News

At the RSC, we’ve long been interested in research – from teacher action research to
longitudinal studies into the benefits of expressive arts subjects and experiences to young
people in schools. One of the sticking points many of us are familiar with is how to measure
impact – and even if it’s possible to do so. The argument goes that we only value those
things we can measure, and that because expressive arts subjects and experiences are so
enmeshed in developing the human psyche, they are too complex and multi-faceted to be
measurable.

Through a grant from Paul Hamlyn Foundation, we had the opportunity to undertake
research into the impact of Shakespeare’s work and theatre-based pedagogies on learning
outcomes. When we asked teachers what kind of research question would be most helpful to
them, they said they wanted the data to back up what they saw happening in their
classrooms when they used the combination of Shakespeare’s plays and a theatre-based
pedagogy.

Across 15 years of working in partnership with primary, secondary and special schools in
England, two themes have consistently emerged about the difference that particular
combination makes to learning outcomes:

1.  Children’s literacy, particularly their writing, improves – they write more, they use more
complex language, they want to write (particularly children who have previously been
reluctant to write). 

2. Children’s academic self-concept improves – when a child feels confident about
Shakespeare’s work, they feel differently about their ability to navigate other difficult things.
And they think they’re good at learning.

Teachers wanted us to undertake research to understand exactly what was changing for
children in these two areas.

What we did and what we found out 

Our research fellows, Lynsey McCulloch and Matthew Collins, reviewed existing validated
tools used by social scientists to measure language development. They then worked with
teachers to develop a writing measure that incorporated those validated tools.

Using a randomised control trail, we recruited 45 state primary schools across England – all
with above average eligibility for free school meals – and randomly assigned them to either
an intervention or control group.

Teachers in intervention schools took part in five days of professional development with the
RSC and delivered 20 hours of Shakespeare teaching to Year 5 pupils using RSC
approaches.

Control schools delivered their existing curriculum. Researchers then analysed more than
3,000 written responses from children in control and intervention schools over the 12-month
research period.

Findings from RCT

We measured language development in children’s writing, comparing the intervention and
control schools. Both groups were responding to a character dilemma from a Shakespeare
play where the character was stranded on an island. Overall, we found children in the
intervention group, whose teachers had worked with the RSC, outperformed control schools
in 98% of indicators.

You can find the results here: Time To Act | Royal Shakespeare Company (rsc.org.uk)

One of the findings we were really fascinated by were the differences we saw in semantics
(content) in the children’s writing. Children in intervention schools outperformed control
students in the following ways:​

• their ability to express emotion​ through their writing (children in intervention schools
  used far more words relating to emotion than children in the control schools);
• they demonstrated greater resilience and optimism​ in their writing (in control groups
  they could not see a way forward for the character, but children in intervention
  schools were planning for the future and thinking through how the character could
  survive on the island);
• they showed greater ability in comprehension and inferencing. 

We also used the Myself As a Learner Scale which is already in use in lots of schools. It
measures children's perceptions of themselves as learners and problem solvers. There we
saw greatest differences between intervention and control schools with regard to feelings of
agency and ability. Top scoring items for children in intervention schools related to feeling
they know how to solve problems, feeling confident they are good learners and confidence
in language.

They represent the kind of growth mindset we want to develop in children – the sense that
they can learn to do anything they want.

Inequity in measurement tools

We also found that some children who were previously considered to be operating below
age related expectations (ARE) got some of our best writing results. For example, the child
who was considered below ARE because she didn’t join up her handwriting and wasn’t
consistent with her full stops. However, when we put her writing through the software it came
out near the top percentile in terms of sophistication of words (lexis) and content. In her
writing about Juliet at the dance where she meets Romeo, the Year 3 girl wrote lines like:
“… The dress looks like it's made out of clouds … When she dances, it’s like the stars are
taking her to heaven … At parties the more she dances with grace the brighter the stars
shine …”

The software we developed enabled the teacher and child to understand her potential in a
very different way.

What does this mean?

This means that not all assessment measures meet the needs of a diverse ​pupil population​.
And I think it also means that expressive arts subjects can help us understand potential and
progress in a way that existing ways of measuring educational attainment don’t. It means
that the integration of expressive arts subjects, and measurement tools, can help to provide
a more inclusive environment in which children can thrive and flourish.

Professor Pat Thomson shared a wonderful quote recently from Maxine Green, who
described an arts-rich education as building a “wide-awakeness to the world.” Another way
of framing this is that expressive arts subjects build adults’ wide awakeness to the child; a wide awakeness about what they can achieve – and who they can become.