Thesis for the Degree of Master

The effect of Drama on students’ anxiety of speaking English

ByLee, Seoyeon

Department of TESOLThe Graduate School of TESOLSookmyung Women’s University

1

LIST OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………,………i

LIST OF CONTENTS....................................................................................ii

LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................v

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................vi

LIST OF APPENDICES...............................................................................vii

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................viii

Chapter 1.Introduction ................................................................................

Chapter 2. Literature Review .....................................................................

2.1 Drama in Education .................................................................................

2.1.1 Drama in a Historical Review……………………………………….

2.1.2 Drama in English Language Teaching………………………………

2.1.2.1 Affective filter……………………………………………….

2.1.2.2 Motivation……………………………………………………

2.1.2.3 Meaning in context…………………………………………..

2.1.2.4 Learning styles and multiple intelligences……………………

2.1.2.5 Psychological benefits………………………………………..

2.2 Anxiety and Language................................................................................

2.2.1Definition and types of Anxiety……………………………………..

2.2.1.1 Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and situation-specific anxiety…...

2.2.1.2 Facilitating Anxiety and Debilitating Anxiety………………..

2.2.1.3 Foreign Language Anxiety…………………………………....

2.2.2 Impact of Foreign Language Anxiety………………………………..

2.2.2.1 Impacts of foreign language anxiety on learning………………

2.2.2.2 Impacts of Foreign Language anxiety on Speaking Performance.

2.2.3 Possible Factors Contributing To Learners’ Anxiety…………………

2.3 Research into the Effects of Drama on Anxiety……………………………

2.4 Summary…………………………………………………………………….

Chapter 3.Methodology .....................................................................................2

3.1.Overview……………………………………………………………………

3.2 Research question…………………………………………………………….

3.3 Participants......................................................................................................

3.4 Instruments…………………………………………………………………..

3.4.1 Public Speaking Class Anxiety Scale (PSCAS)……………………….

3.4.2 Background questionnaire………………………………………………

3.4.3 Students’ Reflective journals ………………………………………….

3.4.4 Classroom Observation………………………………………………..

3.4.5 Un-structured interview………………………………………………..

3.5 Procedure……………………………………………………………………..

3.5.1 General Procedure………………………………………………………

3.5.2. The Procedure of the drama class………………………………………

3.6 Data analysis………………………………………………………………….

Public Speaking Class Anxiety Scale (PSCAS)………………………………….

Background questionnaire………………………………………………………….

Students’ Reflective journals ………………………………………………..

Classroom Observation………………………………………………………

Un-structured interview…………………………………………………….

Chapter 4.Results .................................................................................................

4.1 The result of the pre- and the post- survey……………………………………

4.2 The result of Students’ Reflective journals……………………………………

4.3 The result of classroom observation…………………………………………..

4.4 The results of interview……………………………………………………….

Chapter 5.Discussion ............................................................................................

5.1 Research question 1 ...........................................................................................3

5.2 Research question 2 ...........................................................................................

Chapter 6.Conclusions ..........................................................................................

6.1 Conclusion .........................................................................................................

6.2 Limitation ...........................................................................................................

6.3 Future Research ..................................................................................................

References ................................................................................................................

Appendices................................................................................................................

Chapter 1. Introduction

4

Over the last few decades, drama has been the focus of much attention in second language

teaching and learning. Researchers and teachers have contributed suggestions for using drama

in the second language classroom (e.g. Baldwin &Fleming, 2003; Butterfield, 1989; Heinig&

Stillwell, 1974; Lazar, 1993; Whiteson,1996).

Drama has become a topical issue in second language research. Suggestions have been made

that drama activities promote genuine communication in the second language classroom

(Holden, 1981; Wessels, 1987).

Studies also show that drama activities have positive impact on the development of language

skills, especially oral skills. As for the psychological impact of drama activities, studies have

shown that students are motivated to participate and eager to share in a drama-oriented

second language classroom (Dodson, 2002; Liu, 2000).

Drama activities have also been used to lower students’ anxiety and raise their self-

confidence in second language learning. Students have expressed that drama activities

provide opportunities for success and help to boost their self-confidence (Dodson, 2000: 134;

Ranzoni, 2003:2).

The results of studies have been generally supportive to the use of drama activities in the

second language classroom. Therefore, for my research I would like to examine a way to

solve the language anxiety by using the drama activities and exploring its application

possibility in the context of Korea. Sources of anxiety of students in speaking in English will

be also areas worth exploring as there appear to be few studies on anxiety in Korea. Lastly,

there seems to be urgent need to examine drama so that more information can be provided for

English language teachers.

Chapter 2. Literature reviewThis section intends to define some of the concepts important for the research in order to give

a clear direction of this study. At the same time it provides a brief outlook, giving possible

perspectives in study of language teaching and learning in an instructional environment.

In this chapter, related literature on drama and language anxiety, especially speaking English as a part of the focus of this research, is reviewed. First, literature that discuss a brief historical review of drama teaching in psychology and the relationship between drama and foreign language teaching

are reviewed. Next, the research discussing the nature and concept of anxiety and foreign

5

language anxiety follows. Then, the impact of foreign language anxiety on foreign language

achievement, including speaking performance, as well as the research studies discussing

possible sources and factors that provoke the foreign language anxiety of EFL students is

presented. Finally, the studies into the effects of drama on anxiety are investigated.

2.1 Drama in Education

Drama in education is the use of drama as a means of teaching across the curriculum. It is

used to expand learners’ awareness, to enable them to look at realitythrough fantasy and to

look below the surface of actions for meanings. According to McCaslin (1990, p.10) the

objective is understanding rather than playmaking, although aplay may be made in the

process. Attitudes rather than characters are the chief concernas the focus is on process rather

than product.

Since drama becomes a natural means of learning in the developmental history ofhuman

beings, it is evident that this technique could be used effectively in teaching andlearning.

According to Landy (1982, p.5) its elements – imitation, imagination, role-playing and

interpretation account for much of a child’s learning of language, movement and social

behaviour. By acting out the roles of the father/mother the child learns what aparent is and

what is expected of him/her in his relationship with the parent.

Drama in education, also known as creative drama, is an improvisational, non exhibitional,

process-centred form of drama in which participants are guided by a leaderto imagine, enact

and reflect upon human experiences. According to Landy (1982, p.5) it requires both logical

and intuitive thinking, personalizes knowledge and yields aestheticpleasure.

2.1.1Drama in a Historical Review

Theatre as a form of Art that communicates feelingsand emotions, thoughts and concerns

originates sincethe appearance of communal life in the history ofhuman civilization.Theatre

and drama for educationalpurposes have been defined in many different ways.

Methodology books and papers abound in terms suchas drama education, theatre education,

educationaldrama or creative drama and drama teaching. Traditionally theatre has been taken

to refer toperformance whereas dramahas referred to the workdesigned for stage

representation, the body of writtenplays (Elam, 1980). In the context of drama

teachinghowever the terms have been used differently. Theatre was thought to be largely

6

concerned withcommunication between actors and an audience; whereas drama was largely

concerned with experience by the participants, irrespective of anyfunction of communication

to an audience (Way, 1967).

In the 1980s and 1990s in England and many other countries there was a fairly pronounced

divisionbetween writers and practitioners who advocateddifferent approaches to teaching

drama. Teachers whotook a theatre approach talked about acting,rehearsal

andperformancewhereas teachers with adrama focus referred more to experience or

livingthroughimprovisations (Hornbrook, 1989). In practicethese tended to be more

orientations in the work ratherthan rigid distinctions but the differences are crucial

inunderstanding the way drama teaching developed;legacies of these approaches are found in

contemporary practice (Fleming, 2003).

The method of drama teaching which developedfrom the 1950s onwards and embraced more

freeforms of dramatic play and improvisation can be seenas a reaction to the stifling and

uncreative approachesat the time which involved children acting out in arather formal way

the words of others rather thandeveloping ideas of their own (Slade, 1954). It wassuggested

that when participants are engaged in morespontaneous, improvised work (traditionally called

drama) their level of engagement and feeling will bemore intense and genuine than when

they areperforming on stage (traditionally called theatre). Thetheoretical perspectives on

drama education were atthat time drawn from writings on child play and theHumanistic

School of psychology (Erikson 1963, 1968;Rogers, 1969) rather than on the theatre.

Theemphasis was on the personal growth of the individual through creative self expression

and the search for personal meaning. The influence of progressivepsychology theorists as

George Kelly in the 1950s andhis personal construct theorythat urges people touncover their

own constructswith minimalintervention by the 'therapist' were also apparent in theadvocates

of drama in education.

The recent history ofdrama teaching being described here is represented in the following

diagram by M. Fleming (2003). At the time when the separation of drama and theatre was

happening what was being rejected was the negativeaspects of theatre practice (depicted in

the upper rightside of the diagram) when imposed prematurely on young people. A more

contemporary view of theatrepractice is represented in the lower right quadrant(Theatre 2).

Here the approach is less authoritarian,there is a more fluid concept of what acting and

rehearsal involve and there is greater acceptance of non -naturalistic approaches. Similarly

there has beena change in the way drama has been conceptualised. The changed conception at 7

Drama 2 in the diagrammeans that all drama in the classroom can draw oninsights provided

by the nature of drama as art and writings from theatre practitioners (Bolton, 1992;Heathcote,

1980; Shewe and Shaw, 1993).

Figure 2.1 Model of the Effects of Anxiety on Learning from Instruction

(Source: Fleming (2003), p)

2.1.2 Drama in English Language Teaching

The relationship between drama and foreign language teaching naturally flourishes by virtue

of all its benefits we can observe in foreign language instruction.

Hamilton and McLeod (1993) describe this relationship as follows: “It is hard to imagine

anything else that offers to language teachers such as wide variety of types of talks, for

example monologues, paired speaking, role-plays, group discussions, reporting, talking in

response to other stimuli, problem-solving, developing scenarios, acting out, etc. from 8

explaining, complaining, praising, disagreeing to exhorting, apologising and requesting –

there is no language function that drama is not capable of easily encompassing” (Hamilton

and McLeod, 1993, p.5).

And drama does not have to be used just in order to practice language functions, grammatical

structures or particular vocabulary. It can be easily, and most of all effectively, exploited in

cross-curricular teaching when studying and exploring topics related to the foreign culture or

other school subjects. As Phillips suggests the teacher using drama “can use topics from other

subjects: the children can act out the scene from history, or the life cycle of a frog; or he or

she can work on the ideas and issues that run through the curriculum, such as sexism, respect

for the environment and road safety” (Philips, 1999, p. 8).

As already mentioned before, drama used in education provides many beneficial factors,

encouraging teachers to take advantage of its methods and techniques. In the next sub-

section, I have enumerated just some of the many particularly interesting benefits of drama

for foreign language teaching.

2.1.2.1 Affective filter

Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition has been very influential in the field of

second language learning. His theory consists of five hypotheses: (1) the acquisition-learning

hypothesis, (2) the natural order hypothesis, (3) the monitor hypothesis, (4) the input

hypothesis, and (5) the affective filter hypothesis (Krashen& Terrell, 1983), which teachers

should take into account when teaching a foreign language. Thehypothesis that could

encourage teachers most to use drama in their classes is thehypothesis of Affective filter that

embodies Krashen (1988)'s view that a number of ‘affectivevariables’ play a facilitative role

in second language acquisition. These variablesinclude: motivation, self-confidence and

anxiety. Krashen(1988) claims that learners with highmotivation, self-confidence, a good

self-image, and a low level of anxiety are betterequipped for success in second language

acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem,and debilitating anxiety can combine to ‘raise’

the affective filter and form a ‘mentalblock’ that prevents comprehensible input from being

used for acquisition(Krashen, 1988).

Drama helps students to overcome resistance to the foreign language and thefear of making

mistakes. It creates a natural need for speaking because it does notconcentrate on language

itself, but on creating drama. Focusing on the creative processmore than on final linguistic

output enables students to learn almost unconsciously. AsMaley and Duff (1982) opine 9

“every student needs periods in which he or she has a chance topractice what he or she knows

without restraint, without fear of being wrong. Studentsneed the occasional chance to take

risks in the language, to try out new ways ofcombining words, and of course, to find out

where the gaps are in their knowledge”(Maley and Duff, 1982, p. 14).

To provide learners with such opportunities for free practice, teachers usingdrama in their

classes should create a safe and comfortable atmosphere where studentswould not be afraid

of speaking in the target language. “This kind of stress-free, funteaching encourages pupils to

participate without embarrassment” (Hamilton andMcLeod, 1993, p. 4) and it helps them to

overcome the psychological barrier from speaking in aforeign language.

Maley and Duff (1982) give a list of categories of language that learners use naturally

andwithout further thinking during drama activities:

“Transactional language - the language needed for getting things done in a group

situation.

Discussion language - used to come to agreement about something, to describe,

comment on, or recall the activity in questions.

Performance language - it is the end product of some of the activities, but it is in

many senses the least important precisely because it involves

the mostpreparation. Clearly, almost any language function

can come into play here,depending on the nature of the

activity.” (Maley and Duff, 1982, p. 17)

2.1.2.2 Motivation

Good motivation is one of the factors necessary for efficient learning. Harmer (2001) defines

motivation as “some kind of internal drive which pushes someone to dothings in order to

achieve something” (p. 51). Drama gives students thechance to learn by doing “where

students are involved in experimentation in order toarrive at knowledge” (Harmer, 2007,

p.20), which is much more engaging than justlearning by rote.

When concerning the student’s motivation, it is often referred to two types:extrinsic, which

“may be influenced by a number of external factors such as attitude ofsociety, family and

peers to the subject in question (...), and intrinsic motivation that isgenerated by what happens

inside the classroom; this could be teacher’s methods oractivities that students take part in”

(Harmer, 2007, p. 20). Harmer also proposes that if we“involve the students or excite their

curiosity and provoke participation, we will helpthem to stay interested in the subject” 10

(Harmer, 2007, p. 20).

The use of drama undoubtedly represents one of the methods of work used byteachers to

provoke intrinsic motivation. Not only does it help to build a good teacherstudentrelationship,

but it also actively engages all the students and all the time, so “ina sense, motivation is not

needed when working through drama, because the enjoymentcomes from imaginative

personal involvement” (Maley and Duff, 1982, p.13). As Maley and Duff further (1982)

explain “drama activities also help to get rid of the diffidence and boredom that come from

being forced to stay passive most of the time”(p. 13).

2.1.2.3 Meaning in context

Appropriate understanding of the context of the discourse is one of the most important

elements for understanding the meaning. As Harmer (2007) claims “meaning oflanguage

depends on where it occurs within a larger stretch of discourse, and thus therelationship that

the different language elements have with what comes before and afterthem. In other words,

speakers and writers have to be able to operate with more thanjust words and grammar; they

have to be able to string utterances together” (p. 59).

Drama represents an ideal method of work if teachers want to put the meaningfor students

into a sizeable context. Unlike in guided practice, students are involved inreal communication

while they “activate language to communicate real meaning, ratherthan just practicing

language” (Harmer, 2007, p. 270) and thus develop theircommunicative competence in a

natural way, using body language, making pauses andinterruptions, showing emotions, and

creating relationships. Phillips encourages usingdrama in second language teaching because

“it encourages children to speak and givesthem the chance to communicate, even with limited

language, using non-verbalcommunication, such as body movements and facial expressions.”

(Phillips, 1999, p.6)

Moreover, making students focused on the process of the creation of the drama rather than

the final language product provides them with natural and purposeful need for speaking,

which describe Maley and Duff (1982) by stating that “the problem of not wanting to speak

or, more often, not knowing what to say is practically resolved because the activity makes it

necessary to talk”. (p.13-14) According to these educators “drama techniques have the

singular merit of directly engaging students’ feelings and, as a result, often making them

aware of the need to be able to express them appropriately”. (Maley and Duff, 1982, p.11)

11

2.1.2.4 Learning styles and multiple intelligences

Harmer (2007) stems from the theories of the Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Multiple

Intelligences and warns that “in any one classroom we have a number of different individuals

with different learning styles and preferences, which means that we have to offer a wide

range of different activity types in our lessons in order to cater for individual differences and

needs” (p. 16). Such classroom forms a perfect environment for using drama work which

includes all kinds of stimuli and can develop all types of human intelligences.

The theory of the Neuro-Linguistic Programming introduces to the educational theories

different stimuli that students prefer while learning and that predetermine their learning style.

According to this concept, the learners can be divided between visual learners, responding the

best to the visual stimuli such as pictures, written texts and diagrams; auditory learners,

benefiting most from the auditory input such as traditional lecturing or music; and

kinaesthetic learners who are the most successful when they are aged with the learning

activity. They acquire information fastest when participating in a science lab, drama

presentation, skit, field trip, dance, or other active activity. Because of the high numbers of

kinaesthetic learners, education is shifting toward a more hands-on approach; manipulatives

and other ‘props’ should be incorporated into almost every school subject, from physical

education to language arts (Butterfield, 1989).

Another concept of students’ individualities in learning that teachers should take into

consideration is the theory of multiple intelligences, first introduced in 1980’s by an

acknowledged American psychologist Howard Gardner. His theory claims that each

individual disposes of different types of intelligences defined as “abilities to solve problems

that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or community. The problem-solving

skill allows one to approach a situation in which a goal is to be obtained and to locate the

appropriate route to that goal” (Gardner, 1993, p.15).An individual can demonstrate an

extraordinary facility in one of the seven described intelligences: musical, bodily-

kinaesthetic, logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal and intrapersonal; but

each individual has usually developed several of them. An educator’s task is to create a

variety of learning activities that would help particular students to develop their intelligences.

Considering the fact that drama includes all kinds of stimuli, visual, auditory, and

kinaesthetic, and encourages students to develop all the intelligences through active

exploration of reality and problem-solving, its use in education can be regarded as extremely

beneficial.12

2.1.2.5 Psychological benefits

Wessels (1987) provides the best definition of what drama in education is andhow it benefits

students’ learning and personality development. “If a learner of English asked you ‘What is a

blind person?’,you might simply reply, ‘A blind person cannot see’, and this would probably

satisfy him intellectually. But if you replied, ‘Shut your eyes and try to find your pen on the

desk in front of you’, you would be involving him in the actual experience of being blind, and

would thus satisfy him not only intellectually, but emotionally as well, and possibly inspire in

him feelings of empathy with all blind people. He would be more likely to remember the

meaning of the word as a result of this moment of direct experience” (Wessels,1987, p. 7).

As drama gives the direct experience of human reality, students are first gettingto know

themselves and then also the others. They naturally develop empathy, bycreating and taking

over different social roles and asking questions like ‘What is he orshe thinking?’ ‘What does

he or she feel?’ ‘How would I feel being in their shoes?’, etc.Hamilton and McLeod (2001)

describe drama as a process of social learning: “Involvingrelations with others, it promotes

social and adaptive skills which in their turn feed intothe process of learning a foreign

language. (...) Learners are encouraged to explorethemselves and their reactions in relation to

the outside world in a way which can beboth strengthening and enriching” (p. 5).

2.2 Anxiety and Language

2.2.1Definition and types of Anxiety

In order to understand the specific type of anxiety that learners experience in a foreign

language classroom, it is important to first consider anxiety in general terms.

As a psychological construct, anxiety is described as “a state of apprehension, a vague fear

that is only indirectly associated with an object” (Scovel, 1991, cited in Tanveer, 2007, p. 3).

Speiberger (1976, cited in Wang, 2005, p. 13) distinguished anxiety from fear by pointing out

that although anxiety and fear are both “unpleasant emotional reactions to the stimulus

conditions perceived as threatening,” fear is usually derived from a "real, objective danger in

the external environment" while the threatening stimulus of anxiety may not be

known.Spielberger (1983, cited in Wilson, 2006, p. 41) defined anxiety as the “subjective

feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the

autonomic nervous system.” More specifically, Morris, David, & Hutchings (1981, cited in

13

Wilson, 2006, p. 41) claimed that general anxiety consists of two components: “worry and

emotionality.” Worry or “cognitive anxiety” refers to “negative expectations and cognitive

concerns about oneself, the situation at hand, and possible consequences,” and emotionality

or “somatic anxiety” concerns “one’s perceptions of the physiological-affective elements of

the anxiety experience, which are indications of autonomic arousal and unpleasant feeling

states, such as nervousness, upset stomach, pounding heart, sweating, and tension” (Morris,

David, & Hutchings, 1981, cited in Wilson, 2006, p. 41, & cited in Cubucku, 2007, p. 134).

2.2.1.1Trait, State and Situation-Specific Anxiety

MacIntyre and Gardner (1991, p. 87-92) identified three approachesto the study of anxiety,

which are: trait anxiety, state anxiety, and situation-specific anxiety.

Trait anxiety is “an individual’s likelihood of becoming anxious in any situation”

(Spielberger, 1983, cited in MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991, p. 87). As trait anxiety is a

relatively stable personality characteristic, a person who is trait anxious would

probably become anxious in many different kinds of situations, “more frequently or

more intensely than most people do” (Woodrow, 2006, p. 309). This approach to

anxiety research has been criticized in that the interpretation of trait anxiety would

be meaningless without being considered "in interaction with situations" because a

particular situation may be perceived as anxiety-provoking by some but not by

others although those people may have similar trait anxiety scores (MacIntyre &

Gardner, 1991, p. 88).

State anxiety, in contrast to the stable nature of trait anxiety, is momentary and thus

not an enduring characteristic of an individual’s personality. It is the apprehension

that is experienced at a particular moment in time (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991, p.

90). In other words, it is a transient anxiety, an unpleasant emotional temporary state,

a response to a particular anxiety-provoking stimulus such as an important test

(Spielberger, 1983, cited in Wang, 2005, p.13, and cited in Tanveer, 2007, p. 4). The

higher the level of trait anxiety an individual possess, the higher the level of state

anxiety he or she may experience in stressful situations (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991,

p. 90). The state-anxiety approach to anxiety research has been criticized for asking

the question “Are you nervous now?” instead of “Did this situation make you 14

nervous?;” in other words, it does not the subjects to ascribe their anxiety experience

to any particular source (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991, p. 90).

Situation-specific anxiety reflects a trait anxiety that recurs consistently over time

within a given situation (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991, p. 87; Spielberger, Anton and

Bedell, 1976, cited in Woodrow, 2006, p. 309). Zheng (2008, p. 2) proposed that the

three categories of anxiety can be identified on a continuum from stability to

transience, with trait anxiety related to a generally stable predisposition to be anxious

across situations on one end, state anxiety related to a temporary unpleasant

emotional state on the other, and situational-specific anxiety related to the probability

of becoming anxious in particular situations in the middle of the continuum.

According to MacIntyre and Gardner (1991, p. 90), situation-specific anxiety can be

considered as trait anxiety, which is limited to a specific context. This perspective

examines anxiety reactions in a “well-defined situation” such as public speaking,

during tests, when solving mathematics problems, or in a foreign language class

(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991, p. 90).

2.2.1.2 Facilitating Anxiety and Debilitating Anxiety

Facilitating anxiety improves learning and performance, while debilitating anxiety is

associated with poor learning and performance. According to Scovel (1978, cited in Tanveer,

2007, p. 10), anxiety, in its debilitating and facilitating forms, serves “simultaneously to

motivate and to warn” the learner. Facilitating anxiety occurs when the difficulty level of the

task triggers the proper amount of anxiety (Scovel, 1978, cited in Zheng, 2008, p. 2). In such

case, facilitating anxiety “motivates the learner to ‘fight’ the new learning task; it gears the

learner emotionally for approach behavior” (Scovel, 1991, cited in Tanveer, 2007, p. 11).

However, although a certain level of anxiety may be beneficial, too much anxiety can

become debilitating: it motivates the learner to “flee” the new learning task; and stimulates

the individual emotionally to adopt avoidance behavior which may lead to avoidance of

work and inefficient work performance (Scovel, 1978, cited in Zheng, 2008, p. 2; Scovel,

1991, cited in Tanveer, 2007, p. 11).

Such phenomenon can be best described by the Yerkes-Dodson Law, which suggests a

curvilinear association between arousal and performance (Wilson, 2006, p. 45). When

represented graphically on an inverted U-shaped curve, the Yerkes-Dodson Law shows that

15

too little arousal produces minimum performance; moderate arousal enhances performance

and reaches a peak at the top of the curve; after that, too much arousal will again hinder

performance (MacIntyre, 1995, p. 92).

FIGURE 2.2 – Inverted U relation between anxiety and performance (Source: MacIntyre, 1995, p. 92)

2.2.1.3 Foreign Language Anxiety

According to Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986), foreign language anxiety belongs to

situation-specific anxiety. In the following, I will review the literature on foreign language

anxiety concerning the concept of foreign language anxiety, the construct of foreign language

anxiety, and the effects of foreign language anxiety.

The role of anxiety in language learning was not put much emphasis because previous studies

usually generated contradictory results and were hard to interpret (Chastain, 1975; Scovel,

1978). Gardner and MacIntyre (1993a) believe that using general measures of anxiety is the

reason to generate contradictory results. Based on the situation-specific perspective, recent

studies have focused on anxiety which is specific to language situations. After examining the

concept of language anxiety empirically, researchers find language anxiety is distinct from 16

any other type of anxiety and is not merely a composite of other anxieties (Horwitz, Horwitz,

& Cope, 1986; MacIntyre& Gardner, 1991b). In order to identify and measure foreign

language anxiety, Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) developed the Foreign Language

Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), in which 33 question items ask respondents to respond to

situations specific to foreign language learning anxiety and reflect the three components of

foreign language anxiety: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative

evaluation (Ganschow& Sparks, 1996). For example, they ask questions about students’

anxiety in situations like speaking in front of the language class, taking exams in language

course, and perceiving other students’ evaluation of them. Due to the scale’s success on

construct validation and reliability, FLCAS has been widely adopted by many researchers to

explore learners’ foreign language anxiety (Aida, 1994; Chang, 1999; Ganschow et al., 1994;

Ganschow& Sparks, 1996; Liao, 1999).

Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) describe three components of foreign language anxiety:

communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. According to

McCroskey’s (1978) definition, communication apprehension is an individual’s level of

fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with other persons.

Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) submit the construct of communication apprehension to

their conceptualization of foreign language anxiety. They think interpersonal interactions are

the major emphasis in the English class. In a foreign language classroom, language learners’

oral tasks include not only learning a second language but also performing the language.

Therefore, communication apprehension in a foreign language context is different from that

in other context. Oral communication consists of two components: listening and speaking.

Speaking is anxiety-provoking in foreign language activities (MacIntyre& Gardner, 1991c).

Daly (1991) and Young (1986) find that most students are particularly anxious when they

have to speak a foreign language in front of their class. As to listening, it is a problem for

language learners, too. Foreign language learners usually have difficulty understanding

others. Because of the lack of control of oral communication, communication apprehension

emerges (MacIntyre& Gardner, 1991d).

Test anxiety is defined by Sarason (1984) as “the tendency to view with alarm the

consequences of inadequate performance in an evaluative situation.” Test anxiety occurs

when students have poor performance in the previous tests. Students develop a negative

stereotype about tests and have irrational perceptions in evaluative situations. These students

might have unpleasant test experience from either language class or other subjects, and they 17

transplanted the unhappy image to the present English class unconsciously (Chan & Wu,

2000). Test-anxious students may have false beliefs in language learning. These students

habitually put impractical demands on themselves and feel that anything less than a perfect

test performance is a failure (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). Young (1991) claims test

anxiety would affect foreign language learners with low levels of oral proficiency more than

those with high levels of proficiency. On the other hand, learners experience more language

anxiety in highly evaluative situations. Researchers find that test anxiety could be

significantly higher under an official and unfamiliar condition (Daly, 1991; Young, 1991).

Moreover, an oral test is more complicated because it provokes both test anxiety and oral

communication apprehension. The fact reveals that the constructs of foreign language anxiety

overlap and are difficult to distinguish. Unfortunately, constant evaluations by the instructor

in the foreign language classrooms are rather commonplace, and “even the brightest and most

prepared students often make errors” (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986), so test-anxious

learners will doubtlessly suffer stress and anxiety frequently. As mentioned above, test

anxiety is a type of performance anxiety deriving from a fear of failure and evaluative

situations. Although it overlaps with other constructs of foreign language anxiety, test anxiety

is relevant to academic context where performance evaluation is frequent.

Fear of negative evaluation is defined as ‘apprehension about others’ evaluations, distress

over their negative evaluations, and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself

negatively” (Watson, & Friend, 1969). Although it is similar to test anxiety, fear of negative

evaluation is broader in scope because it is not restricted to test-taking situations. In addition

to situations of tests, it may take place in any social, evaluative situation such as interviewing

for a job or speaking in foreign language class. MacIntyre and Gardner (1991d) propose that

fear of negative evaluation is closely related to communication apprehension. When students

are unsure of what they are saying, fear of negative evaluation occurs and they may doubt

about their ability to make a proper impression. In a foreign language context, negative

evaluation derives mainly from both teachers and their peers because foreign languages

require continual evaluation by the teacher and anxious students may also be intensely

susceptible to the evaluations of their peers. Students with fear of negative evaluation might

adopt the action of avoidance. In Aida’s (1994) opinion, students with fear of negative

evaluation might “sit passively in the classroom, withdrawing from classroom activities that

could otherwise enhance their improvement of the language skills. In extreme cases, students

may think of cutting class to avoid anxiety situations, causing them to be left behind.” These 18

components are considered to have a deleterious effect on second language acquisition.

Besides, they overlap and are closely related to each other (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986).

Over the past few years, foreign language educators have found that anxiety plays a role in

success or failure in the foreign language classroom (Ganschow, et al., 1994). In addition, a

lot of researchers indicate that high level of anxiety can interfere with foreign language

learning (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre& Gardner, 1991c; Madsen, et al.,

1991). Actually, anxiety can be either facilitating or debilitating. Facilitating anxiety

motivates the learner to adopt an approach attitude and is willing to confront the new learning

task. On the other hand, debilitating anxiety motivates the learner to assume an avoidance

attitude and therefore tends to escape from the new learning task (Scovel, 1978). The factor

of task difficulty affects the learner to develop a facilitating or a debilitating anxiety.

MacIntyre (1995) suggests only when "a given task is relatively simple," foreign language

anxiety could be facilitating. In such a situation, anxiety may improve performance through

increased effort. But once the task is too difficult, anxiety will impair performance.

Therefore, anxiety could either benefit or impair the language learning and performance, and

the determinant is task difficulty.

The above-mentioned approach and avoidance behavior caused by anxiety can be further

confirmed by the theory of language class risk-taking and language class discomfort. Ely

(1986) defines language class risk-taking as “an individual’s tendency to assume risks in

using the L2 in the second language class.” The learners’ willingness or policy of approach to

undertake actions that involve a significant of risk is an important characteristic of successful

foreign language learning. Because successful learners have to be willing to try out the new

language and take the risk of being wrong. Conversely, language class discomfort is the

personality construct that is contrary to language class risk-taking. Adopting the policy of

avoidance, a language learner with discomfort is unwilling to participate in activities or

volunteer answers. Consequently, he performs poorly in the language classroom settings.

Although anxiety could be facilitating or debilitating, it in most cases “negatively affects

performance in the second language” (MacIntyre& Gardener, 1991b). In the following, the

impact of language anxiety on foreign language achievement will be reviewed.

2.2.2 Impacts of Foreign Language Anxiety

Impacts of foreign language anxiety have been found both onforeign language learning and

speaking performance.19

2.2.2.1 Impacts of foreign language anxiety on learning

In second language acquisition, impacts of languageanxiety play a vital role in foreign

language learning performance. According to Oxford (1999), language anxiety stands high

among the factors having influences overlanguage learning no matter that what learning

setting is. As such, research studies intoforeign language classroom anxiety discovered

negative correlations between language anxiety and foreign language learning performance.

In Krashen’sMonitor Model, a key role is given toemotional variables that affect the language

acquisition process. One of it is thesignificant hypotheses in this model is “Affective Filter

Hypothesis.” This hypothesisdescribes that only the affective optimal conditions yield

language acquisition. Theaffective conditions stated here are motivation, self-confidence, and

anxiety. In termsof anxiety, it is said that optimal conditions are found when anxiety is very

low. AsKrashen (1982) states, only a student whose anxiety is low is able to seek out a

newinput and process it in the target language.

Tobias (1986) divides language learning into three stages: input;processing; and output (see

Figure 2.1) and claims that these stages can help study theroots of anxiety’s effects. The input

stage is associated with the learners’ firstexperience with a given stimulus at a given time and

is said to be the initialrepresentations of the items in memory. In this sense, internal

representations aremade, and then attention, concentration and encoding occur when

encounteringexternal stimuli. The processing stage relates to the performance of

cognitiveoperations on the subject matters, including organization, storage, and assimilation

ofthe material. So, this stage is concerned with unseen, internal manipulations of itemsfrom

the input stage. For the output stage, it involves the production of materialpreviously learned.

Hence, the production (performance) of this stage highly dependson previous stages when

there is a correspondence involving the organization of theoutput and the speed to retrieve the

items from the memory. In this sense, this stagerelates to language learnersdemonstrating

their ability in using a second language.

With regard to the impact of anxiety on language learning, MacIntyre(1999) states that the

cognitive effects of anxiety on learning performance can beperceived in the stages of input,

processing and output. Anxiety at the input stage issimilar to the role of the filter, hindering

the information from entering into thesystem of cognitive processing. In the processing stage,

the effect of anxiety is todistract students’ attention, having an impact on both the speed and

accuracy oflearning, and at the output stage, anxiety impairs speaking and writing abilities in 20

thesecond language learning.

Figure 2.3Model of the Effects of Anxiety on Learning from Instruction(Source:

MacIntyre, 1999 p. 35)

In sum, language anxiety has tremendous impacts on foreignlanguage learning performance

in all three learning stages: input, processing, andoutput. With the effects of foreign language

anxiety on foreign language learning ineach stage, research indicates that negative

relationships between foreign languageclassroom anxiety and foreign language learning

performance can be assumed. Thus, language anxiety brings about inefficient foreign

language learning performance.

2.2.2.2 Impacts of Foreign Language anxiety on Speaking Performance

With a concern for oral competence of EFL students, manyinvestigations turn to studyanxiety

in relation to its debilitating impact on EFLlearners’speaking skill. Thus, research studies into

the relationships between language anxiety and foreign language speaking performance have

been investigated.Horwitz et al. (1986) demonstrated that high levels of anxiety led to

lowspeaking performance. That is, with a fear of negative evaluation, students

developedcommunication apprehension, resulting in a fear to speak in a foreign language,

afeeling of nervousness, confusion, and even panic.

MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) asserted that because of foreignlanguage anxiety, students

turned into negative self-talk, leading them to poorspeaking performance and, in turn, 21

affected their abilities to process information inforeign language contexts.

Phillips (1992) studied the effects of foreign language anxiety onstudents’oral performance

and attitudes and revealed that students with higherlanguage anxiety tended to say less,

produce shorter communication units, and usefewer dependent clauses and target language

than low anxiety students in an oral exam.

McIntyre and Charos (1995) discovered social effects of anxiety onspeaking performance.

They found that students’ willingness to communicate couldbe reduced if students were

provided with an opportunity to communicate in a naturalsetting where their speaking fluency

could be decreased. However, successfulstudents were willing to talk in order to learn. Also,

MacIntyre (1998) indicated thatlearners with higher language anxiety tended to avoid

interpersonal communicationmore often than less anxious learners and that anxiety provoking

could impair thequality of communication output. To clarify, the information retrieval

process mightget stuck by the “freezing up” moments when getting anxious.

Wilson (2006) examined the relationships of overall proficiency ofEnglish oral performance,

variables in an association with overall proficiency, oraltest performance, and foreign

language anxiety of a group of tertiary students. Thestudy revealed that there was a

statistically significant and negative relationshipbetween language anxiety and oral test

grades using two oral performance criteria.

Highly anxious group of students tended to perform oral test grades significantly morepoorly

than those with moderate and low anxiety. Obviously, high anxiety led tooverall poor English

proficiency.

Woodrow (2006) studied the debilitating impacts of second languageanxiety on oral

performance of advanced English for academic purposes (EAP)students studying on intensive

EAP courses prior to entering Australian universities.

The study found that a second language anxiety was considered a significant predictorof oral

achievement and anxious language learners can experience difficulties inretrieval interference

and skills deficit.

In brief, based on the above aforementioned literature review on thepervasive impacts of

foreign language anxiety, specifically on speakingperformance it was found that speaking in

the target language seemed to be amongthe most threatening experience of foreign language

learners, resulting in their poorspeaking performance.

2.2.2.3 Possible Factors Contributing To Learners’ Anxiety22

Scholars and research studies into foreign language classroom anxiety haveproposed sources

of foreign language anxiety in the following different aspects.

The primary sources of language anxiety, explicated by Horwitz et al. (1986), are

communication apprehension (e.g., difficulty in understanding the teacher’s instruction)

negative evaluation (e.g., fear of correction and fear of making mistakes) and a general

feeling of anxiety (e.g., fear of failing the class) (Horwtiz et al., 1986; Pappamihiel, 2002;

Casado and Dereshiwsky, 2004).

Young (1991) identifies six potential sources of foreign language classroomanxiety based on

the following three factors: the learner, the teacher, and the instructionalpractice. He

postulates that language anxiety is caused by (a) personal and interpersonalanxiety; (b)

learners‟ beliefs about language learning; (c) instructors‟ beliefs aboutlanguage teaching; (d)

instructor-learner interactions; (e) classroom procedures; and (f)language testing. These

sources of language anxiety are interrelated.

Price (1991) states that language students are found most anxious when theywere asked to

speak in front of their friends and this is attributed to a fear of beinglaughed at, making fools

of themselves, and being embarrassed.

Koch and Terrell (1991) account that among the 23 activities judged to triggeranxiety, oral

class presentation is found to be the activity that triggers the most anxietyfor the first two

years of NA Spanish classes at the University of California, Irvine.

Von Wörde (2003) reveals that an inability to comprehend what is beingtaught is a cause of a

considerable anxiety. That is to say, anxiety might be provokedby an inability to listen to a

teacher speaking too fast and insisting using English at alltimes in the class. Students,

therefore, cannot keep up during class and they thencarry this difficulty over into the

homework assignments. These factors, consequently,make students become tense because

they cannot clearly perceive what has beentaught.

In sum, most of the various sources of foreign language classroom anxietyseem related to

affective issues. These sources could be students‟ personality factors,learning and teaching

styles, interaction between a teacher and learners, a classroommanagement and teaching

methodology. To investigate causes of foreign languageclassroom anxiety, these affective

factors should be taken into consideration.

2.3 Research into the Effects of Drama on Anxiety

Research investigating whether drama-based curricula positively affect learner anxiety is 23

relatively recent. Kao (1994) pioneered the investigation of the effect of process-oriented

drama on anxiety in L2 oral skills. Her research investigated 23 Taiwanese university

students who were learning English. Qualitative analyses of the teacher's perceptions

gathered from video, audio, and written class records suggest a positive impact on thelearning

experience: drama provided learners with more opportunities to speak the L2,resulting in

learners applying communicative strategies; interaction between teacher andstudents, as well

as between students increased; learners gained more confidence in speaking

English because the drama-based activities encouraged them to convey their thoughts in

anatural way. The learners who felt “afraid”of speaking in the target language prior to

thecommencement of the course became more confident after participating in the

dramaprogram. However, other learners with very low self-esteem and lower language

proficiencyseemed to have benefited less from the course.

Another example of how drama can affect anxiety has been provided by Coleman(2005) in

her research with adolescent Korean English learners. On the last day of classes, two types of

data collection were presented to learners: a ten-item questionnaire on a six point Likert scale

(1 = not at all to 6 = completely); and an interview with ten questions about learners’

perceptions of the drama-based curriculum on a three-point Likert scale (from1 = not helpful

to 3 = very helpful). Results from both questionnaires suggest that participantsranked the

statement “feel more relaxed speaking English” the highest (M = 5.07).In addition, results

from the interview revealed that learners ranked the statement “managesanxiety and

apprehension” the lowest (M = 2.12). However, Coleman concedes that factors other than the

drama instruction might have influenced results. For example, it could be that learners' age

affected the results.

More recently, Piazzoli (2011) examined the impact of process-oriented drama on L2

learners' anxiety levels. Six process-oriented drama workshops were designed and deliveredto

twelve advanced learners of Italian enrolled in a third-year course at a university inBrisbane,

Australia. The workshops included a reflection on Italian socio-cultural issuesthrough

discussion, improvisations, and the presentation of formulaic language structures. Atthe end

of each workshop, a forum was provided for learners to reflect on intercultural issues.

Qualitative data were gathered through video-recording of the workshops, the

researchers'reflective journal, transcriptions of the forums, semi-structured interviews, three

conceptmapping diagrams, and group sessions using video-stimulated recall, in which

learnerswatched segments from each process drama and were asked to comment. Results of 24

the dataanalysis suggest that learners who experienced language anxiety benefited from the

processdrama workshops. Through the role they played, the learners gained more confidence

inspeaking the L2. In addition, the transcriptions from the group forums and interviews

suggestthat the learners did not feel “worried”, “scared”, or “threatened”, and were not

“judged”while speaking the L2 during the process drama workshops. The author suggests

that process drama lowers language anxiety for learners who are often reluctant to speak the

L2, and builds self-confidence.

2.4 SummaryThis chapter outlines the theoretical framework of this study. The first, theoretical part

concerns the concept of Drama in Education and examines the impact in English language

teaching. Evidence has demonstrated that drama helps to facilitate real communication and

language skill development. It is also found that drama motivates students to participate in

classroom activities and boosts self-confidence. The next part deals with literature of foreign

language anxiety in terms of concept, construct, effects, and impact on foreign language learning. It is

obvious that foreign language anxiety affects foreign language learning. Although the majority of

scholars tend to support the use of drama activities to lower anxiety about speaking a second

language, it seems that studies on anxiety about speaking in the context of Korea are few.

Sources of anxiety about speaking English may be different in a drama-oriented second

language classroom since students tend to have more chances to perform in the class. The

next chapter will state the research questions and outline the research design of this study.

25

Chapter 3. Research Methodology3.1 Overview

This study reports part of an investigation of the effect of drama on students’ reticence and

anxiety in speaking in English. This section outlines the research design of this study. It will

first state the research questions and describe the participants involved in this study. Next, it

will discuss the five instruments used to help in answering the two research questions, and the

procedures associated with administering the data collection in detail. Finally, analysis of the

data collected, describing what methods were used and how they answered the two research

questions will be presented.

3.2 Research questions

In the light of the research discussed in chapter 2, this study attempted to answer the

following research questions:

1) How do the drama activities affect students’ anxiety level in speaking in English?

2) What are the factors that affect students' anxiety in speaking in English during the drama

activities?

26

3.3 Participants

The participants in this study were 27 female undergraduate students enrolled in the Drama

in English Language Teaching (ELT) class instructed by Dr. Kang at S. women’s university in

Seoul, Korea, from March 5 through June 20, 2014. Twenty-six of these participants

identified as native Korean speakers and one identified as a native Chinese speaker. They

attend credited Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) classes three

hours per week over a 16-week semester. The classes consisted of one hour lecture every

Wednesdays and two hours drama activity every Fridays, and were taught in English.

A total of 27 students, twenty students (70%) were English majors and seven students (30%)

were non-English majors (Education, Economics, Multimedia Science, Business

Management, Physical Education, and Child Welfare), participated in the study (See Figure

3.1). A first-year student (4%, n=1), sophomores (30%, n=8), juniors (26%, n=7), and seniors

(41%, n=11) participated in the current study (See Table 3.1). Their proficiency level ranged

from mid-intermediated to high-advanced.

The participants ranged in age from 19 to 25, whose mean age was 22 years. The general

information about these participants is summarized in Table 3.2. The participants varied

substantially with regard to their prior exposure to English. In terms of the period of English

study, the majority of the participants (63%, n=17) had had experiences of living abroad from

1 month to 9 years (see Table 3.3).

Figure 4. Description of Participants' Majors

70%

30%

English majorsNon English majors*

(Note: Non-English majors*- Education, Economics, Multimedia Science, Business

Management, Physical Education, and Child Welfare)

27

Table 3.1

Participants’ school year

School year Number %

Freshman 1 4

Sophomore 8 30

Junior 7 26

Senior 11 41

Table 3.2General information about survey respondentsTotal participants

Age range Average age Starting age to learn English

Starting age to learn spoken English

27 19-25 22 3-11 4-20Table 3.3

Experience of studying or living aboard

Answer Number %

Yes 17 63

No 10 37

How long(Length) Number %

1-5monthes 3 18

1year 7 41

2-4years 3 18

5-9years 4 24

In order to better explore the issue of students’ anxiety in different drama activities, the

participants with one from each anxiety level one who also answered the survey were

selected for a more focused study which continued for a full term (16 weeks). Among them,

four students (one high-anxious, one moderate-anxious, and two low-anxious) participated in

unstructured interviews.

Prior to the study, all the participants agreed with the teacher’s announce which indicated that

the study involved experiences of students’ anxiety in speaking in English. To preserve their

privacy, pseudonyms were used when presenting the results

28

3.4 Instruments

To investigate the effect of drama on students’ anxiety of speaking English, a triangulation of

methods were used: survey, observations, reflective journals and interviews, as detailed

below.

3.4.1 Public Speaking Class Anxiety Scale (PSCAS)

A 25-item survey developed by Yaikhong and Usaha (2012) was administered to the students

to measure their anxiety levels in the EFL public speaking class. Items were adopted from the

modified version of Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) by Horwitz et al.

(1986); Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) and Personal Report of

Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA-34) by McCroskey (1970); and Speaker Anxiety Scale

(SA) by Clevenger and Halvorson (1992) based on their critical appraisals. Some minor

changes in wordings of adopted items were made to a preliminary PSCAS and were

validated. Examples are ‘‘I never feel quite sure of myself while I am speaking English.”, ‘‘I

tremble when knowing that I am going to be called on to speak English.” and ‘‘I start to panic

when I have to speak English without a preparation in advance.” The preliminary PSCAS

yielded an internal consistency of .84 using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient when administered

to 76 participants and was factor-analyzed to establish the construct and the final version.

According toYaikhong and Usaha (2012), the factor analysis revealed that the PSCAS

included the components of communication apprehension, test anxiety, fear of negative

evaluation, and comfort in using English, which molding around the speaking component in a

public speaking class. This scale was slightly modified to the Korea context to be used in this

study (See Appendix ).

The PSCAS is designed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to

“Strongly Agree” with values 1–5 assigned to them respectively. Thus, the total multiplied

scores of a PSCAS are 125 and then subtracted by 25; scores higher than 100 are categorized

as high anxiety, between 100-75 as medium anxiety, and lower than 75 as low anxiety. To

reveal levels of anxiety requiring the determination of the mean, Liu and Jackson (2008)

suggested adjusting the values assigned to different alternatives from “Strongly Disagree” to

“Strongly Agree.” Namely, the items expressing positive attitudes had the values assigned to

their alternatives reversed, so that the response “Strongly Disagree” received a score of 5

instead of 1 and vice versa. In terms of anxiety levels based on mean, it revealed that mean

29

scores which fall within the interval of 3-4 were categorized as medium anxiety level, below

3 as low anxiety level, and above 4 as high anxiety level, respectively.

3.4.2 Background questionnaire

The background questionnaire followed the steps outlined in A Study of the Relationship

between L2 Learners’ Language Anxiety and Proficiency (Yun and sohn, 2012, pp. 97-98)

and was designed to obtain demographic data about the participants such as name, gender,

age, school year, nationality, department, previous language education, years of language

study, exposure to other language, experience traveling or living in any other country, self-

rated language proficiency levels, TOEFL scores (reading, listening, writing, and speaking),

and reasons for taking the Drama in ELT class (See Appendix).

According to Yun and sohn (2012), MacIntyre, Noels, and Clemnt (1997) investigated the

relationship between language learners’ perceived language proficiency, actual proficiency,

and language anxiety. Results revealed that perceived competence was significantly

correlated to the actual competence of learners, but language anxiety was negatively

correlated to all these actual and perceived competencies. In other words, learners at higher

levels tend to perceive themselves as more proficient and have less language anxiety

compared to less proficient learners. This implies that anxiety is correlated to the clusters of

perceived language proficiencies; perceived language proficiency by language learners can be

used to predict accurate language anxiety (p. 85). Thus, participants in this study were asked

to self-measure their language proficiency with respect to reading, listening, speaking, and

writing by using a 4-point Liket scale from 0 to 4, 0 represented no fluency and 4 presented

fluency.

3.4.3 Students’ Reflective journals

As a data collection method, journals have been used to investigate anxiety in various studies

(e.g. Bailey, 1995; Halbach, 2000; Hilleson, 1996; Parkinson et al., 2003). According to

Nunan (1992), journals may provide ‘insights in psychological aspects of language

development’ (p.121). It is also a useful tool to look at what factors affect students’ anxiety

(Oxford, 1990, p. 196). Both students could be more aware of their learning with the help of

reflective journals (Nunan, 1992; Oxford, 1990, p. 120). Students could benefit from this

research project as well.

The Students’ Reflective journals in this study mainly followed the framework of Allwright 30

& Bailey (1991, p. 190) who listed a series of suggestions about diary research. It was

designed clear to the students that the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of

drama on students’ anxiety of speaking English. Keeping journals might benefit students as

they would reflect more on their EFL speaking class.

In order to gather additional data about personal and affective variables in speaking in

English during the drama activities, the students were asked to write reflective journals once

every drama lesson. In addition to the responses to the focused topics, such as level of

participation and anxiety in each lesson and in different drama activities, reasons for feeling

anxious, the students could write about whatever experience of. They were also provided

with guideline questions for their reflective journals (see Appendix ). They were told they

could write as much as they wanted in English. They got feedback on their journals but they

did not be correct the grammatical mistakes since the journals were not writing exercises. All

35 participants were invited to write journals. Each was expected to write 8-9 journal entries.

3.4.4 Classroom Observation.

In conducting the observation, the researcher used direct observation. Dawson (2002, p. 32)

asserted that direct observation involved the observation of a ‘subject’ in a certain situation

and often uses technology such as video camera. To compare students’ self-reports with

researcher and video-recorded observations, the class was observed and video-recorded by

the researcher two times a week. The observation focused on the anxiety-provoking situation

in speaking in English during the drama activities. First, the researcher observed students’

anxious behaviors in class and the teacher teaching activities and techniques related to

students’ anxiety on speaking English. The researcher kept a weekly record of the most/least

anxious/reticent students in English speaking in different drama activities during the whole

term, including general reasons for student reticence and anxiety.

3.4.5 Interviews

To get a more comprehensive insider view of students’ anxiety of speaking English in Drama

in ELT classroom, 1 high-anxious, 1 moderate-anxious, and 2 low-anxious students invited

for an unstructured interview.“Unstructured interview is the mode of choice when the

interviewer does not know what he or she doesn’t know and must therefore rely on the

respondent to tell him or her” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 269). That explains why the

researcher has chosen unstructured interviews to collect data.31

Since unstructured interview allows the respondents to answer freely and the researcher to

probe and explore the exact and related problem(s) as they come up during the interview,

interview questions followed the students’ answers that covered such aspects as educational

experience, personal experience, participation and level of anxiety in University drama

lessons, and reasons for feeling anxious as well as how the students perceive the effectiveness

of the drama activities as related to their English Fluency. In case the interviewees may have

difficulty understanding the questions in English or do not like speaking English, all the

interviews were carried out in Korean.

3.5 Procedure

3.5.1 General procedure

The study were conducted during one semester (16 weeks for undergraduate students, the last

of which was for final exams) of the academic year 2014 (see table 3. ). The survey was

administered twice for pre- and post-test until the end of the class. For the pre-test, students

were asked to complete the questionnaires included a background questionnaire at home and

then submitted them to the researcher in the first week. Also, students were complete the

same survey for the post-test on the last day of 16 weeks. The students started journal writing

in the second week and made one entry every lesson for eight weeks. The researcher started

to keep a record of the students’ participation and level of anxiety in the various drama

activities on a weekly basis from the second week on till the penultimate week (14 weeks in

all).

In the last four months of the study, the researcher observed and video-recorded the two

classes two times a week. Each class lasted for 50 and 100 min each time. Each time before

video-recording, the students were required to check their attendances so that the researcher

could be sure of the seating in the classroom. In case the students might feel nervous when

video-recorded for the first time, only one video-recording were used for analyses in the

study.

The unstructured interviews were held when the final-term exam was over and conducted in

Korean. At the beginning of the interviews, the researcher informed the students about the

purpose of the study and assured them that the information provided would be kept

confidential. Nevertheless, the results would be shared with them. After some small talk, the

researcher started the interviews by asking the students to talk about their anxiety and what

they thought are factors that affect their anxiety in speaking in English during the drama 32

activities. Each student interview lasted for 45-50 min, which were audio-recorded. Four

students were interviewed individually, and the study was ended.

Table 3.2Research scheduleSteps Period Procedures

Planning February, 2014

Selection of research topics and questions

Study of prior researches

Selection of the experiment group

Check the weekly schedule of the class

Acting March,2014~June,2014

Execute pre-surveys (PSCAS, Background questionnaire),

and analysis

Implementation of lesson plan(Instructor-Dr. Kang)

Observe the experiment group

Execute post-test (PSCAS) and Interviews

Evaluation July, 2014 Collection of data and analysis

Research questions testing and deduction of

conclusions and implications

3.5.2 The procedure of drama class

The drama class involved two lessons per a week. In order to understand of drama in ELT

and to apply this in Korean ELT effectively, theories underpinning drama activities, such as,

multiculturalism, interactionism, pragmatism, and psycholinguistics were studied as well as

variety kinds of activities and tasks. Drama activities were explored in terms of using there in

a real context. One drama activity was taught in two lessons. Each lesson lasted 50 and 100

min. Eight drama activities were covered in the class (see Appendix ).

In first two classes (three hours total), the instructor introduced what Drama is overall

including rationales for using drama in ELT and Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

theories, focusing on Communicative language Teaching (CLT). From Class 3, the students

33

mainly learned the main activities such as miming, scripted role-play, improvisation, process

drama, Theatre play, Debating and situation during the rest part of each class. Structure of the

drama lessons in this study generally consisted of three stages (1) getting started, (2) the

focus in the lesson and (3) discussion and reflection after the main drama activity (Liu, 2002,

p. 57; Somers, 1994, p.58).

The researcher was asked to create the groups with which the students would perform their

plays together. The groups were limited to 4-5 students and had changed 3 times for 14

weeks. The drama groups made use of the creative writing technique while preparing their

plays. The basic reason was not restrict the creative and free thinking of the students. After

they wrote their scenarios, a copy of those scenarios was presented to the researcher at the

end of the drama. While the drama groups stuck to the scenarios they wrote, they also made

use of the improvisations depending on the flow of the play. When and which group will

perform their plays were determined by drawing lots or the instructor among the group. After

these, each group continued their work until it was their turn to perform. In this way, all the

groups took part in the drama activity. The researcher monitored the process of all which the

plays were recorded. Every week a performance was done, and after each performance, all

the groups provided the researcher with a reflective journal mentioning the experiences of the

students in the drama activity.

3.6 Data analysis

The results of the survey were computed using the statistical Package for social science

(SPSS, version ) in terms of frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, mode, median

and range to investigate the students’ anxiety levels in general. In addition, Pearson’s

Product-Moment Correlation was used to analyze the correlation between English speaking

anxiety and learner variables such as major, school year, proficiency level, and length of

experience of living abroad. The interviews were transcribed and checked twice, which,

together with the journals and observations, were subjected to a thematic content analysis

(Krippendorff, 1980).

According to Krippendorff (1980), content analysis can be used to analyze narratives,

descriptions, folklores and political materials, and so on when source materials are

voluminous and complicated, when they contain all sorts of different kinds of subject matters,

and/or when the source material is used to complement some other kind of data during an

inquiry. Before analyzing the content of communications, it is important to classify the

34

content into units, which can be word, phrase, sentence, syntax, reference, time, size,

proposition, and/or theme (Neuendorf, 2002). Since the observations, reflective journals and

interviews in the present research were conducted according to a set of purposes or key

questions, they could be best analyzed according to thematic units. The primary purpose in

this study was to identify what were factors that affected students’ anxious, whether they felt

anxious in the lesson they had just taken, what changes in anxiety happened to them during

the term to answer research questions 2. Based on the analyses, some calculations were

carried out, for example, about how many students felt the most anxious when responding to

the teacher in class and how many felt the least anxious during pair or group work and so on.

3.7 Summary

This chapter outlined the research design of this study. It first stated the two research

questions of this study. It then gave an account of the research design. A questionnaire,

observations, interviews and reflective journals from participants were the methods used to

collect data. This chapter also described how the research instruments were developed. The

results and discussion will be illustrated in the next chapter.

35

Chapter 4. Result :기말고사에 썼던 내용이구요.아직 고치지

못했습니다.bb

4.1 The result of the pre- and the post- survey……………………………………

4.2 The result of Students’ Reflective journals……………………………………

The analyses of written responses from 27 participants’ reflective journals revealed how the

students experienced of the drama anxiety.Since there were different types of drama activities

(mainly performing,group discussion and presentation) in class and thus the students had to

speak English to varying audiences, their levels of anxiety varied correspondingly.

During the performance, the students needed to face audiences. Most students felt nervous for

the first 1 or 2 weeks because they had not yet got to know eachother, especially because they

were not at a similar English proficiency level. As they became familiar with this situation,

most felt at ease during the performance on the stage. Group work ofteninvolved 4 or 5

students, which made some nervous because more people were listeningand/or they were not

familiar with one another yet. Nevertheless, since they were in thesame group, most of them

felt comfortable speaking English verysoon. Being singled out to answer questions and

giving presentations (usually withoutreferring to written scripts), as expressed by the students

and observed by the teachersand the researcher, were the most anxiety provoking activities in

class. In the fifth reflective journalstudents’ anxiety expressed, like those in

Young’s(1991a)study, did not feel nervous during pair work or group work. As 1 studentsaid,

I like group discussion work best because in the group work, I can speak more relaxedly

and jokingly.What’s more, sometimes if I can’t express my meanings exactly I can use

everypossible way to express myself. For example, body language, pictures and so on.

So,most time I can finish the work happily (Pack, journal).

The students felt free to try various means to facilitate the communication and

36

helpedeachother in a friendly way. There were a few exceptions, however. A few

studentsreported having felt nervous during group work if talking to a person at a different

proficiencylevel. If the partner’s English were better, they became nervous due to their

ownpoor English. That was why some students might have felt nervous when having a

faceto-face conversation with their teachers of English. On the other hand, if the

partner’sEnglish were worse, some might also have felt nervous because ‘‘I’m afraid my

Englishwould become as poor as her’’ (Kim, journal).

The students became nervous when asked to performing first s in class because they

worriedabout their English proficiency and feared making mistakes. This was best

illustratedby a student’s report in her journal, ‘‘I was most anxious when I was asked first and

speak only English because I thought that it was shame to show my poor English tothe

classmates’’ (Lee, journal). Some students felt the most anxious when speaking

English to the whole class because ‘‘all the classmates were looking at me’’ (Jie,journal).

When the students were not prepared or failed to understand the teacher,they

becameparticularly anxious when asked to speak English in class, because ‘‘at thatmoment, I

didn’t know what to say’’ (Jang, journal).

This finding was generally the same as what was reported by the students.All of them

acknowledged that they did not feel nervous during pair work or group workboth in the

middle school and at the University, whereas they became a little or more anxiouswhen

responding to the teacher or giving presentations at the front of the class. Inaddition, the

students’ descriptions were confirmed by both teacher and video-recordedobservations,

which failed to identify any anxious students during the drama activities. ‘‘I don’t think the

students are nervous during pair work because nobody elsecan hear them. If asked to speak

English to the whole class, they may feel nervous. Forexample, they suddenly did not know

what to say or their speech became illogical and disorganized. The students appeared the

most anxiouswhen responding to the teacher or singled out to speak English because only a

few of themwere observed to volunteer to respond to their teachers in each activity, though a

few more students at a higherproficiency level volunteered to do that.

In summary, as found in previous studies (Bailey, 1983; Hilleson, 1996; Jackson, 2002;

Price, 1991), many students appeared to be anxious when speaking English in the oral

Englishclassroom. The students felt the least/not anxious during pair work and group work

butthe most anxious when asked to speak English in class, especially when unprepared. The

higher proficiency students appeared to be more comfortable when speaking English in class 37

comparedwithlow proficiency levels, as observed by the researcher.

Moreover, with increasing exposure to spoken English, many students’ anxiety

levelsdecreased in the drama activitiesin class during the term, a tendency not only

reportedby the students themselves but observed by the researcher. The students,like Bailey

(1983) when she was learning French, tended to be anxious in the first (few)lesson(s). As

they had more access to spoken English and became more familiar withthe new environment,

more and more students, however, did not feel (so) nervous when speaking the language in

class, especially during group discussions. Even a few who still felt nervous when speaking

English in class, many reported to feel better than they used to in the previous drama

activity(s).

As a student said, ‘‘but I turned more comfortable and not felt as nervous as I didlast time’’

(Han, journal), many students became less anxious when they came to be‘‘more confident’’

(Yoon, journal) and/or ‘‘get used to the situation and those activities’’( Nam, journal). More

students attributed the alleviation of anxietyto more practice and more contact with spoken

English in drama activities, ‘‘... I become less nervousthan I was when I came here. It is

maybe because I have more practice and more contactwith classmates . . . .’’(Hong, journal).

The same behavior was observed, all of whom reported that they hadidentified

anxiousstudents in different drama activities during the first few weeksand that the students’

behavior seemed to have showed more confidence as the term wenton.

4.3 The result of classroom observation…………………………………………..

This observation conducted in order to observe the anxiety-provoking situation. The

observation was taken while the teaching learning process taken place, and the material was

asking and giving opinion. Through the observation, the researcher did not find the anxiety-

provoking situation occurred din the teaching learning activities in the class. But the students

felt uncomfortable when the teacher came close to them. The researcher only found that the

students did not feel shy or afraid to speak while their classmates were busy with their selves

by telling jokes with their friends and spoke each others during the class. In addition, the

class was too noisy during the observation taken, so the data collected regarding students

language anxiety was so limited and further observation is still needed

4.4 The results of interview

38

Chapter 5. Discussion

5.1 Research question 1

5.2 Research question 2

Chapter 6. ConclusionThe result in this study demonstrate that drama can be successfully implemented in EFL

classrooms and coordinated to reinforce the regular curriculum. The findings support results

from other studies showing drama to have a positive effect on English language learners’

anxiety, confidence and motivation towards speaking English (Coleman, 2005; Stern, 1980;

Stinson &Freebody, 2006). While the sample size of literature review section and the

analyses of written responses from 27 participants’reflectivejournals are too small to draw

any generalizable conclusions, the results are likely to indicate that drama significantly lower

the affective filter for students, and begin to reduce the affective filter for students in EFL.

Drama activities will help develop community and foster group cohesiveness, which

helplower students’ anxiety aboutspeaking English in front of the group. And drama activities

will provide the students small successes that built confidence in their abilities

tocommunicate in English. In addition to these positive effects on the affective filter, drama

activities exemplify the other components of the Natural Approach. Drama provides

opportunities to practice communication skills, and it provides the meaningful and

comprehensible input necessary to for English language learners to successfully acquire

English.

References:

Dawnson, Catherin.(2002).  Practical research methods: A user-friendly guide to

mastering research techniques and projects.UK: How To Books Ltd.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. and Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The

Modern Language Journal, Volume 70, No. 2, pp. 125-132.

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to

communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92,

71-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00687.x

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: Sage

39

Publications.

McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monograph,

37, 269-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637757009375677

Clevenger, T., & Halvorson, S. K. (1992). Converting the PRCA-State Version 2 to the

Speech Anxiety Scale. Tallahassee, The Florida State University.

Yaikhong, K., & Usaha, S. (2012). A measure of EFL public speaking class anxiety: Scale

development and preliminary validation and reliability. English Language

Teaching, 5(12), p23.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baldwin, P. and Fleming, K. (2003). Teaching Literacy through Drama.

USA:RoutledgeFalmer.

Burke, A. F. & O’Sullivan, J.C. (2002). Stage by stage: A handbook for using drama in

the second language classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Butterfield, T. (1989). Drama through Language through Drama. Oxon: Kemble Press.

Dodson, S. L. (2000). FAQs: Learning languages through drama. Texas Papers inForeign

Language Education. Volume. 5, No. 1, pp. 129-141.

Dodson, S. L. (2002) The Educational potential of drama for ESL. In Brauer, G. (Ed),Body

and Language: Intercultural learning through drama (pp. 161-179). USA:Ablex

Publishing.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heinig, R. and Stillwell, L. (1974). Creative Dramatic for the Classroom Teacher.USA:

Prentice-Hall.

Holden, S. (1981). Drama in Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language, anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 21, 112–126.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. and Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The

Modern Language Journal, Volume 70, No. 2, pp. 125-132.

Kao, S. & O’Neill, C. (1998). Words into worlds: Learning a second language through

process drama. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the

Classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lazar, G., (1993). Literature and Language Teaching. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity 40

Press.

Liu, J. (2000). The Power of readers theater: from reading to writing. ELT Journal,Volume

54, No. 4, October 2000, pp. 354-361. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second

language instruction. NABE Journal, 13(2), 127-143.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in education: A conceptual

Introduction. (Second Edition) Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman& Company.

Novelly, M. C. (1985). Theatre Games for Young Performers. Colorado Springs:

Meriwether.

Olsen, R. E. W., & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.),

Cooperative Language Learning (pp. 1-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Ranzoni, T. (2003). Keep talking with drama: reflections on the use of drama activitiesto

improve oral fluency in a young learner. ETAS Journal, Volume 21, No. 1.Retrieved

on 5 May 2005 from the World Wide

Web:http://www.e-tas.ch/client/downloads/journals/Tatiana%20Ranzoni

%20Drama.pdf

Stern, S. L. (1980). Drama in second language learning from a psycholinguistic

perspective. Language Learning, 30(1), 77-100.

Stinson, M., &Freebody, K. (2006). Modulating the mosaic: Drama and oral

language. In L.A. McCammon& D. McLauchlan (Eds.), Universal mosaic of

drama and theatre: The IDEA 2004 Dialogues (pp. 193-200). St. Catharines

ON: Soleil/IDEA Publications

Wagner, B.J. (1998). Educational drama and language arts: What research shows.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wessels, C. (1987). Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whiteson, V. (1996). New Ways of Using Drama and Literature in Language Teaching(Ed).

USA: TESOL.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In Gass& Madden

(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 17-50). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.

41

Appendix 1.

Background Questionnaire

The questions below are for research purposes only, and your individualanswers will not be made available to anyone. Please answer the followingquestions or check the proper answers.

Name:___________________________ Date:_______________

1. Your gender: Male / Female

2. Your age: years old

3. Country of birth:

4. Ethnicity:

5. What are you in school? (Circle one):

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student Other

6. What is your major? _____________________________________________

7. What is your native language? _____________________________________

8. What language(s) do you speak at home? __________________________________

9. If more than one, with whom do you speak each of these languages?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

10. In what language(s) did you receive the majority of your precollege education?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

11. If more than one, please give the approximate number of years for each language.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

12. Have you ever lived in a situation where you were exposed to a language other than your native

language (e.g. by living in a multilingual community; visiting a community for purposes of study

abroad or work; exposure through family members; traveling to, etc.)

Circle one: Yes / No

42

13. If Yes, please give details below. If more than three, list others on the bottom of this page.

Experience 1 Experience 2 Experience 3

Country/Region

Language

Purpose

From when to when

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

14. In the boxes below, Self-rate your language ability in each of the languages that you know. Use

the following rating: 1) Poor, 2) Good, 3) Very good, 4) Native/Nativelike.

How many years (if any) have you studied this language in a formal school setting?

Language Listening Speaking Reading Writing Number of

years of study

English

15. If you have taken TOEFL before, please write your TOEFL scores below:

Reading Listening Writhing/TWE Struture/Grammar Speaking/TSE

Other:____________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

16. Why are you taking Drama class? Please explain your specific reasons.

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your cooperation.

43

Appendix 2

Public Speaking Class Anxiety Scale (PSCAS)

:Name:Date

DIRECTIONS :Read the following statements and place a check in the box under the column which fits your opinion ofyourself. Work quickly, but be sure to consider each item individually. There are no right or wrong answers.

Item No.

Statement Opinion(5)StronglyAgree

(4)Agree

(3)Undecided

(2)Disagree

(1)StronglyDisagree

1 I never feel quite sure of myself while I amspeaking English.

2 I tremble when knowing that I am goingto be called on to speak English.

3 I start to panic when I have to speakEnglish without a preparation inadvance.

4 In a speaking class, I can get so nervous Iforget things I know.

5 I feel confident while I am speakingEnglish.

6 I feel very self-conscious while speakingEnglish in front of other students.

7 I get nervous and confused when I amspeaking English.

44

8 I am afraid that other students will laughat me while I am speaking English.

9 I get so nervous when the languageteacher asks me to speak English which Ihave prepared in advance.

10 I have no fear of speaking English.

11 I can feel my heart pounding when I amgoing to be called on.

12 I feel relaxed while speaking English.

13 It embarrasses me to volunteer to go outfirst to speak English.

14 I face the prospect of speaking Englishwith confidence.

15 I enjoy the experience of speakingEnglish.

16 The more speaking tests I have, the moreconfused I get.

17 Certain parts of my body feel very tenseand rigid while speaking English.

18 I feel anxious while waiting to speakEnglish.

19 I want to speak less because I feel shywhile speaking English.

20 I dislike using my voice and bodyexpressively while

45

speaking English.21 I have trouble to coordinate

mymovements while speaking English.

22 I find it hard to look the audience in myeyes while speaking English.

23 Even if I am very well-prepared I feelanxious about speaking English.

24 I keep thinking that other students arebetter at speaking English than I.

25 I always feel that the other studentsspeak English better than I do.

46

Appendix 3

Drama Reflective Journal :Name

:Date

Please share with me what you experience in the drama course. I wouldlike to listen to you. (Write down at least 2 pages.)

Overall lesson

① How did you like the lesson?

-Waswhat you learnedfrom the lesson new to you?

-Was it useful (in practice, in my studies, in my life)?② What parts of the lesson did you like or enjoy most? And least? And Why?

Drama activity③ How did you think (feel) about the drama activity we did today? And why?

-Was what we did too easy or too difficult? -What are the advantages and disadvantages of the activity?

④ How did you participate in the drama activity? And why?-Were there any problems with you or your group? -What went well? What went not so well? -How did you resolve them? -If you were faced with the same problem again, would you do anything differently?

47

Students’ anxiety⑤ Did you personally have anxiety in the drama activity?

-In what situations did you feel anxious? And why?

Appendix 4

The findings of Student’s anxiety from the Drama Reflective Journal

Activity 1-Script role playing( with chant) Number of peoplePerforming/acting in front of people on stage //////////Comprehension of teacher instruction /Memorizing(not preparation) //Lack of confidence /Fear of speaking English //Making mistakes ///No anxiety /////Low voice to speak out /Difficulty of drama activity /Answering back to the teacher /future exams //

Activity 2-miming Number of peoplePerforming(just acting, Making mistakes. Lack of confidence)

///////////////

Speaking English /Making mistakesLack of confidenceTeacher commentRelated to the grade /Audience’s response //My turn /No anxiety ///////

48

Activity 3-Picture analysis(presentation) Number of peoplepresentation /////////////- In English /Making mistakes //Acting in front of class/using body ///No drama activity //Lack of confidence ///Speaking in front of class //No anxiety ///

Activity 4-Culture & drama with folktales (making posters and then having a presentation)

Number of people

Presenting in front of class ///Fear of speaking in front of class /standing in front of class(without practice) //(/)Being Worried about Audience’s response /Making mistakes /Lack of speaking English ability(pronunciation)

/(/)/

Not understanding my intention /Lack of preparation //Acting in front of class /Comprehension /No anxiety ///////

Midterm presentation(Activity 4+performing)

Number of people

Lack of preparation ////Forgetting my scripts /Before / beginning of presentation ///Presenting in front of class ////Pressure of midterm /Making mistakes(in English pronunciation and grammar)

/

Acting in front of class ///Performing //Lack of confidence ///

49

No anxiety /////

Activity 5-Multiple intelligences with a news article about Mexico city

Number of people

Speaking/presenting in front of class /(shy)not enough preparation(not ready) //////conflicts of opinion in a group /Speaking English //Making mistakes /(always embarrassed) Acting in front of class(but getting better) //Not Comprehending teacher’s instruction /No anxiety (including not performing groups, revealing)

/////////////

Activity 6 - Jigsaw drama with the story ‘’Lottery”(miming<->writing=>performing other group’s point)

Number of people

Fear of audience’s response after performing /Speaking English ///Not ready for performing //(limited time) Performing in front of class //(actively)/(low voice)Making mistakes /Being worried about completing activity (from difficulty, not sure of the story)

//////

Speaking with Not familiarcircumstances

(e.g. changing group)

/ 1

No anxiety /////////(so far 4 people -getting rid of anxiety)

Activity 7- Written texts with drama activity(Making dialogue to understanding)

Number of people 27

Speaking English(pronunciation, accent) / 1Not ready to performing ////// 7Performing // 2First turn of performing / 1to speaking in front of class / (No confidence) / 2no preparation /1Misunderstood and difficulty of homework ////// 6Feeling comfortable to do drama activity ////// 6No anxiety / 1

50

Activity 8 using a negotiated reading strategy about Macbeth

Number of people (27)

Lack of confidence ///Performing in front of other students

/////////

Fear of negative evaluation /No anxiety /////////Teacher instruction /First turn to act out /Non preparation //AppendixWeekly schedule for the drama in ELT class

Week Focus

1Rationale for using drama in ELT

(Psycholinguistics, pragmatism, multiculturalism, interactionsnism)

2

Scripted role plays

-Explore roles and impact of using scripted role plays.

-Ways for using these in students’ own context will also be studied.

-Songs and chants will be used.

3

Non verbal language

-Explore importance of using non verbal language in a certain context

-Explore ways for using visual context (pictures) from ELT materials.

4

Open-ended role plays

Developing creative thinking through open-ended role plays.

Explore ways of using this to develop literacy skills and multicultural

concept.

5

Improvisations

Explore rationales for using this method and study ways for creating

context from pictures, Creating drama from poems and ways for using

this for literacy development will also be studied.

6 Situational Role plays

Explore rationales for using this method and study ways for creating

context from movies,

Creating drama from stories and ways for using this for literacy

51

development will also be studied.

7

Simulations

Explore rationales for using this method and study ways for creating

context using other cultural aspects, Study about using problem

solving tasks through this method and CBELT will be also discussed.

8 Integrating multi methods in a lesson.

9

-Mid-term essay and research on the effect of using these drama

methods in a real context.

-Presentation

10

Debating

Rationales for using debating will be discussed as well as ways for

using this method in ELT lessons.

Understanding current issue from multimedia (movies, newspaper,

magazine, internet) and put these into debating will be explored.

11

One word drama

Thinking aloud protocol will be used.

Using drawings and poems in accordance with this method will be

explored.Connecting Reading Texts into Drama Activities.+ZIXO

12

Tops and tail drama

Thinking aloud protocol will be used.

Using drawings and poems in accordance with this method will be

explored.Three types of reading+Macbath

13

Use of drama for assessment

Discuss roles of drama for assessing learners' four language skills

DECONSTRUCTION

14

Theatre plays

Exploring plays from old to modern, from short to long Study ways

for using these in ELT lessons.

National Holiday(No class)

15 Process Drama

52

16 Final Project presentation

53