve got to go shopping for souvenirs to bring to Japan. Ben: I see. (looks to where buses are coming from) When are you going back to Japan? Yuki: (also checks if buses are coming) Soon after Christmas. Ben: That’s very soon. Are you coming to the Christmas dinner this Saturday? Yuki: Of course. I can’t miss it. Do you know if everyone is coming? Ben: I know some of us can’t come as they are leaving tomorrow, but hopefully everyone else will. Yuki: How about Nancy?  171 Ben: She said that she can’t make it as she’s already booked a flight for Steve’s concert in Toronto this weekend. Yuki: (with a smile) She really likes Steve. Ben: Yah, I just ran into her at the cafeteria this afternoon, and she looked excited about the concert. Ah, by the way, have you heard about the drama class? Yuki: What about it? Ben: Nancy told me that the drama class won’t be offered any more. Our class will be the last one. Yuki: Last one? Really? Why? Ben: I don’t know, but it looks like the program will change. Yuki: Nancy must be sad. Ben: Yah, I think so. Yuki: I feel sad too. I really had a great time in the class. It made me really interested in learning English. I also felt like more confident about myself. Ben: You know what? I feel the same way. It’s too bad if we would have to be the last students of the class. Yuki: Is there anything we can do to keep the course in the program as students? Ben: Maybe not. You know it’s the school’s decision, and we are just students. Yuki: (resigned) Maybe so. Act 2: Tensions Scene 7 Christmas dinner (Students from the drama course get together for Christmas dinner. With music and noise in the background, the students talk about the class.) Joe: Merry Christmas everyone! I can’t believe the term is already over. Time went by so fast. I really enjoyed our class. I met a lot of friends (shyly) like you guys in this class. This class was different from other classes.  Mimi: Joe, I remember your funny dance. When I saw you the first time in the class, I thought you were a very quiet person, but your acting and dancing was very funny. Joe: Dancing? (smiles) Ah, I remember it. You are talking about the news cast scene with Amy, right?  172 Mimi: Yep, right. I think it was with Amy!  Amy: I remember it too. (smiles) It was our first performance. I remember we had to make a story about a man who couldn’t control himself. I think I was interviewing Joe on TV and something ridiculous happened to you. Joe was so funny. I remember we were nervous and confused when we were preparing for the performance. It was our first time to make a story and perform it in English. We were like, “how can we do this?” Then I remember, Joe, you just said “Let us just ad lib.” We both felt shy and embarrassed, but we did a really good job. After that, I felt like it is not too difficult to do it. Joe: Yah, making a story was always very difficult. Actually, I am very very shy. I felt very nervous when I performed in front of the class, but I thought to myself, let’s just do this. And I could become someone else, and I somehow felt fine to speak. Yuki: Me too. I don’t know why, but if I can change to someone, I feel like I can say everything. I am shy, but if I can be a different person, I have courage and then I can say.  Eva: Courage is something the drama class taught me too. In the beginning of my study here at the school, I set my goal as speaking like a native speaker. I really tried to participate actively in the class. The drama class gave me lots of opportunities to speak. I don’t think I have become like a native speaker, but (pauses and smiles) I feel more brave as an English speaker. Nari: I know what you mean. For me, I found role playing helpful in developing communication skills. Although I am not sure how much, but I think my English skills have improved than before.  Steve: As you know, in the class, we didn’t have enough time to think in our first language and we became more nervous. I think it was a good practice for us. Mimi: You are right. In the drama class, I didn’t have to think too carefully. In drama, it’s like someone said something, I had to say something as soon as I heard. We have almost no thinking time. Ben: I feel the same way. You know, speaking needs confidence. This class and the teacher help us relax. Although we are afraid of grammar rules, we were encouraged to say what we would want to say. Nancy always encouraged us to speak freely. If she said that we are wrong and need to say certain way, then it would not be good for us especially because Asian students don’t have too much experience to talk in English. We need to grow our confidence.  173 Joe: Interesting! Personally, that’s how I felt about the course too. You know I always wanted to get rid of my fear of speaking English (pauses and smiles shyly) I am too shy to communicate with native speakers of English. Sam: Whether you believe it or not, I am very shy, too. To learn to speak English, I also wanted to break that shyness. I thought the drama class could help me break my shyness. By the way, you know what? To be honest, although I now appreciate the course, in the first class, I wanted to change the course because I wasn’t sure whether the course would be helpful. But later I decided to give a chance to this class. Now I think I made a right decision. I was really very happy in the class. I noticed my confidence has improved.  Helen: That’s interesting, Sam, because I also wanted to drop the drama class at first. Actually, at first I tried to change the class because I thought it was unsuitable for me, but I failed to change the class. However, I’m really happy to stay in this class. If I had changed the class, definitely I would have regretted.  Sam: Oh, I see. (smiles) We were thinking about the same thing in the first week. Helen: Haha. Yah, I am glad that we all ended up staying. I really came to like the class even more towards the end. I really wanted to act something with you all more.  Maki: Yah, Helen, I remember how actively you participated in the drama scenes. For me, doing drama was also so fun. Especially, do you remember the court trial? I really enjoyed the court trial. If someone asks me to evaluate the course, I would gladly give 10 out of 10 points to the class.  Sara: For me, what was unique about this drama class was that there was the pressing urgency to say something in English. There was always a kind of pressure to perform. If I forget something, I can’t stop. I have to say something. I have to use my brain to produce something to keep the story going during the performance. Especially the pressure was higher when we were performing to outside audiences. For example I remember how nervous I was when we performed our Halloween story.  Sharon: I also remember that. Oh, I was so nervous before the performance. I was embarrassed that I would have to perform to higher level students and other teachers. That was my first experience to act in English in front of big audiences. But when I heard people laughing during our performance, I felt like “oh, this is not difficult.” I could overcome my fear.   174 Hemi: I know what you mean. I was scared during our performance, but I felt good when we were finished.  Sara: After that kind of performance, I kind of felt like, how can I say? It’s difficult to explain in English, but it felt like growing.  Sharon: Mmmm, growing. Mmm. Yah, right. Maybe I understand what you mean. At first I didn’t like performing in English, but it was kind of interesting how I felt after performances. It was like really uncomfortable but also kind of comfortable.  Scene 8: I liked it, but I didn’t like it (Esther and Yuki sit at a student lounge in the school and chat with their classmates from the previous drama class.) Esther: Thanks, guys, for your time. As you know at the Christmas party, some of us talked about writing a letter to the school to keep the drama class. Hopefully we can submit this soon to the school. Many of us have already put down their names to support this petition. You guys mentioned that you’d like some more time to think on this, and (hesitatingly) we were wondering if we could get your support too.  Yuki: Some of us have already left Canada, so we won’t be able to get everyone’s support, but with your support, we would then include almost all in the letter. (looks at Jane and others) Can you—  Jane: Not me. As you know, I didn’t want to participate even in Won’s research. I don’t also wanna be part of this.  Esther: Well, I know you didn’t consent to Won’s research, but this is not about his research. You know this is about whether we can keep this fun class for our friends and other future students. Jane: Fun class? It wasn’t for me. Sorry, I just don’t want to be part of anything. I didn’t like everything about this class. I like the teacher, but it wasn’t the class I wanted from the beginning. Sorry, but I think I should get going. Good luck with it. (Jane leaves abruptly. The students sit in awkward silence.) Esther: Well, I guess we should respect her decision. (some nod) Michael: Speaking of decision, to tell the truth, I wasn’t sure if I made a right decision about the course. Actually in the midterm, I thought I mischose the class. My friends in the other  175 classes told me that they studied how to make conversations or presentations, and they do it individually but in this class, the main way to study English was through acting with others. Umm, it was too much group work. I thought my friends in other classes improved their English more. From the midterm, I thought if I pass this class, I would like to move to an academic class. In there, I would do a presentation individually. In this drama class, I felt I relied on other students too much, so I felt it wasn’t good for me.  Yuki: What do you mean you relied on others too much? Michael: Sometimes I didn’t know what and how to say, and then I relied on others and asked them to speak. But in the academic or other general classes, students can’t rely on others. I think I will get more confidence if I don’t rely on others. Esther: Yah, individual work is helpful for your English, but you know group work is also useful especially in improving one’s fluency in speaking. In the drama class, we made a story and perform it together. Whether you want it or not, we had to participate with others and produce something. I think it gave us a little bit of pressure, but a good pressure we could enjoy I think. Michael: I know but don’t we do group work in other classes too! Esther: It is a bit different in this class though. Group work is usually little and short. It is often just to share our opinions rather than we actually do something. You know but in this class we should create something and act it out. Morrie: Mmmm, I agree with you. In group work in the drama class, everybody brings some ideas. It is a collaborative work. Michael: (not convinced) I understand, but I don’t feel like this class benefitted me much. Momo: (turns to Michael, nodding) Honestly, I have to agree with Michael. I think this class could be good for some students, but not for me. I didn’t like this class at all. I don’t feel that my English has improved in this class. The only time I liked was when we went to the lab and did listening exercises. I felt that in the class, we didn’t learn anything new. I felt the whole class depended on your own language. I would like to learn more new words, pronunciation, and spelling, and do more practice in the lab. I felt like I really improved so much after each lab time. Kona: I kind of hear you Momo. Personally I like the teacher and had fun in the class. However, I don’t feel like it’s helped my English. Sometimes, I wasn’t sure and wanted to  176 know what the objective of each activity was . I wish we we’d done more grammar and more vocabulary exercises. Esther: Well, but I think this class helped us to communicate with other people in different situations. We were encouraged to talk without worrying about errors. Don’t you like that I could move my body when I spoke to other people. I felt freer. Well, Nick always said, just talk. “It doesn’t matter your grammar is right or wrong.” Didn’t you feel like you’ve learned to be free about your speaking through this class?  Michael: Yah, this may be good for those students with no confidence in speaking. I think I’ve gained confidence too from this class. But if one wants to work on your English seriously, well, I don’t think I would recommend this course. Sharon: Mmm but wasn’t this class more enjoyable than other classes? Some of my friends told me that they said that their classes are a little bit boring because they do the same things almost everyday like small conversations and listening to a teacher or textbook CD, the same thing everyday. But in this class, we did something different everyday. We were talking, laughing, listening to and watching others. Maggie: Yah yah, it’s interesting. My friends also said the same thing. They were envious of us. They told me like, “Your class looks so fun.”  Morrie: Yah, (nods but not fully convinced) I enjoyed it too. I feel I learned something from the class although I am not sure what it was. But for me, I was expecting more for myself from the class. I mean, my friends in other general classes seem to learn more vocabulary. I don’t think we learned lots of vocabs.  Yuki: Morrie, I am just curious. Would you then register for this class again if you had a choice? Morrie: If I could choose again? mmm. Well, (hesitatingly) maybe yes. Maybe no. I was very shy and afraid of speaking, but I feel less afraid now. I think I agree with Michael in that if one is too shy in speaking, this is the best class to break his shyness to speak freely. But if he doesn’t have this problem, he or she can go to other classes.  Yuki: Mmm. I see. Morrie: Plus, If I could suggest, I thought maybe we could do more acting but in another way. We can use already made scripts because making a scenario was difficult. We were always concerned about a scenario. We had two kinds of stress: how to act out and what to act out.  177 With a scripted play, we can reduce the stress and focus on how to act or say.  Esther: (turns to Maggie, Yuju, and Lexi, who are from another section) What about you guys? Would you support our petition for the course? I know you all had a great time in the drama class. Maggie: Yes, we did. However, (hesitatingly) I am not sure if I would want to support the petition. To be honest, (pauses briefly) um, I like the course, but also at the same time I didn’t like it much. I think we could have had more intensive listening exercise. We usually focused on making a story, performing, and having a conversation, so we didn’t have opportunities for general listening. You know we had a final listening test. But I didn’t do well on the test.  Juna: Yah, I think it might be good to have more intensive listening exercises, but (confused) I am not sure, but I also have to say that kind of class might be boring. Well, I know we need listening exercise, but at the same time it is also boring. Lexi: (hesitatingly) Mmmm. Well, even though this class is interesting, we can perhaps combine an academic class and a drama class. I think it is better.  Yuki: It’s interesting that you all three liked the course but was also not satisfied with it. Just out of my curiosity, if you were to evaluate the course out of 10 points, what would you give? Juna, Maggie, and Lexi: (after some hesitation, they all say together) five maybe? Scene 9: Conference presentation room (The researcher, Won, stands back in front of a conference audience. He is about to end his presentation.) Won: To conclude, this was a story about the classes with educational drama-based pedagogy where the students exercised spontaneous freedom and right to speak, created stories and performed them. The classes were full of tensions. In that sense, this was a story about tensions in conflicting beliefs, attitudes, and ideas surrounding the educational practice of drama-based L2 pedagogy. There seem to have existed multiple tensions: a tension between different understandings about what is expected of learning an L2; a tension in how to perceive the pedagogical aim of English language education; a tension within an individual teacher in managing multiple identities; a tension within an individual student in how or to what extent he or she resonates with and participates in performative ways of learning. Further, this was a story about the drama course which had to be closed in the face of a  178 pedagogical effort towards more academically and cognitively-oriented language programs at a school for adults after two decades of educating the creative minds and linguistic competencies of hundreds of students. This was also a story about the two teachers, Nancy and Nick, who believed in the power of educational drama in creating a space to exercise students’ imagination and creativity, foster fluency and confidence, and promote the joy of learning in collaboration. This story also narrates how teachers were willing to take risks in second language pedagogy. Lastly but most importantly, it was a story about the students who came to realize the joy of learning and using language as a more confident language user after being introduced to alternative ways of learning and experiencing language.  Today, this rare ESL course with educational drama remains closed. In fact, all other so called specialized courses at the school which included arts-informed approaches, such as drama, creative writing, and storytelling, have been removed from the course list of both the intensive and academic language programs. It is my hope that— (there is an abrupt question from an audience member.) Audience: Sorry to interrupt, but could I ask a question? I am sorry that the drama class was closed, but why does it have to be a drama class? As some students mentioned in your study, some students need to take a test after all. All some need may be a certificate. What they learned in the drama class can also be taught in general skill oriented classes too, perhaps even in more efficient, structured, and systematic ways.  Won: Thanks for your question. Perhaps several of you may resonate with the question. The story I told in this presentation does not intend to argue that drama-based pedagogy is the only or best way to develop skills, competencies, knowledge, and practices of a second language to our students. What is told through the story in this presentation is how I believe that educational drama, which is multi-modal, imaginative, embodied, contextually-sensitive, and engaging in its nature, can be one possible way to enrich our L2 classrooms in a very specific way, which might not be affordable in other types of L2 classrooms. I want to answer your question by sharing Cummins and Early’s (2011) advice where they urge us to think that, in our classrooms, educators are continuously involved in “sketching a triangular set of images: “An image of our identities as educators, an image of the identity options that we highlight for our students, an image of our society that we hope our students will help form in the future” (p. 156). It is my sincere hope that the present auditory account of the  179 possibilities and implications of educational drama for adult language learners can be heard as a contribution to the ongoing pedagogical discussion on these important questions: What identities are our L2 pedagogies cultivating in our students? What images are we sketching on a daily basis in our classrooms? I hope that my study is recognized as a call to a shared conviction among many scholars that despite adverse and oppressive conditions surrounding our classrooms, it is important that teachers recognize their potential to exercise their agency to restructure classroom interaction in a more democratic and dialogic way and ultimately to make instructional choices that promote what Cummins calls collaborative relations of power in our classrooms. I draw this presentation to an end with the hope that the pedagogical effort taken by two local teachers, Nancy and Nick, that we audibly witnessed today can be heard as an example of a ground up pedagogical effort towards creating a collaborative, empowering interpersonal space fostering our students’ identities as that of competent and confident meaning-makers. Thank you. Scene 10: Teacher office (The final line with “thank you” in Scene 9 is a crossover with the previous scene in the teacher office [Scene 4] where Nancy and Nick are reading cards from their students) Esther: Thank you Nick. I felt you really want to try to help us to participate in the class. So I am very thankful to you. For my classmates, ah…well, thank you everybody for being close friends. It hasn’t been a very long, but we shared many things, many memories, it was very fun. We laughed a lot. I was very happy with them. In Canada, I see another side of myself. I think this class is the root of my change.  Nancy: Wow, that’s powerful, Nick. Nick: It kind of saddens me to think that I will no longer be able to be a teacher for the drama course, but I guess (pauses) I could still probably be a language teacher with drama. Nancy: (closes the card she was reading) I will miss these guys and a multitude of moments that my students and I had with stories, and drama. (the message below is read aloud in the background while a soundtrack of a lesson with students’ conversations and scattered laughter plays) Sam: Oh, thank you so much I am going to miss you and my classmates. I will try to keep in touch with you all. I enjoyed spending time in the class. Everyday we laughed. Everyday was  180 different in the drama class. All these four months, we played to learn English. Thank you all.   181 Chapter 10: Pedagogical Recommendations and Contributions In this final chapter of the dissertation, I will summarize the findings of the study discussed in the previous chapters in relation to the first three research questions:  1) How is educational drama used in four focal drama-based adult ESL classrooms in a private language institution?  2) In what ways is L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms?  3) How is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students?  Informed by the findings, this final chapter will then bring to light pedagogical implications in response to the final research question: what pedagogical insights can be drawn for adult L2 classes incorporating educational drama? The chapter will then close with the discussion of the scholarly and methodological significance of the study alongside its limitations.  Summary of the Findings Inquiry 1: How is educational drama used in four focal drama-based adult ESL classrooms in a private language institution? One central aim of the study was to document how educational drama is used and implemented in local ESL classes with adult learners in a private language institution in Canada. The study intended to shed light on how teaching practices are shaped when educational drama is introduced.  In answering the research question, the four sections of the class with educational drama taught by two teachers (Nancy and Nick) were selected. The course under study was described by the program as an intermediate level speaking and listening course where students could develop fluency with drama. The course was offered as part of a non-academic general stream intensive English program over a 16 week-long term. Nancy, one of the two teachers, created the course about 27 years ago and had continued to develop it while teaching other non-drama ESL courses at the institution. The other teacher, Nick, who was referred to as the “vice president of the course,” also often shared the responsibilities of  182 teaching the course. Besides these two teachers, the course had occasionally been taught by other teachers, depending on the outcome of the faculty course assignment process.  During the conduct of this qualitative inquiry, Nancy and Nick taught different sections of the course across three terms in the years of 2012-2013: Nancy (summer and winter terms) and Nick (fall term). A range of ethnographic data (i.e., participant listening, detailed field notes, researcher journals, interviews with the teachers and focal students, survey questionnaires with all students, and class-related documents) have informed how educational drama played a central pedagogical role in structuring the activities and assessment of students’ work and learning outcomes in these four classrooms.  In Chapters 5 and 6, what went on in the two focal sections of the class was described in the form of an analytic autoethnographic auditory narrative. Such an auditory account was a reflexive methodological effort to narrate what I heard, felt, experienced, and interpreted as a differently-abled researcher taking a participant listener orientation in lieu of that of participant observer. The reflexive auditory account was also an invitation for a wide range of audiences to experience with me a particular version of the auditorily experienced/heard/interpreted classroom interactions with drama-based ESL pedagogy. In Chapter 5, the first three days after midterm of the summer section was narrated. It was also the first three days of my research field work to join the class as a participant listener. The class began with a welcome and introduction to new students enrolled in the course for six weeks in the second half of the term. As narrated in the chapter, after an interesting group discussion about cultural practices regarding dating in the students’ home countries and North America as part of the thematic unit on dating, the students demonstrated their engagement with a drama-based activity called speed-dating. Each student was invited to choose a mask out of over 30 Victorian masks brought in by Nancy. They were invited to step into the dramatic world of speed-dating where they spoke in role as a character of their own imagination. Speaking as someone else imagined with their chosen mask, each student had an opportunity to be engaged in a train of sustained, creative, and imaginative interaction with seven other imaginary characters. For the moment, the classroom was altered into a social venue of fictional speed-dating filled with enthusiastic conversations in the target  183 language.  The students’ imagination in the target language was stretched as, next day, this social venue was transformed into a TV talk show where the students in pairs (who were matched up through the speed-dating) performed a couple in romantic relationship, (co/re)constructing stories about their relationship. Although the students had been given some time (15 minutes) to work out the details of their relationship in preparation for the talk show, the spontaneous nature of the immediate question and answer-based interaction of the talk show demanded students’ creativity and competence as meaning-makers. The sounds of ardent participation of most members of the class made evident how these intermediate-level English learners were invested in the meaning-making practice in the target language. This fluency-oriented learning practice was balanced with an accuracy-centered post-performance session in which the students were asked to reflect on and correct any linguistic errors found in student-improvised texts. What was most significant in the students’ learning experiences was how their investment in learning was engaged. L2 scholars argue that the important question to ponder regarding L2 instruction is not about whether to make it meaning or form focused but rather about how to engage students’ investment in learning (Cummins & Early, 2011; Duff, 2014; Johnson, 2004; Norton, 2000, 2010; Norton & Toohey, 2011; Pittaway, 2004). The narratives in this chapter speak to how students’ engaged investment can be enhanced if students find language learning practice meaningful and interesting in well-designed educational drama integrated language activities.  High investment in learning as active participants is further made evident in the lessons described in Chapter 6. The affordances of educational drama audible in Nancy’s classes were also evidenced in the other section taught by Nick. Nick’s classes were mainly organized with scenario-making practices calling for continuous collaboration among group members. For example, the students were asked to create and perform a story about what they had done on the past weekend by mixing one factual event from each weekend with one fictional incident. Other situations include Christmas, Halloween, and masked interviews. Stories were performed not only in verbal language but also in tableaux: for example, the  184 students in groups of 3 to 4 had to tell a travel story in silence but in gestures and body language. The narrative in the chapter describes one of two days of the process of making and telling a story about a dramatic situation involving lending and borrowing. These lessons took place after a conventional communicative language teaching lesson to teach household vocabulary and expressions related to lending and borrowing. The aim of the lessons was to provide the students an opportunity to use linguistic items in a dialogue based story created on their own. The narrative invited the reader to experience with the researcher (as a participant listener) the creative energy of the story-making improvisation where David, Juna, Sally, and Randy were enthusiastically engaged in dynamic interaction and collaboration for the common purpose of making and telling a story through performance. The sounds of the students’ creative energy in story-making resonated in the narrative of Nancy’s lesson in the same chapter. The students and Nancy jointly imagined and created a fictional world in which they improvised and performed a spectrum of self-created interesting characters in the as-if court trial. They constructed, reconstructed, negotiated, and modified versions of a story about the main character, Naomi (the accused), raising questions, responding to problems, making spontaneous cohesive connections between characters and testimonies, and elaborating details of the stories while enacting the tone, postures, and attitudes of pretended characters (as lawyers, Naomi with double personality disorder, Naomi’s best friend, teacher, and psychologist, etc.) in the target language. The kinds of students’ engagement can be characterized as kinesthetic, cognitive, imaginative, and affective engagement with language. Affording this kind of engagement by educational drama is what many drama educators and scholars claim is the power of educational drama in developing language and literacy (Baldwin & Fleming, 2003; Booth, 2005; Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Nawi, 2014; Schewe, 2013; Stinson & Winston, 2011; Winston, 2011). This narrated lesson in Chapter 6 is a telling example of such an engagement for adult ESL learners in a local ESL classroom.  Norton (2010) argues that “meaning-making is facilitated when learners are in a position of relative power in a given literacy event” (p. 10). The lessons narrated in the chapters and other lessons that I attended to over the term as participant listener showcase how educational drama facilitated meaning-making in that students were engaged in a empowering position as  185 a meaning-maker in the drama-based language activity as they initiated and sustained interactions and produced and negotiated meanings, drawing on their experiences and identities throughout the performative tasks.  Inquiry 2: In what ways is L2 development promoted through educational drama in the focal classrooms? In responding to this question, the analysis has been undertaken at two levels: an ethnographically informed thematic analysis, and a micro-analysis of students’ identity work and classroom interaction. First, I conducted the interpretational analysis of recurrent themes and features that characterize the narrated lessons in Chapters 5 and 6 as well as those throughout the term across all the four sections. The findings were based on the thematic analysis of over 150 pages of field notes, 80 pages of my research journal, 130 hours of audio-recorded classroom interaction and class observation-listening, 30 hours of interviews, and post-study survey questionnaires from 43 students. There are 9 themes that emerged as characteristics of the nature of a drama-based pedagogy implemented in the four sections of the course (as represented in Chapter 7). They include: 1) Engaging with stories 2) Language learning through language use  3) Higher investment in L2 learning and classroom practices 4) Purposeful interaction 5) Balancing accuracy and fluency 6) Joy in L2 learning 7) Cultivating empathic and democratic minds 8) Building a collaborative learning community as an empowering interpersonal space with (a) bonds among participants, (b) teachers as guiding co-participants, and (c) students’ voices at the center of learning 9) Enhancing confidence in transformative learning experiences.  In addition to the ethnographic understanding of the nature of the drama-based L2 instruction in relation to its impact on students L2 development (as discussed in Chapter 7), I also took a close listen to the details of classroom interaction and students’ identity work in the focal  186 classes by means of a ground up discourse analytic perspective (as represented in Chapter 8). With the combination of ethnographic claims and discourse analytic accounts, a more nuanced, fuller, multi-dimensional, and complex understanding of the impact of drama-based ESL pedagogy was sought (Atkinson, Okada, & Talmy, 2011). Specifically, two complementary micro-analytic approaches were employed: Goffman’s footing and frame analysis and Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA). With their capacities to allow a close look at (listen to) how social interaction is organized and how interactants position and are positioned by one another in and through interaction, the chapter represented how the adult learners in the drama-based ESL classes interacted with one another and what identities were displayed, constructed, and negotiated in and through classroom interaction. Learning about classroom interaction and identity work was important in answering the second research question because many scholars share a conviction that there is a meaningful connection between the kinds of classroom interaction and identity work in which students are engaged and students’ L2 development (Block, 2007; Cummins, 2000, 2009, 2011; Gibbons, 2004; Lin, 2007, 2013; Miller, 2003; Nelson, 2009; Norton & McKinney, 2011; Poole, 1992; Richards, 2006; Sharkey & Johnson, 2003; Talmy, 2009; Toohey, 2000). A few extracts of audio-recorded classroom interaction from one focal section were selected for close analysis. The analysis demonstrates how the students positioned themselves and were positioned as story-holders, story-makers, and story-tellers. In Goffman’s terms, this was also understood as the students’ taking on the role of the animator, the author, and the principal, being involved in the interaction around and with stories formed when educational drama was introduced. Importantly, the students in these classes were not limited to and had ample opportunities to move beyond taking the role of animators of someone else’s stories, which are a commonly found position in many conventional L2 classes. As discussed in the chapter, this has significant implications for students’ L2 development as in many conventional written text-based L2 classes, students are rarely situated in such a position in the course of L2 learning. One important implication of such identity positioning is that students’ investment in L2 learning can increase as they gain a sense of ownership in the meaning-making practices afforded by creative, engaging, and imaginative educational drama. Another important implication is that it can likely invite students to view themselves as more legitimate, confident and competent English users beyond deficient non-native  187 English learners (Cummins & Early, 2011; Lin, 2007, 2013; Pittaway, 2004).  In this study, quantitative evidence of students’ L2 development through educational drama was neither possible nor desired, given the nature, purpose, and scope of the present qualitative inquiry. However, the findings of the micro-analysis in tandem with the researcher’s reflexive ethnographic understanding of the impact of drama-based ESL pedagogy have provided a nuanced, complex, and deeper understanding of how a drama-based pedagogy can promote students L2 development by allowing students to be in more empowering and empowered identities as the animator, the author, and the principal with creative power in the target language, who shape and are shaped by a collaborative empowering interpersonal space (Cummins, 2001, 2009). The students in these classrooms created, animated and performed stories, which they were committed to as holders, makers, and tellers of stories, drawing on and honoring their own stories/experiences/ideas as well as those of others. The present inquiry with both ethnographic and discourse analytic claims empirically reveals how Cummins’ empowering and collaborative learning space can be fostered by educational drama as students are encouraged to go beyond a passive incompetent ESL learner identity and take on a range of empowering and empowered identities with a sense of ownership in their engaged meaning-making practices. Such experience with dynamic identity work is critical in that it can lead to the cultivation of confidence and competence (Cummins, Hu, Markus & Montero, 2015; Lin, 2013; Norton, 2013; Pittaway, 2004; Sharkey & Johnson, 2003). Inquiry 3: How is a drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning perceived and described by the students? In exploring and representing the students’ reactions to and perceptions of their learning experiences with educational drama, I carefully, reflexively, and reflectively attended to their accounts regarding their experiences in the classes, narrated in face-to-face interviews and e-mail survey questionnaires conducted at the end of the term. These students’ narrated accounts have informed my overall ethnographic understanding of lived experiences of the students in the drama-based ESL classes in diverse ways. First, I drew on the students’ accounts in narrating my autoethnographic auditory accounts of the selected daily lessons  188 (Chapters 5 and 6). Also, Chapter 7 where I summarize the nine recurrent themes of the focal classes is informed partly by the accounts of the students. Further, more explicitly and substantially, the students’ reactions and perceptions are documented and represented in Chapter 9 in the form of a radio drama play. This ethnodrama script was fictional, but part of the plot (e.g., the discontinuation of the drama course), characters, and dialogue are ethnographically-based. Especially, students’ accounts from the interviews and questionnaires were substantially retained in the script in an effort to remain faithful to students’ voices as represented in their interviews and survey questionnaires, pertaining to their learning experiences with the drama-based pedagogy. The script was meant to be performed in the form of a radio drama as a dynamic and reflexive way to represent what was experienced, heard, felt, and interpreted by me as a participant listener. The play begins with the final day of the class where some students shared their letters written to themselves in the future. The play then turned its direction with the news about the unexpected closure of the drama class after more than 25 years as one of the popular non-academic specialized courses at the institution. The news that upset the teachers, Nancy and Nick, also reached the ears of Ben and Yuki, two former students of the course. Ben and Yuki shared the news with their former classmates at the class Christmas party. Some students decided to write a letter of petition calling for the continuation of the class and asked for support from all who had taken the course before. While receiving support from a majority of the students, they also faced resistance from a number of the students. The entire play is framed within the context of a scholarly conference presentation where the researcher spoke about the closure of the drama class.  By telling the story about the discontinuation of the class, this theatrical text presents how the ESL instruction with educational drama was differently received by different students. The text brings to light the tension that was present within an individual student, among different understandings of learning, and between different curricular expectations. For example, drama-based activities necessitated different kinds of participation in class practices than teacher-fronted conventional instruction. That is, as opposed to being passive information recipients, the students were invited to be active participants/performers. Such repositioning created a tension within some students like Sharon who felt it took courage to participate as  189 she said “it [performing] was like really uncomfortable, but kind of comfortable” (interview, December 2012). The tension also existed among the students because of the differences in the ways students theorize learning. Some students viewed learning from a transmission model of learning perspective and thus valued less the affordances of participatory, less structured, creative, and student-centered educational drama. The tension was extended to how drama-based pedagogy and other general creative non-academic courses are valued differently by the program which is moving towards a more academic, structured, and outcome-oriented curriculum.  Inquiry 4: What pedagogical insights can be drawn for adult L2 classes incorporating educational drama? In light of the above tensions present in the adult ESL classrooms with educational drama, together with my reflexive ethnographic understanding of the classes, empirically-based and ethnographically-informed pedagogical insights have been drawn, which will be discussed in the remainder of the chapter. 1) Students should be given opportunities to explore their diverse identities as holders, makers, and tellers of stories of themselves and others. One of the distinctive features of this drama class was a strong sense of ownership of the students over the meaning-making practices that they were involved in the class with educational drama. That is, most of those meaning-making practices particular to all four sections of the course under study was centered around stories—the stories of themselves, other classmates, or imaginary characters. The drama-based pedagogy facilitated a safe space in the classroom where the students perceived themselves and others as holders, makers and tellers of stories. The students were engaged with opportunities to play with stories and the language that each story encompassed in making and telling them. This served a critical role in these students’ L2 learning journeys. Many scholars speak to the significance of engaging with stories in one’s learning journey as people all have stories they want to tell and are all capable of making sense of the world through stories (Connelly & Clandinin, 2000; Leggo, 2008; Nicholas, Rossiter & Abott, 2011; Reed-Danahay, 1997).   190 Drama can be one powerful medium of engaging, experiencing, and experimenting with stories in a safe drama world where risk-taking is encouraged and collaboration is valued. Hence, integrating educational drama in language classrooms could be seen as one effective way of creating a safe space in the classroom for students to tell their stories and dramatize the stories that they construct individually or collectively. Integrating story-making and telling and L2 learning through educational drama, a powerful, artful learning medium, can create different kinds of engagement with language whereby students can have ownership as meaning-makers.  2) Teachers are guiding co-participants. Another pivotal pedagogical insight drawn from the present qualitative inquiry is with respect to teachers’ positioning work as a co-participant along with learners. That is, teachers need to position themselves not as an authoritative knowledge provider, but as approachable and resourceful leaders of students’ dramatic, cognitive, creative, and collaborative learning journeys facilitated with educational drama. Such teachers’ positioning creates and a lowers power relationship between the teacher and students and encourages students to become more agentive in their own participation in learning practices (Cummins & Early, 2011; Pittaway, 2004). In the classes under study, this was embodied through both teachers’ everyday classroom practices. For example, a majority of drama-based activities were demonstrated by the teachers prior to students’ presentations. The teachers constituted a part of performances, often voluntarily as a character within a story (e.g., a court judge, a talk show host, a speed-dating host, etc.) or at the request of student groups when they were in need of missing characters (e.g., a teenaged peer in the Christmas play, etc.). The two teachers’ co-participant roles sprang from their conscious pedagogical effort to demonstrate how to take risks as performers (or animators in Goffman’s terms) before asking the students to shift a gear to the mode of drama. As displayed in the students’ accounts presented in earlier chapters, several students in Nancy and Nick’s classes also seemed to recognize the value of such teachers’ joint participation and the horizontal relationship between the teachers and students constructed in the classroom. This recognition was represented in several students’ notes of appreciation on how their more active participation in what could be unfamiliar, risk-taking, and new ways of learning through performance was possible and  191 fostered with teachers’ pedagogical efforts to work alongside the students.  Educational drama brings to the classroom particular ways of participation that are often risk-taking, multi-sensory, affective, adventurous, imaginative, and creative. Such kinds of participation can be challenging to some students, particularly students whose learning has been driven by conventional transmission models of learning (Dinapoli, 2009, Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Louis, 2001, 2002, 2005; Piazzoli, 2010; Stinson, 2009). Teachers should be mindful that these students are likely socialized into particular ways of learning that value prescribed written linguistic texts which are often perceived as the only legitimate meaning-making resources. For these students, an even significantly higher level of risk-taking may be demanded in order for them to take part in drama-based activities involving performative and narrative inquiry. Viewed in this light, teachers’ efforts to be risk-taking guiding co-participants could be understood as one powerful way of sparking students’ investment as active participants in learning (Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Duff, 2014; Pittaway, 2004). This is particularly relevant in language classes that involve alternative ways of learning with performances and narratives, such as multisensory, creative, affective, and improvisational educational drama. When teachers can create more horizontal relationships and present themselves as co-participants who guide and embody ways of learning with performance and narrative by showing (not just telling what to do), teachers in drama-based L2 classrooms could potentially maximize students’ engagement and participation in their learning. 3) Students will often need time to become creative meaning-makers. Besides teachers’ positioning work as guiding co-participants, higher engagement with drama-based L2 learning also necessitates a careful and sensitive guidance and cultivation of students towards new ways of learning with educational drama. What was common in the instructional approaches taken by both teachers was their sensitivity as a guide to introduce their students to performative ways of learning, as displayed in Nick’s interview account: “We don’t want to get there [direct full improvisations] too fast. We want to let them go slowly to the go. . . It is important to try to get students into shallow water towards deeper and deeper” (Nick, interview, January 2013). Such careful slow pedagogical steps “towards deeper and deeper” were commonly found in both of their classes but in different ways: as an  192 instance, Nancy started with a sit-down speed-dating activity in the beginning of the midterm when new students joined the class as a way to slowly socialize the new students to perform in front of the class; Nick often began each class with multi-modal drama-based activities to warm up students’ minds and bodies. Also, over the term, the teachers designed the course curriculum in a way that introduced the students gradually to freer improvisational performances involving higher risk-taking, such as a public Christmas play for external audiences and the (student-controlled/driven) court trial scene, towards the end of the term. These pedagogical steps towards an imaginative drama world to be created in a classroom are an integral part of drama-based L2 pedagogical approaches.  The cultivation of students’ minds can also be promoted by teachers’ efforts to create a safe space for risk-taking creative meaning-making practices in the classroom. One way to do so is to set up guidelines or class principles that invite risk-taking, respect, creativity, and imagination among class participants. For example, in Nancy’s class, what she called “the rules of drama” served such a role, including: “say yes,” “don’t think,” “say and,” “50-50 collaboration,” and “don’t laugh” (see Chapter 4 for more details of the drama rules). These drama rules were introduced at the beginning of the term and reintroduced when there were new students in the class. The teacher seemed to understand the rules as the backbone of the class that contributes to sustaining students’ engagement and involvement in different drama worlds created in the class with its message that it is okay to be wrong and look even silly in front of others, performing in the target language. What is also important to note is the way how the rules of drama were introduced. The rules were not simply explained as abstract concepts, but introduced as organic ideas in performative and embodied ways. Each rule was experienced, practiced, and reflected on through a variety of drama-based activities. L2 teachers interested in integrating educational drama in their classrooms should think about how they can tell their students in an explicit and embodied way that they are in a safe space where risk-taking is encouraged and new ways of learning are fostered. 4) Ample reflective debriefing on language use should be included. The central aim of the teaching practices in the classes under study was to provide ample opportunities for the students to use the target language while building and performing  193 stories in the language that they aim to learn. This pedagogical focus was consistent with the curricular purpose of the course in developing students’ fluency in the English language. As presented in the previous chapters, a range of ethnographic data indicated that the students were fully engaged with opportunities to communicate in the target language while producing and performing stories. While an effort was made to meet the pedagogical goals of developing fluency, both teachers brought students’ attention to linguistic issues during improvisational performances. In particular, in Nancy’s classes, every performance was followed by a debriefing session where the students together with the teacher collectively reflected on and corrected what they had produced in their improvisations. As evidenced in the ethnographic records, such linguistic reflective moments were appreciated by a large number of the students. In the debriefing sessions, the students’ own improvised, performed stories (or identity texts according to Cummins) served as language learning materials. As echoed by scholars (Cummins, Hu, Markus & Montero, 2015; Nicholas, Rossiter & Abott, 2011), this was significant because the students’ own personal texts contributed to a stronger sense of their ownership and responsibilities towards the meaning-making practices they were engaged in. While the experiences of building and producing stories with drama can be considered the goal of educational drama, particularly process-oriented improvisational drama (Bowell & Heap, 2001; Fels & Belliveau, 2008; Miller & Saxton, 2004; O’Neill, 1995), L2 educators can also capitalize on multiple opportunities afforded in drama-based L2 classrooms by bringing students’ attention to what is linguistically constructed and how it is performed/used in relation to social and communicative contexts (Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Stinson & Winston, 2011; Winston, 2011). I have two pedagogical suggestions for how this can be done:  (a) Teachers should stay sensitive and reflective about students’ language use and constantly make a note of any prominent linguistic errors and issues for class discussion after a performance. Teachers’ notes could be shared on the board, through a digital projector, or as a printed hardcopy. Students could then be given opportunities to reflect on, discuss, and identify any language-related issues individually, in pairs, or as a whole class. This way, students are invited to take the position as language ethnographers who bring their meta-cognitive awareness of and reflections on the outcome of their language in use in the context  194 of an as-if world. Alternatively, this could be assigned as homework for discussion next day. What is important to remember is the need for attending to various sides of students’ language in use, including but not limited to sentence-level grammar rules, registers, pronunciation-related issues on both segmental and suprasegmental levels, denotative and connotative meanings of words, and pragmatic-related issues.  (b) Students’ performances could also be captured for later analysis and reflection by means of audio-recorders or video-recorders. The recordings could be shared with a whole class either at the end of a class or in the following lessons as a weekly reflection. Revisiting their own performances through audio- or video-recordings can be both entertaining and educational. That is, students will get to enjoy their own performances as well as that of their classmates on audio or video. Also, this will provide a moment of critical evaluation of their own linguistic work. In regards to engaging students with a critical analysis/evaluation of their improvisationally performed texts, Stokoe’s (2013, 2014) CARM (Conversation Analytic Role-play Method) project holds particularly relevant pedagogical implications regarding the affordances of analyzing audio/video-recorded interactions in developing students social and pragmatic competence. In this influential project, Stokoe combines applied Conversation Analysis (CA) with role-plays for the purpose of growing one’s communicative skills and interactional awareness by solving communicative issues captured in audio-recorded real-time social situations. Inspired by Stokoe’s CARM project, if teachers could find a way to engage students with discourse-level critical analytic reflections on audio/video-recorded improvised performances, a meaningful space could be created in L2 classrooms that attend to social/pragmatic appropriateness of utterances in interaction in an engaging and contextually-sensitive way. When reviewing and analyzing recordings, however, it is vital for teachers to create an environment where linguistic errors are regarded not as problems but as features of the integral process of language learning. Also, no one student’s performance should be singled out for extensive feedback, but instead a maximum of one or two salient major linguistic issue(s) of each student could be identified and should receive equally distributed pedagogical attention.   195 5) Intersubjective understandings of diverse ways of learning should be fostered. Won: Do you have any concerns about the class at this point [the interview took place in the third week of the term]? Nick: My concerns would revolve around the questions that reflect my mind: are they feeling being challenged at their level but not overwhelmed? Are they feeling it is useful for their English goals? Are they on board with crazy elements of doing something? (Nick, interview, September 2012) Nick’s concern may be echoed by other L2 teachers using drama. This concern was also realized by a number of students across all the four sections. A majority of the students across the sections supported what Nick called “crazy elements of doing something” in the drama class as they displayed appreciation for what was afforded by the class (as indicated by high evaluation of the course [over 8 out of 10 on average] and students’ positive reactions to the course evident in the interviews, and their active participation audibly witnessed through my ethnographer’s ears). However, this formed a striking contrast to the less enthusiastic or rather negative perception of their learning experiences in the course as indicated in the interview/survey accounts of about eight students who indicated that they did not find that the class helped meet their learning goals. As narrated in the radio play script in Chapter 9, some students described their conflicting views towards what they experienced in the class. Several of them mentioned that they found the class entertaining, but did not find the course as helpful for their English language development as they expected. What seems to be common among these students’ reactions can be understood with reference to how they perceived the definition of L2 learning. To some, if not all of them, learning is understood as involving more structured individual cognitive written text-driven practices: as an illustration, in the words of these students, what was experienced in the class “did not help her English” (Kona), was “a waste of time” compared to the listening lab time which she valued (Momo), involved “too much collaboration” rather than individual work (Michael), “did not improve listening skills for listening tests” (Maggie), and “did not teach new vocabulary” (Lexi) nor presentation skills (Morrie).   196 In this section of my dissertation, it is not my intention to criticize the attitudes or thoughts of these students nor my desire to argue which learning model is ideal. Precisely, my aim in this section is to present a pedagogical insight for those who may be concerned about maximizing the outcome of learning experiences of students (perhaps with diverse or dissenting understanding of learning) in their drama-based classrooms. Successful learning outcomes might stem from students’ (growing) understanding of the value of particular kinds of learning to be experienced with the drama-based L2 pedagogy. Given diverse backgrounds of students in their learning theories, educational histories, and linguistic/sociocultural backgrounds, it is not surprising to find a range of beliefs in how learning should be realized among students. For example, to some students, learning could be limited to an individual and cognitive practice involving teacher-fronted exercises, memorizations, or written text-driven activities.  In essence, to maximize students’ investment in learning, teachers need to be sensitive to students’ different initial expectations about a course that may be grounded in different personal definitions of learning. With such a sensitive understanding, one pedagogical move that teachers could consider taking in their classrooms is to diversify participation structures (e.g., individual, pair, group, whole class), course content (e.g., various themes, topics, reading texts, etc.), and class activities (e.g., structured, teacher-guided, less structured, student-driven, project-based, inquiry-based, etc.). Another pedagogical move that can be considered would be to make explicit comments on the value and affordances of drama-based pedagogy for L2 learning or set aside class-time especially in the beginning of a term for students to collectively and critically ponder their assumed understandings of learning and potential benefits of learning L2 with educational drama. 6) The notions of drama need to be demystified. Another pedagogical insight drawn from this qualitative inquiry is related to students’ varied personal understandings of the term drama. In the case of the classes under study, the title of the course was “English through drama.” This title seemed to have played a role in students’ different expectations about the course in the beginning of the term. For example, a student from Nancy’s class, Rara, recalls her expectations: “at first, I was really surprised about this  197 course. Because I know this class’s name is drama, I didn’t think I have to do acting a lot. . . I was surprised, but I am satisfied with this class” (Rara, survey, 2012). Students’ different expectations about the term “drama” were also reported by a number of other students, for example, as controlled script-based role plays in communicative situations (e.g., a conversation at a bank, ordering at a restaurant, sending a parcel at a post office, etc.) while some other students had expected to learn English by watching English TV dramas and some thought they would need to memorize a pre-written play script to put on a formal theatrical production.  The different understandings about drama or learning with drama are not a surprising finding as all the students (except for two students) in the classes under study indicated in the survey questionnaires that they had not had any previous experiences with drama in general or learning English with any form of drama. Because of the lack of previous educational experiences with improvisational educational drama and varied and somewhat more conventional (or cultural) understandings of drama (e.g., drama as TV drama or a written theatrical play script, etc.), the purpose or nature of the course did not seem to get across to some students as intended (even with advising guidance from class registration assistant staff members during a school orientation). Some students indicated that they even considered the option of changing to another course in the beginning of the term. In some cases, such as Kona or Michael, students’ misunderstanding of the purpose/nature of the course became significantly consequential in the level of engagement with or appreciation for the course throughout the term. For example, Kona did not seem to appreciate the course as much as she appeared to enjoy it as she said that she was not sure how the course helped her English language development and wished that she had known the purpose of each drama activity more clearly. Likewise, Michael said that he regretted that he had taken the course (his level of engagement was lowered towards the end of the term) as he did not acknowledge the value of the collaborative nature of the drama-based course.  Educational drama is still not part of learning journeys for many L2 students, particularly those educated in learning contexts where transmission models of learning play a bigger role. In this light, in drama-based L2 classrooms with those students, it is necessary and important to demystify the nature a