Using improv in the language classroom: Drama Grammar Part I

Your language teaching mission, should you choose to accept it, is to use the Drama Grammar method to structure improv lessons in your classroom that are grammatically focused.

This is Part I in a two-part series about the Drama Grammar method created by Susanne Evens. In this post I will be exploring the method, as outlined by Evens in her 2004 and 2011 articles. In Part II I will be explaining how I would adapt Drama Grammar for my particular context (middle and high school students) and teaching style.

Recognizing a need for grammar instruction, but wanting to stay away from traditional models, Even created the Drama Grammar method in 2004.

I was introduced to this approach in Susanne Even’s 2004 article “Dramagrammar in Theory and Practice”, in which she explained a new learning model that she has created called “Dramagrammar” (note: by 2011 it was changed to “Drama Grammar”). Drama Grammar was created when Even noticed that post-secondary students were entering universities without proficient grammatical knowledge, which she attributed to an emphasis on communication skills above grammar structures in their previous language education. Nonetheless, even when grammar instruction was introduced at the post-secondary level, students seemed unable to transfer this knowledge into their oral production. Even describes Drama Grammar as “a combination of language in use and language reflection” that integrates “dramatic acting with conscious language analysis” (2004, p. 42).  By replacing traditional grammar, which is devoid of meaning and context, with Drama Grammar, students are given more autonomy as their instructor is more of a guide than a font of knowledge and language learning becomes more social as teamwork is encouraged.

The Six Phases of Drama Grammar

Drama Grammar lessons are broken into six different phases:

  1. Awareness-raising phase: grammar structures are elicited from students by creating imaginary situations in which the structure is necessary, usually in small warm-up games

  2. Context-finding phase: learners use the structure during an improvised scene that mimics real-world contexts that necessitate the same grammar in a concrete form

  3. Linguistic phase:  the dramatic flow is interrupted, and the teacher either explicitly teaches the grammar structure or encourages students to work out the rules themselves. This stage is placed in the middle instead of the beginning so that students have already experienced why they need this structure in order to communicate, which creates greater engagement.

  4. Dramatic play phase: students draft and rehearse longer, more in-depth improvised scenes using their new grammatical knowledge

  5. Presentation phase: students present their improvisations to their peers.

  6. Reflection phase: students settle any remaining questions they have, talk about what worked or did not work, give praise, and reflect on their language awareness and learning process.

Sample Workshop

At the end of her 2004 article, Even runs through a workshop that she has previously delivered to language teachers at a conference, which was taught in English, in order to demonstrate how a Drama Grammar lesson might be taught:

1. First, in the awareness-raising phase, chairs are set up in pairs in a circle around a ‘stage’: one chair (the ‘observer’) can see what is happening on the stage, one (the ‘listener’) cannot. The teacher enters the room, wearing a mask, and performs a short pantomime, then leaves. The observer then describes what they see to the listener. Next, the listeners turn around, and when the teacher re-enters, they tell her what to do, based on the description they received. Once that is complete, the observers describe how the first and second pantomimes differed based on what had been described to the listeners by the observers. Finally, the teacher does the original pantomime, and both the listeners and the observers discuss the differences between the performances. Students are encouraged to use reported speech forms (e.g. “I told John that the person was walking around, but John then said that the person should sit down immediately”).

2. The class then enters the linguistic phase (note: the order of the phases are presented differently in the workshop example than in the article). The class discusses indirect/reported speech, and small groups write out what they believe to be the rules, and any questions they have, on large papers which they present to the larger group.

3. Next, in the context-finding stage, the class plays a modified version of ‘Telephone’ where sentences are said aloud, not whispered, and the wording is changed slightly each time, using reported speech. For example, if the first person says “Yesterday I went to the new bistro. It’s expensive, but the waiter is cute!”, the second person will say “Susanne says she went to the new bistro yesterday. She told me her meal cost a lot of money, and I think she has a crush on the waiter!”. At the end of the activity, the instructor addresses any questions about reported speech.

4. The next activity, as part of the drama play phase, is a continuation of the previous game. In small groups students present a visual/verbal presentation, which are tableaus of a transforming rumor that they have created.

5. Lastly, students are given homework that allows them to transfer their new knowledge to different contexts. In this example, students are given a text within which they must find all the forms of indirect speech, and identify the grammatical tense being used.  

What I like about Drama Grammar:

  • The inclusion of a step of explicit reflection, which I am realizing that I need to do more of in my language classroom. Also, students have an opportunity to discuss the form and rules in an exploratory and collaborative manner rather than receive direct instruction.

  • Personally, in the past, I would have been reluctant to pair a small group grammar discovery activity with improv because of the feeling that it was too much time wasted. Instead, I would have paired improv with an explicit grammar lesson, perhaps because I felt the need to prove that the improv activity was an extension of a more ‘valid’ traditional lesson. This method has made me consider some of my own pedagogical biases and how they influence my classroom practices.

  • How Evens situates Drama Grammar within postmethod pedagogy, which resonates with me as a pedagogical framework as the emphasis is on “particularity, practicality, and possibility”. This helps me anticipate a common question that I get asked when I talk about improv in the foreign language classroom, which is “where does grammar come into this?” Within the context of postmethod pedagogy, I feel confident in saying, “as much or as little as your context requires”!

  • The psychological and pedagogical benefits that Even observed in her students. Psychologically, students felt less afraid to make mistakes, and were willing to take more risks. They also felt more confident and motivated, and were able to form deeper connections with peers. Pedagogically, students were able to understand grammar both cognitively and contextually, and saw its utility beyond classroom exercises. This also enabled students to be better able to self-monitor their language learning, and made them more comfortable with grammar topics in general.

Links to check out:

Check out Part II, where I will discuss how I hope to adapt Even’s Drama Grammar for my own context. What are your thoughts on Drama Grammar? Feel free to share in the comments!