Lights! Camera! English!
Drama-based exercises as confidence-building tools in Dutch lower-level
secondary school English classes
Authors: Annabel van Baren, Kristina Goodnight, Lotte van de Wardt
Supervisor: Joke Rentrop-Weij
June 2013, COLUU, Utrecht University
1
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3
General introduction........................................................................................................................... 3
Relevance ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Theories .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Questions, definition of variables and hypothesis.............................................................................. 5
Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Selecting the Drama Exercises ............................................................................................................ 6
The Pre-Interview................................................................................................................................ 8
The Survey........................................................................................................................................... 9
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Starting Situation Per Class ............................................................................................................... 11
Responses to Quantitative Survey Questions ................................................................................... 13
Analysis of Responses to Multiple Questions ................................................................................... 20
Drama Activities Chosen ................................................................................................................... 21
General Comments and Suggestions ................................................................................................ 22
Discussion of Results and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 23
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 26
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 28
Appendix A: Selection of Drama Exercises ....................................................................................... 28
Appendix B: Survey Results Per Class (Quantitative Questions)....................................................... 29
Appendix C: Survey Results Per Class (Qualitative Questions) ......................................................... 30
Appendix D: Interview Transcripts .................................................................................................... 35
2
Introduction
Lights! Camera! English! is a collaborative research project, mapping out to what degree drama
activities in English-as-a-foreign-language classrooms have a positive effect on (daring to) speak
English from the standpoint of lower-level students. In this regard, various classroom-based factors
are taken into account, such as the initial set-up of the classes, exposure to drama activities in the
past, and general comfort levels of speaking English in class. Our experience as teachers and teacher
trainers has led us to believe that drama activities do in fact have a positive effect on speaking skills
in the language classroom at all levels; our research output shows that this is indeed the case: the
overall impression students gave in their survey responses was one of enthusiasm toward the drama
activities. They agreed with the notion that the activities were fun, that they spoke English more
than usual and that the activities were more useful than speaking activities from their textbooks.
Their comments at the end of the survey were also only positive—they experienced the activities as
enjoyable and, to a lesser extent, educational, and many of them expressed a desire to do the
activities more often. These responses support our hypothesis regarding student motivation; simply
put: if the activities are fun, students are more likely to invest energy in them and thereby speak
more English.
General introduction
Relevance
The three authors of this research are open to learning and implementing new teaching strategies
and techniques; additionally, we rejoice in the idea of passing on our knowledge and skills to our
colleagues and future teachers. The information that we have gathered in the course of this research
project has taught us a lot more about students’ skills, motivation, fears and hesitations when
speaking English in class is concerned. In a perfect English class all students participate
enthusiastically and are fully motivated – and drama activities certainly contribute to this. This
research project aims to provide concrete tools for other teachers in English teaching jobs, yet can
also be applied to teachers of other Modern European languages at lower-level secondary schools.
This research project has not only proved relevant for ourselves, yet may also serve the wider
teaching community of pupils, students, teachers and school boards. It contributes to making English
classes more varied and interactive. Namely, sometimes it comes to pass that teachers find
themselves talking at great length, thus finding it challenging to incorporate collaborative learning in
a class; this often results in the teacher feeling drained at the end of class, and the students (too)
passive. With this research, we hope to change these situations by providing improvements to
English teachers’ classes.
One does not need to immediately go the whole hog by having one’s students recite scenes from
Macbeth in front of class, on the contrary: simple role-playing exercises are often already sufficient
to get even the most resilient of students actively speaking. Moreover, changing the atmosphere in a
classroom not only changes one student’s learning experience: it can actually contribute to changing
the dynamics in class in such a way that a more positive, open, and productive learning environment
is created. What is more, role-playing exercises and other drama-based techniques can strengthen
the relation between teacher and student, especially when the teacher joins in the fun by actively
participating in the drama-based activities.
3
Especially in the lower-level classes of secondary school this is an important reason, as learners still
need to get used to being taught in English and speaking English in class. Using the target language in
class might not be appreciated by all learners, which may cause the teacher to limit their use of
English, and that of their learners even more. A drama-based activity or role-playing exercise
successfully allows learners and teachers to overcome this barrier.
As Francis Staatsen (2009) mentions, it is particularly important that students listen to each other’s
language output: role reversal allows students who have listened closely to their peers to actually
master more output options than when focusing solely on their own speech production. With such
an interactional exercise it is important that they fully comprehend what they are saying, rather than
reciting resentences from a book without really knowing their meaning. In this way, language comes
alive and allows learners to paint a more vivid picture of what they are learning.
Theories
Especially the past decade and a half has seen a plethora of research on the positive effects of
drama-based activities on learners’ confidence, motivation and results, even though the use of
drama-based activities in the English-as-a-different-language classroom date back to the late sixties.
More recently, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning (2000), for example,
dedicates a large section of its volume to communicative language teaching and the place of
improvisation and drama in it. Drama as an activity and work-form is to promote creativity and
collaboration, according to the authors. The strand of thought known as ‘total human experience’
shows that improvisation and drama are tools to enhance a learner’s individual awareness, as well as
increasing their self-expression and creativity. In this paradigm it is understood that learning a (new)
language is not only audio-lingual or cognitive, but also jump-starts social and emotional processes.
By effectively and actively using, among others, voicing, movement and collaborative learning in
class, students are invited to take risks in their language production. Herein it is important that
errors are highlighted only when blatant or often repeated (thus emphasizing quantitative
production instead of qualitative; Staatsen, 2009). Also the social cognitive/social constructivist
stream of thought (John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Lev Vygotsky, and Jean Piaget, among others)
underlines how active class participation contributes to a positive learning environment.
Susan L. Stern’s (1980) research, undertaken in the USA, found that drama encourages the operation
of certain psychological factors in the participant which facilitate communication: heightened selfesteem, motivation, and spontaneity; increased capacity for empathy; and lowered sensitivity to
rejection. At the same time, Edward S. Holden (1981) warns against using too much drama: “It
should not be used too often or to the exclusion of other aids. If this happens, it will lose its
effectiveness. Fifteen minutes once a week is far more effective than a full hour at sporadic
intervals” (p. 29). With this specific theory on mind, we decided to offer our informant-teachers 9
different drama-based exercises to choose from, all of which take no more than 15 minutes to
complete.
Interestingly and importantly, the issue of nonverbal communication plays a role in especially
intercultural classrooms, as learners may have different understandings of and exposure to gestures:
4
this can in turn give rise to misunderstandings, confusion and lack of self-esteem, in more extreme
cases. Jean Vanier (1998), founder of an organization in Canada for people with special needs,
speaks of the significance of gesture:
I have in some small way learned to inhabit my body and to see it not just as a channel for therapy but
as a way of revealing my heart and being in communion with others… This communion demands
respectful listening to the nonverbal language of the other person. In the world of friendship and
relationship, gestures normally precede the word. The word is there to confirm the gesture and give it
its signification. (pp. 78-79)
It is with this significance in mind that we have selected activities which have a clear nonverbal and
performative element, precisely to strengthen the learners’ listening skills, both verbal and gestural.
Learning a language cannot be divorced from culture learning. Yet, in a foreign language-teaching
situation, this can be quite difficult, since culture includes aspects such as “how (native speakers)
hold their bodies, how far they stand apart, where they look when they talk, how men shake their
hands with each other, how children talk to their parents, and so on” (Via 1976: xiv). In addition,
culture involves issues such as how anxiety or excitement are expressed, or how culturally accepted
intonation is used to deliver humor or anger. These aspects of language are very subtle for learners
to grasp, let alone learn to use. Moreover, they are not commonly addressed in regular conversation
courses. Drama is a way of bringing the issues above naturally into the language classroom (Via
ibid.). It also allows for making linguistic and cultural analyses of characters (Smith 1984) where
participants use English in meaningful contexts. As learners rehearse, they engage in a process that
includes the establishment of characters’ personalities, motives, and persona, creating a genuine
purpose for communication. In other words, drama provides a reason to use language. Finally, it
brings motivation and fun to the classroom. No matter how threatened students feel with the
prospect of presenting a play, everyone will enjoy acting, since we all wish for glory and fame. Being
an actor, even if only through a classroom performance, has a hard-to-resist seductive power that
the less proficient students accept as a challenge (Via 1976, Smith 1984).
Questions, definition of variables and hypothesis
To what degree do drama activities1 in English-as-a-foreign-language classrooms have a positive
effect on (daring to) speak English from the standpoint of lower-level students?
Sub-Questions:
1. What factors contribute to this use of the target language and development of English skills:
interaction with classmates; speaking English in an authentic situation; departure from the
textbook (“out of the ordinary”)?
2. Which drama activities are most appropriate to motivate students to speak English?
Our experience is that these sorts of activities have a positive effect, though we are aware of
possible teachers’ negative or appositional feedback, namely: time-constraints, English department
has other expectations, my pupils will not like this, etc.
1
With drama activities we mean activities that invite learners/participants to explore their creativity in a
playful, sometimes theatrical way, through impromptu voicing, movement and language use.
5
The research we have analyzed by, among others, Alan Maley and Alan Duff posits that dramabased exercises in English classrooms have a positive effect on learners’ behavior. When language
learning is coated in a more authentic activity, it is more likely that the learner has a more relaxed
and open attitude and is therefore more able to transfer the meaning and emotion of the specific
speech-act. Moreover, drama-based activities allow for more freedom to focus on several
proficiencies simultaneously.
Additionally, more interaction will take place between learners themselves; we hope that the
generally quiet and more timid learners will express themselves more freely and easily because
people tend to express themselves more openly in a drama-based English class. This can in turn
promote self-confidence and hence improve teachers’ English classes as well as learners’ results. By
frequently engaging in these kinds of activities they will gradually feel less scary; the Constructivist
Learning Theory explains that learning is an active process of meaning making that can be enhanced
by gaining exposure to the language in authentic situations: learning by doing.
Our experience as teachers and teacher trainers leads us to believe that drama activities do in fact
have a positive effect on speaking skills in the language classroom at all levels.
Methods
Participants
Our first step in finding participating students was to recruit lower-level (onderbouw) teachers
willing to carry out the drama activities in class. We sought teacher diversity in terms of gender and
level/year taught (i.e. havo 1). We recruited candidates among English teachers we know from
various secondary schools, as well as students in the Hogeschool Utrecht teacher training program,
particularly Master-level students who already have some degree of lower-level teaching
experience. Our goal was to recruit 6 teachers so that we would have 100-150 student respondents.
After a period of 3 weeks, we found 6 teachers, although one of our teachers dropped out of the
project before his pre-interview, which left us with the following 5 teachers:
 A: Female, Roman Catholic school, Province of Utrecht, vwo (atheneum) 1
 B: Female, Non-denominational Christian school, Province of Utrecht, vwo (tto) 1
 C: Male, Roman Catholic school, Province of Zuid-Holland, vmbo-b/k 2
 D: Female, Non-denominational Christian school, Province of Gelderland, vmbo-tl/havo 1
 E: Male, Non-denominational Christian school, Province of Utrecht, havo 3
Selecting the Drama Exercises
There is a Master-level course at the Hogeschool Utrecht entitled Drama in the Curriculum for which
the book Drama Techniques: A Resource Book for Language Teachers (Third Edition, 2005) by Alan
Fleming and Alan Duff is used. The book consists of drama activities chosen for their relevance in
foreign language development. Each activity indicates the level for which it is intended (beginning to
advanced), the amount of time needed to complete it and materials needed. We selected activities
according to the language level needed, time (all activities we chose could be completed in a single
class session), and likelihood of success (we sought fun and potentially humorous activities that
would not be too embarrassing, as we wished to decrease the chance of students reluctance to
speaking).
6
Another consideration was ease of implementation; we avoided activities that required teachers to
gather or create extra materials so that preparation time would be minimal, particularly as this, in
our experience, is one of the main advantages of most drama activities. We decided upon 9 activities
because we felt that would give teachers enough variety to allow for individual preference and
specific capabilities/interests of their students, while at the same time keeping the selection small
enough to limit the number of variables among activities, thereby increasing the relevance of
comparing results among classes. The activities we chose are briefly described below (see Appendix
A for complete descriptions):
1. What am I doing? (2005, p. 50): Students work in pairs. Student A is given a card with an
activity she has to mime (i.e. You are trying to stay awake in a boring lesson). The other
student guesses what A is doing and may ask questions to clarify. Then they switch roles
with a new card.
2. What time of day is it? (2005, p. 59): Students work in groups of 3. They choose a profession,
time of day and activity (i.e. shopkeeper, 8:00 p.m., pulling down the steel shutters and
locking up). They practice sand then perform for another group who has to guess the
circumstances.
3. Hotel Receptionist (2005, p. 66): One student receives a slip of paper with a message he, as
the guest, has to convey to the receptionist(s) (i.e. How can I get to the airport?). Without
speaking, the guest tries to convey the message, and the receptionists have to guess what
the guest wants.
4. Split Cartoons (2005, p. 131): The class is divided into groups; each group is given a frame of
a comic strip. After some preparation, each group explains what is happening in their frame.
The class reconstructs which order the frames go in and then the class develops a short
dramatization based on what is going on in the comic strip.
5. Statues (2005, p. 146): A is the sculptor and B is the statue. They agree on the statue’s
location, who/what the statue represents, what it is made of and how realistic it is. A gives
her statue instructions on how to position himself. Then A gives a speech about her statue.
6. Words and Movement (2005, p. 166): Words and phrases are written on the board (i.e.
Silence!). Students choose from among these and come up with movements to support what
they are saying. They practice in pairs and perform them for the class.
7. Split Exchanges (2005, p. 177): Each student receives a slip of paper with an utterance on it
(i.e. There’s a parrot in my fridge). He memorizes his utterance, then walks around saying it
until he finds a possible match (i.e. Would you like me to wrap it up for you? or Would you
like me to take it out for you?). Students write down the utterance combinations and a
whole-class feedback session follows.
8. Dialogue Interpretation (2005, p. 207): Pairs of students are given a slip of paper with a brief
dialogue open for interpretation. They decide on the circumstances of the scene, rehearse
and then perform their dialogues for the class.
9. The Hole (2005, p. 220): The class is divided into groups of about 5. Each group is given the
same scenario: “Just outside a village…a deep hole appears overnight” and list of characters.
They develop a dramatization based on the circumstances and perform it for the class.
7
The Pre-Interview
To develop an understanding of the setting in which the activities will take place, we held in-person
interviews with each teacher. The interview was intended to paint a general picture of the teacher’s
approach to teaching English and the overall atmosphere of the class, rather than to extract specific
data. For this reason we chose to develop a semi-structured interview with a list of specific questions
to use as a guideline, while allowing for additional comments as well. We followed the guidelines in
Basisprincipes Praktijkonderzoek (Harinck, 2010), limiting our list of questions to 10, and we sought,
as was advised, to design open questions.
One of our researchers first developed the questions, then the second researcher revised them from
the point of view of a teacher being interviewed, and finally the third researcher reviewed the
questions once more to ensure that they would elicit the information we were seeking, namely
giving an impression of the teacher’s standpoint on speaking English in the classroom, approach to
teaching, class atmosphere, and student readiness for the drama activities. The questions we used in
the actual interviews were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Heb je altijd een vaste lesindeling?
Laat je in de les veel ruimte voor de leerlingen om hun gang te kunnen gaan?
Doe je veel aan spreekvaardigheid, zo ja, op welke wijze?
Gebruik je het boek als leidraad of als uitgangspunt?
Geef je de leerlingen de vrije hand wanneer het op spreekoefeningen aankomt? Laat je ze
bijvoorbeeld één-op-één Engels met elkaar praten of laat je ze dat voor de klas doen?
Gebruik je wel eens dramaoefeningen in de klas? Zo ja, hoe pak je dat aan?
Hoe merk je dat de leerlingen hierop reageren?
Hoe ervaar je over het algemeen de sfeer in de klas? Wordt deze door bepaalde activiteiten
beïnvloed?
Spreek je zelf Engels tijdens de les? Hanteer je het doeltaal-voertaal principe?
Verwacht je ook van je leerlingen dat zij Engels spreken in de les?
Even after taking the questions through two stages of revision, one researcher discovered during her
first interview that question 1 was somewhat confusing, that “vaste indeling” could be interpreted
as having a seating chart or a set structure to each lesson. She allowed the interviewees to answer
the question both ways as they are both relevant to class structure.
Our original intention was to record the interviews and transcribe them afterwards. During her first
interview, one of our researchers began recording with the program Audacity, but she discovered
soon after the interview began that the microphone was not picking up 90% of what was being said,
so she reverted to note-taking. The second and third interviews were scheduled on the same day,
and there was not enough time to solve the technical problem; she took notes during these
interviews as well, and, as was advised in by Harinck (2010), she typed her written notes shortly
after the interviews. Based on this experience, the second researcher decided to follow the same
procedure with the other two interviews, approving the acceptability of this method with their pgo
supervisor. As the interview was intended as a way to provide background information rather than
serving as the essential data-gathering method to answer our research question, we decided that
written notes would be sufficient, albeit not ideal (see Appendix D for transcript of interviews).
8
We scheduled 30 minutes for each interview. The 5 interviews were conducted one-on-one in Dutch,
with the exception of Teacher C, who, as a Master’s student, wished to practice his English. The
researcher who conducted interviews A, C and D added the question at the end, “What do you
expect students will think of these drama activities?” At the interview, each teacher also received a
packet of the 9 drama activities, 30 copies of the survey and survey instructions, and was given the
opportunity to ask clarifying questions. We gave participating teachers 3 weeks to carry out the
drama activities and conduct the survey.
After typing out our notes from the interview, we analyzed the responses to each question in
comparison to each other. We chose particular categories of information to analyze against the
quantitative responses on the survey:





Frequency of use of target language by teacher
Frequency of use of target language by students
Frequency of speaking activities
Frequency of drama activities are done
Which textbook is used and frequency with which it is used
The Survey
Our primary data-gathering tool for this research project was the student survey. Our intention was
to gather quantitative data on the effect of the drama activities on, primarily, students’ comfort level
with speaking English. We also sought responses that would help us identify what it qualities of the
drama activities that might have a positive effect on speaking and which drama activities were most
effective. We also aimed to supplement our quantitative data with qualitative information in the
form of two open questions at the end of the survey. Two of the researchers developed the survey
questions together and then submitted them to the third researcher for review. We first started
with yes or no questions, but later changed to a 5-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly
agree” in order to capture more nuance in students’ feelings about the drama activities. Based on
the experiences of other researchers with whom we discussed our project, we limited our number of
questions to 10. We chose not to ask for background information on such demographics as ethnicity
or gender, as we wanted to limit our variables to school year and level. In the development of the
survey we simplified some questions and tried to remove any redundancy, as well as making sure
the questions would elicit the answers to our research questions. We also revised the order of the
questions, starting with those based more on the starting situation of the students and moving
toward those that ask students to predict the effect of the activities on future speaking ability. The
questions that appeared on our survey are as follows:
1. Ik durf Engels te spreken in de les.
2. Tijdens de drama-activiteiten was ik bang om fouten te maken met spreken.
3. Omdat andere leerlingen ook Engels spraken tijdens de drama-activiteiten was het
makkelijker (met hen) Engels te spreken.
4. Ik sprak meer Engels tijdens de drama-activiteiten dan ik normaal doe in de les.
5. De drama-activiteiten maken het leuker om Engels te spreken.
6. Ik zou nu eerder Engels durven spreken in de les als gevolg van deze drama-activiteiten.
7. Ik leer meer van Engelse spreekvaardigheid in een drama-activiteit dan van
spreekoefeningen uit ons boek.
9
8. Door drama-activiteiten word ik voorbereid op het spreken van Engels in het buitenland.
9. De drama-activiteit die ik het leukste vond was (je mag ook meer dan 1 of geen noemen):
10. Ik wil ook nog iets toevoegen over de drama-activiteiten:
We chose a paper-and-pen survey instead of a computer survey due to the limited availability of
computers for students in the participating schools. Logistically it was more feasible for them to
arrange for their students to answer the survey on paper, particularly those who conducted the
survey directly after completing the last drama activity. Per class we received the following number
of respondents:






Class A: vwo (atheneum) 1: 14 respondents
Class B: vwo (tto) 1: 22 respondents
Class C: vmbo-b/k 2: 13 respondents
Class D: vmbo-tl/havo 1: 23 respondents
Class E: havo 3: 27 respondents
Total: 99 respondents
We tallied the quantitative results and entered the information into an Excel spreadsheet (see
Appendix B), then calculated the mean and standard deviation for each question, both for the total
number of respondents and per class. We gave each possible answer a value on a scale of 1 to 5:





Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
1
2
3
4
5
We took inventory of the responses to the 2 open questions by typing out all of the responses per
class (see Appendix C). In analyzing student comments on question 9, we discovered a flaw in our
instructions on how to answer this question. Repeatedly, we received such answers as “de laatste”
or “zelf iets verzinnen.” It was therefore sometimes difficult to trace to which activity the student
referred. We should have asked the teachers to list the activities on the board by their official titles
so that students could refer to them as such. By checking with the teachers after the surveys were
completed, however, we were able to determine the order in which the activities were carried out
and were able to organize the student responses accordingly.
For question 10 (Is there anything you would like to add?) we listed students’ comments using the
shoebox method (Harinck, 2010). Then we organized the “shoebox” into the following themes:



Fun
Do more often
Educational
10
Results
Starting Situation Per Class
Below is a brief profile of the starting situation within each class, according to the pre-interview with
the teacher. While each of the 5 schools have a Christian identity, the teachers at each of these
schools commented that religion does not play a central role within the lessons; we therefore did
not use type of school as a basis for analyzing our results.
Class A
Level/Year: vwo (atheneum) 1
Number of Students: 14
Teacher: Female
Province: Utrecht
In general, the class is somewhat structured as characterized by the lack of seating chart, but has a
set routine to each lesson. Students have limited freedom in what they do during class, yet they can
choose how they approach a task (such as individually or with a partner/group). Teacher A interprets
the class atmosphere as positive, which does not change depending on the type of activity done.
This teacher does not do activities specifically focused on speaking. She commented, “Ik gebruik de
opdrachten niet uit het boek (Stepping Stones) omdat ze stomme opdrachten zijn.” She uses the
textbook more often this year than usual (although not for speaking), because it is a new version and
is still learning about it herself. She speaks only English and expects that students speak English back
(although she is not always strict about it). Sometimes if a student says something in Dutch she will
say, “Sorry?” as if she does not understand. Teacher A has students talk informally to each other in
English, and they also do presentations. She has never done drama activities in this class,
commenting, “Als docent moet je je eigen schaamte voorbij en dat is moeilijk.” Her expectation is,
however, that the students will enjoy the activities.
Class B
Level/Year: vwo (dual language (tto)) 1
Number of Students: 22
Teacher: Female
Province: Utrecht
Teacher B does not use a set structure. Now and then she also allows students to use their time as
they wish in the lesson. The textbook (New Opportunities) is only used as a supplement. This
teacher considers the atmosphere to be positive in this class.
Like all lower-level teachers at her school, she regularly does speaking activities with her students.
She also uses the target language and expects her students to as well (tto class). Generally the
speaking activities are tightly structured, although sometimes they have more freedom when they
give presentations in front of the class. She never does drama activities with this class.
11
Class C
Level/Year: vmbo (basis/kader) 2
Number of Students: 13
Teacher: Male
Province: Zuid-Holland
Students in class C have a large degree of freedom. They can sit where they like and do not follow a
specific structure. There is little frontal instruction from the teacher. Students work out of their
books (Go For It) for the most part, as is outlined in the school PTA (Programma voor Toetsing en
Afsluiting). They can work in pairs or alone, and they use an answer key to check their work when
they are finished. This is Teacher C’s mentor class, and he said that there is generally a positive
atmosphere, particularly now that two difficult students have left the school.
Speaking skills are not a big focus in this class. Teacher C does the speaking activity from the
textbook once every chapter, a dialogue they read in pairs (then the teacher chooses one pair to
read the dialogue in front of the class). He only rarely uses the target language, although he
commented, “Since I am doing a Master’s program (eerstegraads bevoegdheid) now I have started
speaking English more… and my students don’t seem to mind. They don’t answer me in English very
much (though).” While drama is not a regular part of the curriculum, sometimes he uses props to
demonstrate vocabulary, and students also did role-plays to prepare for doing language village
(taaldorp). He believed there would be no resistance to doing the drama activities and that he was
“glad to have extra lesson material.”
Class D
Level/Year: vmbo-tl/havo 1
Number of Students: 23
Teacher: Female
Province: Gelderland
Teacher D has a fairly structured class. She uses a seating chart, as well as following a particular
routine in the lessons. Students start by discussing homework, then do a skills activity (i.e. listening).
The remainder of the class is used for homework or to work on a creative project, “zoals een poster
over welk gevoel ze krijgen bij de Engelse taal.” Teacher D is using a new version of Stepping Stones
this year and relies heavily on the book, but she also describes herself as someone who likes to pick
and choose what she uses from the textbook, and that her students like working outside the book.
She said that with the exception of a couple of disruptive students, this is a generally well-behaved
class with a positive atmosphere.
Teacher D feels she does too little with speaking skills in this class. She finds the role-play cards in
Stepping Stones “waardeloos.” She uses the target language 50% to 75% of the time, but does not
necessarily expect first-year students to use it. They do small speaking assignments, such as the
Speaking World Project in which they have to record themselves speaking. She does not do drama
activities in this class (although she does in upper-level classes).
12
Class E
Level/Year: havo 3
Number of Students: 27
Teacher: Male
Province: Utrecht
This teacher describes himself as “heel intuïtief en een slechte planner” and therefore does not
structure his lessons. He lets the students set their own pace if they are on task and can sometimes
even work on another subject. He uses the book (All Right) as a starting point, but finds it important
to let the students discover the language in their own way. He describes the class atmosphere as
positive, adding, “als ik vrolijk ben, wordt de klas ook vrolijk.”
Teacher E does a lot of speaking skill activities. He wishes for students to express their opinions in
English. He uses the target language and expects students to do so as well. He has also has students
speak in front of the class to get over their fears of speaking English. “Hoe minder erg ze het vinden
om fouten te maken, hoe beter.” Teacher E does not regularly do drama activities, but he has done
them and says that he likes to be theatrical.
Responses to Quantitative Survey Questions
We chose to examine the results of each question individually as each question provides distinct
information related to students’ experience with the drama activities. Where relevant we make
correlations between particular questions.
Question 1: I’m comfortable speaking English in class.
Generally students indicated that are comfortable speaking English in class, with a mean of 4.22 (std
0.97), showing clear agreement with the statement above.
Class
Mean
A: vwo (atheneum) 1
4.71
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1
3.90
C: vmbo-b/k 2
4.23
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
4.04
E: havo 3
4.37
*Std is standard deviation.
Std*
0.61
1.23
0.93
0.98
0.84
Use of Target Language
by Teacher
Always
Always
Rarely
Sometimes
Always
Use of Target Language
by Students
Almost always
Always
Rarely
Sometimes
Always
Table 1: Results question 1
13
I'm Comfortable Speaking English
in Class
5
4
3
2
1
0
4.71
4.23
3.9
A: vwo
B: vwo (dual C: vmbo-b/k 2
(atheneum) 1
lang.) 1
4.04
4.37
D: vmbotl/havo 1
E: havo 3
Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 1: Results question 1
The chart above indicates the means (and standard deviations) per class in relationship to how
consistently the target language is used by the teacher and the students in class, according to the
pre-interview with each teacher. It appears that there is no clear correlation between level (i.e. vwo)
and comfort with speaking English, nor is there an obvious correlation between teacher or student
target language use. There was a significant difference between the two first-year vwo classes, with
class A expressing the greatest degree of comfort (4.71, just below “strongly agree”) and class B
showing the least degree of comfort (3.90, just below “agree”). In class C, where English is rarely
spoken by students, the mean (4.23) was third to highest among all classes.
Question 2: During the drama activities, I was afraid to make mistakes.
The mean for all classes combined was 2.19 (std 1.35), showing that students at all levels disagreed
with this statement. The standard deviation, however, both within classes and as a whole, shows a
significant degree of variance among individual answers.
Class
Mean
Std
Use of Target Language by Teacher/Students
A: vwo (atheneum) 1
1.71
1.07 Always/Almost always
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1
2.41
1.44 Always/Always
C: vmbo-b/k 2
2.36
1.28 Rarely/Rarely
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
2.04
1.64 Sometimes/Sometimes
E: havo 3
2.37
1.21 Always/Always
Table 2: Results question 2
During the drama activities, I was afraid
to make mistakes
3
2
2.41
1.71
2.36
2.04
2.37
Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
1
0
A: vwo
(atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual
lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2 D: vmbo-tl/havo
1
E: havo 3
Figure 2: Results question 2
14
1
2
3
4
5
By analyzing the results per class, it is apparent that class A’s mean score of 1.71 shows a correlation
to their responses to question 1: these students are collectively the most comfortable speaking
English (mean 4.71) and the least afraid to make mistakes. On the opposite end of the spectrum,
class B, the dual-language vwo class, students also responded to this question in a way that
correlates to their answers on question one, revealing them to be both the least comfortable
speaking English (mean 3.91) and the most afraid to make mistakes (2.41). Class D shows a slightly
lower comfort level than 3 other classes with speaking English (4.04), but a relatively low fear of
making mistakes (2.04), although the standard deviation shows significant variance in individual
response within that class (1.64). In looking at questions 1 and 2 together, use of target language by
teacher or students is not necessarily a predicator of comfort level with speaking English or fear of
making mistakes.
Question 3. Because other students also spoke English during the drama activities, it was easier to
speak English (with them).
The mean for all respondents to this question was 4.11 (std 1.04), showing that the students felt that
the drama activities made it easier to speak English (with each other) than in other classroom
situations (although it should be noted that it is an assumption that they are comparing their
experience to other classroom situations; it was not specified as such on the survey).
Class
Mean
Std
A: vwo (atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
E: havo 3
3.79
4.09
4.23
4.26
4.11
1.12
0.92
1.24
1.21
0.85
Use of Target Language
by Teacher/Student
Always/Almost Always
Always/Always
Rarely/Rarely
Sometimes/Sometimes
Always/Always
Frequency of Speaking
Activities
Rarely
Often
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Table 3: Results question 3
Because other students also spoke
English during the drama activities, it was
easier to speak English (with them).
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
4.09
4.23
4.26
4.11
Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
3.79
A: vwo
(atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual
lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2 D: vmbo-tl/havo
1
E: havo 3
Figure 3: Results question 3
We compared the mean and standard deviation per class alongside the frequency with which target
language is used, as well as how often speaking activities are done in class, according to the teacher
interviews.
15
1
2
3
4
5
We included these factors in order to analyze the effect of the drama activities on speaking skills in
relationship both to other speaking activities and to use of English in general in class. The two classes
in which English is spoken the least often (classes C and D) had a higher mean (4.23 and 4.26
respectively), showing that they felt more comfortable speaking English with their classmates
because they were all speaking English. These classes also both include vmbo students, and speaking
activities are not often done. In the two classes in which speaking activities are regularly done and
the target language is used regularly, the means were almost identical (class B: 4.09 and class E:
4.11). Class A appeared to be less affected by the drama activities, which correlates with their
answers on questions 1 and 2—high comfort level with English and little fear of making mistakes.
Question 4: During the drama activities, I spoke English more than I usually do in class.
The mean score for all classes combined was 3.60, although there was a fairly high standard
deviation (1.37), placing the average response between “neutral” and “agree.”
Class
Mean
Std
A: vwo (atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
E: havo 3
2.5
3.91
3.15
4
3.81
1.45
1.31
1.46
1.09
1.27
Use of Target Language
by Teacher/Student
Always/Almost Always
Always/Always
Rarely/Rarely
Sometimes/Sometimes
Always/Always
Frequency of Speaking
Activities
Rarely
Often
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Table 4: Results question 4
During the drama activities, I spoke
English more than I usually do in
class
6
4
3.91
2.5
3.15
4
3.81
D: vmbotl/havo 1
E: havo 3
Table 3: Results question 3
2 Table 3: Results question 3
0
A: vwo
(atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual
lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2
Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
Figure 4: Results question 4
Class A’s mean was 2.5, which was significantly lower than that of the other classes; one can infer
that they speak English regularly in class as it is, which was corroborated by the interview with their
teacher. This class also indicated a high level of self-confidence according to their responses to
questions 1, 2, and 3; even though they do not regularly do speaking activities, the drama exercises
did not seem to induce them to speak more than they normally do.
16
1
2
3
4
5
Class C was slightly above neutral (3.15) in their response; even though they generally do not speak
English in class or do speaking activities, according to their teacher, the drama activities did not
encourage them to speak more (though they also did not disagree with this question).
The other three classes either came close to or actually did indicate that they did speak more English
than usual during the drama activities. In order from lowest to highest, class E had a mean score of
3.81; in this class the target language is used regularly by the teacher and the students and they do
speaking activities regularly; the circumstances are virtually the same in class B, which had a mean
score of 3.91. Both groups nonetheless felt they spoke more during the drama activities, even
though class B is part of a dual-language program. Class D had a mean score of 4; while the target
language is not used regularly, speaking activities are fact done somewhat often, yet the drama
activities seem to encourage students to speak more.
Question 5: Because of the drama activities, speaking English was more fun.
The overall mean was 4.22 (std 1.03), showing that students from all 5 classes generally agreed that
the activities made speaking English more enjoyable (than in other classroom situations).
Class
A: vwo (atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
E: havo 3
Mean
4.07
4.14
4.46
4.39
4.11
Std
1.07
0.99
0.97
0.99
1.12
How often are drama activities done in class?
Never
Never
Occasionally
Occasionally
Occasionally
Table 5: Results question 5
Because of the drama activities,
speaking English was more fun
4.6
4.46
4.4
4.2
4.39
4.14
4.07
4.11
4
Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
1
2
3
4
5
3.8
A: vwo
(atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual C: vmbo-b/k 2
lang.) 1
D: vmbotl/havo 1
E: havo 3
Figure 5: Results question 5
While the means were quite similar among all classes, the two lower-level classes indicated slightly
more enthusiastic responses to this question. As is illustrated in the chart above, both of these
classes occasionally do drama activities according to their teachers, indicating perhaps a greater
enthusiasm from the outset, although this correlation between increased enthusiasm and previous
experience with drama activities is not present in class E.
17
Question 6: As a result of the drama activities, I will speak English more easily.
The mean for this statement was slightly below neutral for all classes combined (2.91), with a fairly
high standard deviation (1.43).
Class
A: vwo (atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
E: havo 3
Mean
2.07
2.95
2.62
3.65
2.81
Std
1.49
1.33
1.66
1.30
1.27
Use of Target Language by Teacher/Students
Always/Almost always
Always/Always
Rarely/Rarely
Sometimes/Sometimes
Always/Always
Table 6: Results question 6
As a result of the drama activities, I will
speak English more easily
3.65
4
3
2.95
2.62
2.81
2.07
Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
2
1
0
A: vwo
(atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual
lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2 D: vmbo-tl/havo
1
E: havo 3
Figure 6: Results question 6
According to the results per class, students in class D consider themselves the most likely to speak
English as a result of the drama activities (mean 3.65), while class A students consider themselves
the least likely (2.07). In class A, English is consistently spoken, whereas it is not in class D. The
opposite correlation is true when comparing classes B (mean 2.95), where English is always spoken,
and class C (mean 2.62), where it is rarely spoken: class B students indicate a somewhat greater
belief that the drama activities would have a positive effect on how much they speak English than
class C students, even though class B students have a class culture where they are expected always
to speak English and class C students are not. The most extreme difference of opinion is class D’s
response, in which the mean was a full number higher on the scale than that of any other class.
Question 7. The drama activities are more useful speaking exercises than those in our book.
The mean response to this question was 3.71 for all classes, thus between “neutral” and “agree,”
with a standard deviation of 1.34.
18
1
2
3
4
5
Class
Mean
Std
A: vwo (atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
E: havo 3
3.64
3.70
3.54
3.57
3.96
1.45
1.22
1.20
1.59
1.13
Frequency
textbook use
Regularly
Sometimes
Almost Always
Regularly
Regularly
of Use of Textbook
Speaking Ex.
Rarely
Sometimes
Once a chapter
Sometimes
Sometimes
Name of textbook
Stepping Stones
New Opportunities
Go For It
Stepping Stones
All Right
Table 7: Results question 7
The drama activities are more useful
speaking exercises than those in our
book
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.96
3.64
3.7
3.54
A: vwo
(atheneum) 1
Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
B: vwo (dual
lang.) 1
3.57
C: vmbo-b/k 2 D: vmbo-tl/havo
1
E: havo 3
Figure 7: Results question 7
While the standard deviations were fairly high for each class, the means were remarkably similar,
although the mean was somewhat higher in class E (3.96), therefore much closer to “agree” than to
“neutral.” This is also the oldest group of students. There does not appear to be a correlation
between which textbook is used or how often it is used; it appears simply that students in general
found the drama activities more useful than those from their textbooks.
Question 8. Through the drama activities I am better prepared to speak English abroad.
The mean score of all students’ responses to this question was 3.67 (std 1.19)—slightly more than
halfway between “neutral” and “agree.”
Class
A: vwo (atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1
C: vmbo-b/k 2
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
E: havo 3
Mean
3.79
3.45
4
4
3.4
Std
1.05
1.26
0.91
1.13
1.34
Use of Target Language by Teacher/Students
Always/Almost always
Always/Always
Rarely/Rarely
Sometimes/Sometimes
Always/Always
Table 8: Results question 8
19
1
2
3
4
5
Through the drama activities I am
better prepared to speak English
abroad
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
4
4
3.79
3.45
A: vwo
(atheneum) 1
B: vwo (dual
lang.) 1
3.4
C: vmbo-b/k 2 D: vmbo-tl/havo
1
Strongly disagree:
Disagree:
Neutral:
Agree:
Strongly Agree:
E: havo 3
Figure 8: Results question 8
We compared each class mean against how often the target language is used, as consistent target
language use is sometimes considered the best way to prepare students to speak a foreign language
abroad (Lightbrown 2009). The two classes containing vmbo students (classes C and D) both had a
mean of 4. These classes also both do not regularly use the target language, showing some
correlation between student enthusiasm that the drama activities will prepare them to speak English
abroad and lack of regular target language use, as well as level (vmbo and some havo in this case).
Analysis of Responses to Multiple Questions
As was mentioned in the analysis of question 2, there is a clear correlation between comfort level in
speaking English and lack of fear of making mistakes across all classes: (comfort at speaking English:
mean 4.22; afraid to make mistakes during drama activities: 2.19). All classes were also described by
their teachers as having a positive atmosphere, which is corroborated by students responses to
these first two survey questions.
Students responded quite positively to the notion that the drama activities made it easier to speak
English because their classmates were (question 3, mean 4.11) and on the drama activities making
speaking English more fun (question 5, mean 4.22). These two questions focus more on their
experience in the moment than the relationship to other aspects of their curriculum or prediction of
future success.
On the two questions that were more clearly related to typical classroom activities, students were
generally less positive (though slightly more in agreement than neutral in their opinions that they
spoke more English than they normally do (question 4, mean 3.60) and that the activities were more
useful than speaking activities out of their textbooks (question 7, mean 3.71).
In regard to these drama activities as predictors of future speaking success, students gave somewhat
contradictory opinions. On the question most clearly related to our main research question, which
asks students to state to whether they think they will speak English more easily as a result of the
drama exercises (question 6), the mean was 2.91, “disagree,” bordering on “neutral.”
20
1
2
3
4
5
Students were, on the other hand, largely in agreement with the notion that that these activities
were likely to help prepare them to speak English abroad (question 8, mean 3.71).
Drama Activities Chosen
Of the 9 activities we offered, 6 were used:
 What Am I Doing? (used by all 5 teachers)
 Split Cartoons (used by all teachers except teacher C—vmbo b/k 2)
 Split Exchanges (used by all teachers except teacher C—vmbo b/k 2)
 Statues (used only by teacher C—vmbo b/k 2)
 What Time of Day is It (used only by teacher C—vmbo b/k 2)
 Words and Movement (used only by teacher D—vmbo-tl/havo 1)
Drama Activities Chosen
120
100 %
100
80 %
80 %
80
60
40
20 %
20 %
20 %
20
0
What Am I
Doing?
Split Cartoons
Split
Exchanges
Statues
What Time of Words and
Day is It?
Movement
Figure 9: overview of chosen drama activities
We focused our analysis on which activities were named by students in the question 9 (“Which
drama activities did you like the best?), in relationship to the quantitative survey results in order to
answer our sub-question: Which drama activities are most appropriate to motivate students to
speak English? We chose not to specifically examine teachers’ motives for choosing particular
activities, as this information is not directly relevant to our sub-question.
As we mentioned in the Methods section, the directions on how to answer survey question 9 were
somewhat vague, making it difficult to determine which of the 6 activities students preferred. On the
other hand, giving students the freedom to describe the activities as they remembered them
revealed what it was in the essence of a particular activity that appealed to the students. We
organized the responses into the following commonly recurring categories:
21
Category
# of Students who mention (type of) activity (out of how
many respondents)
All of them
12 (out of 99)
Mime/Acting Something Out 19 (out of 99)
(What Am I Doing?)
Split Cartoons
20 (out of 59)
Split Exchanges
10 (out of 86)
Statues
6 (out of 13)
Table 9: chosen drama activities and corresponding number of responses
To analyze which activities are more likely to foster increased speaking, we looked at the
relationship between the activities done per class and answers on related quantitative questions.
A,B,C
What am I doing?
Split Exchanges
Split Cartoons
4: more English during 3.41
drama activities
5: drama act. made 4.11
speaking more fun
6: Will speak more En. 2.61
as a result of drama
7: Drama more useful 3.71
than book activities
8: Drama good prep 3.55
for speaking abroad
C
What am I doing?
Statues
What time of day is it?
3.15
D
What am I doing?
Split Exchanges
Words and Movement
4
4.46
4.39
2.62
3.65
3.54
3.57
4
4
Table 10: relationship activities per class and answers on related questions
As the teachers of classes A, B, and E coincidentally chose the same 3 activities, we calculated the
mean of their scores on questions 4 through 8. The differences in responses to these quantitative
questions among the three groups above do not reveal a consistent relationship to the type of
activities conducted in the various classrooms. Furthermore, the three classes in which the chosen
activities were identical are also purely havo or vwo classes, which means that the particular type of
drama activity cannot be isolated from the level at which it was used.
General Comments and Suggestions
Is there anything you would like to add? This is the final question on our survey. After collecting all
the responses by class using the “shoebox method,” we found three recurring categories:
 Fun
 Do more often
 Educational
Per class these comments appeared as follows:
22
Class
Total
#
students
A: vwo (atheneum) 1 14
B: vwo (dual lang.) 1 22
C: vmbo-b/k 2
13
D: vmbo-tl/havo 1
23
E: havo 3
27
Total
99
of “fun”
4
5
7
5
3
24 (24.2%)
“do
more
often”
2
4
0
7
5
18 (18.2%)
“educational”
0
1
2
0
1
4 (4%)
Table 11: general comments and suggestions
Despite the fact that class C is the smallest, they called the activities both “fun” and “educational”
the most often. Students in class D in particular expressed a clear desire to do the activities more
often (6 of them actually specified that they would like to do drama activities once or twice a week –
see Appendix C). While there was enthusiasm expressed from students in all classes, the most
positive responses came from the classes containing vmbo students.
We also discovered that no students wrote negative comments about the drama activities. There
was, however, one suggestion that came up twice: to do drama activities in which they would be
allowed to think up their own scenes and act them out. One student in class C was quite specific
about what he liked best about the drama activities: “Dat Karim op één been ging staan.”
Discussion of Results and Conclusion
Main Research Question:
To what degree do drama activities in English-as-a-foreign-language classrooms have a positive
effect on (daring to) speak English from the standpoint of lower-level students?
Sub-Questions:
1. What factors contribute to this use of the target language and development of English skills:
interaction with classmates; speaking English in an authentic situation; departure from the
textbook (“out of the ordinary”)?
2. Which drama activities are most appropriate to motivate students to speak English?
Hypothesis in brief: Our experience as teachers and teacher trainers has led us to believe that drama
activities do in fact have a positive effect on speaking skills in the language classroom at all levels.
What struck us from both the teacher interviews and questions 1 and 2 on the student survey was
that all of the classes were described as having a positive atmosphere and that the students
themselves expressed confidence in their comfort level in speaking English and lack of fear in making
mistakes during the drama activities—regardless of level, age or regular use of the target language.
This reveals that students surveyed were already open to doing drama activities from the outset,
which means resistance was likely quite low.
The overall impression students gave in their survey responses was one of enthusiasm toward the
drama activities.
23
They agreed with the notion that the activities were fun, that they spoke English more than usual
and that they activities were more useful than speaking activities from their textbooks. Their
comments at the end of the survey were also only positive—they experienced the activities as
enjoyable and, to a lesser extent, educational, and many of them expressed a desire to do the
activities more often. These responses support our hypothesis regarding student motivation; simply
put: if the activities are fun, students are more likely to invest energy in them and thereby speak
more English.
Student perception of the longer term effect of the drama activities on their speaking abilities was
less universally positive. Question 6, which asks students whether they were more likely to speak
English as a result of the activities elicited a mean response of 2.91—disagreement bordering on
neutral. The responses to question 6 do not match our hypothesis, as we expected students to
express an increase in speaking confidence. We had experienced such increased confidence in
speaking among first-year bachelor hbo students in the course Drama in the Classroom and had
expected the results to be similar here. The classes we surveyed, however, showed considerable
confidence to begin with, so it is perhaps logical that these drama activities would not have a
significant effect on their perceived increased willingness/ability to speak English.
We expected question 8 (usefulness of drama activities for preparation to speak English abroad) to
corroborate the response to question 6, but the responses to question 8 were significantly more
positive, with a mean of 3.67. We were surprised that these answers contradicted each other.
Responses to question 8 support to some degree our hypothesis, as the mean is close to ‘agree.’ We
speculate that students answered this question more positively than question 6 because drama
activities recreate authentic language situations, which could prepare students for encounters they
might experience abroad, and students perhaps made this association when completing the survey.
These responses also provide information on our sub-research question that examines the factors
contributing to a positive effect on speaking: the use of authentic language situations.
We also examined the variance in response from the 5 participating classes. The two vwo 1 classes
(A and B) showing striking differences in their responses. Class A was in general much more
confident and seemed therefore to be less affected by the drama activities. It was quite surprising
that, on the other hand, the dual-language vwo 1 class expressed that they spoke English more
during the drama activities than usual and were more afraid to make mistakes than all of the other
groups. They gave the impression of shyer students with perfectionist tendencies. Students in this
class appear to underestimate their speaking ability and willingness, whereas students in class C
(vmbo b/k 2) overestimate themselves, as their own perception seems to contradict that of their
teacher, who mentioned that most of them do not often speak English in class. The havo 3 students
(class E) expressed the opinion more strongly than any other class that they drama activities were
more useful than speaking activities from their textbooks. This could be due to the fact by year 3 of
secondary school, students begin to get more cynical about the usefulness of their textbook. As a
whole, the two classes containing vmbo students (C and D) showed the greatest enthusiasm toward
the drama activities, particularly in regard to the following factors: that it was easier to speak English
because other students were, that the activities were more fun, and that they would prepare them
for speaking abroad.
24
Our experience both in teaching in vmbo and observing intern teachers at this level is that vmbo
students tend to be more influenced by their peers and demonstrate a greater need for classroom
activities to be fun, which could explain the more positive responses from these students.
We conclude that our research project did not definitively corroborate our hypothesis that drama
activities have a positive effect on speaking, although the factors listed in sub-question 1 were all
seen in a favorable light by students and could, over the long term, beneficially affect speaking skills.
Student response to both the quantitative and qualitative questions on our survey lead us to infer
that that the authentic nature of the activities, the fun of doing them, the opportunity they provide
in working together with peers and the departure from using the book are all factors that
contributed to students’ positive experience with the activities, particularly at the vmbo level.
Regarding our second sub-question (which drama activities were most effective?), there did not
appear to a significant correlation between which type of drama activity was done and the positive
effect on speaking skills. Students did miming, guessing, sculpting each other into statues, acting
stories to go with comic strips, acting out professions and putting words together with movement.
All of these activities required participants to combine language with movement, to use their
imaginations and just simply to act a bit crazy. These three descriptors are typical of drama activities
in general and appeared to make the lessons memorable, which, over time, can potentially help
students retain the language they practiced during these activities.
We believe that our research project took place over too short a period of time to give students
adequate opportunity to experience a noticeable change in their comfort in speaking English. We
would also be interested in the results if more different kinds of classes were involved, namely more
diversity in terms of how often the target language is used, how often speaking activities are done
and how positive the overall class atmosphere is.
This project has shown us that drama activities can have an immediate positive effect on students’
feelings about using English in a variety of lower-level classrooms, yet remains unclear what the
long-term effects might be. We still firmly support the notion that drama has an integral place in a
(lower-level) English-as-a-foreign –language classroom. The students clearly seemed to express a
desire to do such activities more than the three times they did them during this project. Perhaps a
respondent from the havo 3 class said it best; the drama activities were a “fun time instead of boring
reading a school book.”
25
Bibliography
Bournot-Trites, M. “The Role of Drama on Cultural Sensitivity, Motivation and Literacy in a Second
Language Context”. Journal for learning through the arts, 3.1.
Ebbens, S. en Ettekoven, S. (2005). Effectief Leren. Amsterdam: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Fleming, M. (2000). Drama. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and
learning (185-187). New York: Routledge.
Harinck, F. (2010). Basisprincipes praktijkonderzoek. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
Holden, E. S. (1981). Drama in Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kwakernaak, E. (2009). Didactiek van het vreemdetalenonderwijs. Bussum: Coutinho.
Lee, B. “Teaching and Teacher Education: Elementary and secondary teacher self-efficacy for
teaching and pedagogical conceptual change in a drama-based professional development
program.”
Lightbrown, P. & Spada, N. (2009). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maley, A. en Duff, A. (2005). Drama techniques: A resource book of communication activities for
language teachers, 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murillo, F. (2007). Critical teaching: drama as an approach to communicative learning and
development. teaching research project report critical teaching: drama as an approach to
communicative learning and development. teaching research project report. Retrieved from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED504237
Nordin, N. A. “Fulfilling the Tasks of Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening through Drama
Workshop.” Procedia – social and behavioral sciences, Volume 66, 7 Dec. 2012.
O’Neil, C.; Kao, S. (1998) Worlds into worlds: learning a second language through process drama.
Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Oxford, R. L. “Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Three Communicative
Strands in the Language Classroom”. The Modern Language Journal. Vol 81, No. 4, Winter,
1997.
Smith, S. M. (1984). The Theater Arts and the Teaching of Second Language. Reading, Mass: AddisonWesley
Staatsen, F. (2009). A course in language teaching, 3rd edition. Bussum: Coutinho.
Stern, S. L. (1980), Drama in Second Language Learning from a Psycholinguistic Perspective.
Language Learning, 30: 77–100.
26
Thorkelson, T. “Acting out: Drama in the EFL classroom.”Online research paper, retrievable from
http://www.academia.edu/778853/Acting_Out_Drama_in_the_EFL_classroom
Ur, P. (2012) A course in language teaching, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vanier, Jean. (1998). Becoming Human. Toronto: House of Anansi Press, Ltd.
Via, R. (1976). English in Three Acts. Hong Kong: The University Press of Hawaii.
27
Appendices
Appendix A: Selection of Drama Exercises
(double-click on pdf image for the further 12 pages of the document)
28
Appendix B: Survey Results Per Class (Quantitative Questions)
Enquêtes uitslag.xlsx
Please double-click the icon to open the Excel sheet containing all data.
29
Appendix C: Survey Results Per Class (Qualitative Questions)
Class A: vwo (atheneum) 1, 14 students
Answers to:
Which exercise(s) did you like best?
“Alles!;
De schipopdracht;
Met het uitbeelden;
Dat je iets uit moest beelden;
De cartoon;
Die met strips aan elkaar maken;
Strips bij elkaar zoeken;
De eerste van het mimen;
Toen we de strip moesten beschrijven en in volgorde moesten leggen en toen we dingen moesten
uitbeelden;
Met de kaartjes, dat je het uit moest beelden;
De omschrijving;
Dat je een tekst kreeg en moest uitbeelden;
De strip en het voordoen van het plaatje en de combinaties zoeken;”
Answers to:
Do you have anything to add about the exercises?
“Het was heel leuk;
Het was heel leuk, ik wel het vaker doen;
Ik vond het heel erg leuk, hihaho;
Ik zou het leuk vinden als we drama zouden krijgen op school  want het was heel leuk;
Musical krijgen;”
Class B: vwo (tto) 1, 22 students
Answers to:
Which exercise(s) did you like best?
“Allemaal wel leuk;
Leuk, de laatste;
Allemaal even leuk;
De eerste;
De laatste;
Met veel improvisatie;
De strip;
Zelf dialoog verzinnen;
Acteren van de situatie;
Anderen die acteren;
30
Allemaal leuk;
I like all;
De tweede, want toen mocht ik zelf ook wat doen;
In het computerlokaal;
Scène uitbeelden;
Alles;
Uitbeelden van woorden;
Met plaatjes;”
Answers to:
Do you have anything to add about the exercises?
“Was best leuk om te doen;
Mag wel vaker;
More!;
Zelf scènes bedenken en uitvoeren;
Helemaal gaaf;
Nee, leerzaam;
Heel leuk;
Wil vaker doen;
Afwisselend;
Leuk!;
Wil er veel meer;
Allemaal wel leuk;
Niet bijzonder;”
Class C: vmbo b/k 2, 13 students
Answers to:
Which exercise(s) did you like best?
“Met de beroepen;
Het uitbeelden, maar het was heel leerzaam;
Dat je standbeelden moet uitbeelden;
Dat we iets na moesten doen;
Over het standbeeld;
Dat we een blaadje kregen met een beroep en je moest dat nadoen;
Dat we opdrachten van een blaadje moesten voordoen/voorbeelden;
Dat je zelf mocht verzinnen wat je wilt doen;
Met je klasgenoot een standbeeld uitbeelden. Dat je moest uitbeelden;
Dat Karim op één been ging staan;
Het uitbeelden en met je klasgenoten een standbeeld uitbeelden;”
Answers to:
Do you have anything to add about the exercises?
“Het was een leuke en leerzame les;
31
Was leuk;
Het waren leuke en leerzame lessen, helemaal top;
Het is een hele leuke activiteit;
Ik vond dit leuker dan om in het boek te werken;
Het is leuk;’
Nee, het was gewoon een goede leuke les;
Het was heel erg leuk;”
Class D: havo/vmbo 1, 23 students
Answers to:
Which exercise(s) did you like best?
“De eerste, mime spelen (uitbeelden);
De eerste, van het uitbeelden;
Met dat lopen en dan een woord zeggen;
De oefening met praten en twee stappen zetten;
Alles;
Alles was heel leuk;
De eerste, de mime;
Dat we in rijtjes moesten staan;
Wat we als eerste deden, met de mime;
De tweede activiteit;
Met de woordjes en twee stappen doen;
Het lopen door de klas;
Activity 3;
Het strookje met het zinnetje erop;
Met die kaartjes;
Dat je een woord kreeg en dan met twee stappen met gezicht en gebaren moest doen;
Activity 1, it was really funny;
Uitbeelden van de zinnen;
Dat je eerst twee stappen moest zetten met een word etc., en de kleine kaartjes;
De laatste opdracht;
Mime;
De tweede activiteit;”
Answers to:
Do you have anything to add about the exercises?
“Ik wil het wel 1 keer per week doen in de les;
Nee, het was wel leuk zo;
Het was leuk;
Nope, ik zou het wel vaker willen doen;
Ik zou het graag nog wel vaker willen doen, bijvoorbeeld één keer in de week;
Het was heel grappig, ik wil dit elke week wel een keer doen;
Het was super;
Mag wel twee keer per week;
32
Toneelstukken, met heel veel drama erin;
Nee, het was wel goed zo;
Ik zou het wel 1,2 keer in de maand willen doen, het is echt heel leuk;
Dat we dit vaker doen tijdens de les (1 keer per week) ”
Class E: havo 3, 27 students
Answers to:
Which exercise(s) did you like best?
“Scènes uitbeelden;
De laatste;
Dat je een scène moest uitbeelden in een groepje;
Dat je een woord moest uitbeelden op verschillende manieren;
I liked all of them;
Eigenlijk vond ik ze allemáál leuk;
De tweede, want toen mocht ik zelf ook wat doen en zelf uitbeelden;
Ik vond ze allemaal leuk;
Kijken naar anderen die acteren;
I don’t know which one I liked best;
De situatie bespreken en dan die acteren;
Dat we zelf dialoogjes moesten verzinnen van de laatste les van 8 mei;
Dat stripverhaal door anderen te zien spelen;
De laatste opdracht met het verhaaltje;
Het uitbeelden van woorden;
De laatste opdracht met de plaatjes beschrijven;
De laatste;
Dat er wat er in de plaatjes gebeurde moest uitbeelden;
De laatste;
De tweede;
Een situatie uitoefenen;
Ik vond ze allemaal wel leuk en grappig;
Husband-wife scene with the tray (I was the table);
Most of them;”
Answers to:
Do you have anything to add about the exercises?
“That you have a fun time instead of boring reading a schoolbook;
They’re good the way they are;
Ik hoop dat we het vaker doen;
Het was grappig en leuk;
Nee, maar ik zou het wel leuker vinden als het vaker gaan doen;
Nee, ik zou het wel vaker willen doen, want het is erg leerzaam;
Scènes zelf bedenken en dan uitvoeren (in een groepje);
Nee, het is helemaal leuk;
33
Zelf scènes bedenken en uitvoeren;
Vaker!;
Mag wel vaker;
Ik vond het best leuk om te doen;”
34
Appendix D: Interview Transcripts
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Heb je altijd een vaste lesindeling?
Laat je in de les veel ruimte voor de leerlingen om hun gang te kunnen gaan?
Doe je veel aan spreekvaardigheid, zo ja, op welke wijze?
Gebruik je het boek als leidraad of als uitgangspunt?
Geef je de leerlingen de vrije hand wanneer het op spreekoefeningen aankomt? Laat je ze
bijvoorbeeld één-op-één Engels met elkaar praten of laat je ze dat voor de klas doen?
Gebruik je wel eens dramaoefeningen in de klas? Zo ja, hoe pak je dat aan?
Hoe merk je dat de leerlingen hierop reageren?
Hoe ervaar je over het algemeen de sfeer in de klas? Wordt deze door bepaalde activiteiten
beïnvloed?
Spreek je zelf Engels tijdens de les? Hanteer je het doeltaal-voertaal principe?
Verwacht je ook van je leerlingen dat zij Engels spreken in de les?
Teacher A
1. Nee, ze mogen zitten waar ze willen, maar er is wel een vaste programma in de les.
2. Er is wel veel structuur in de les, ze mogen zeker niet gewoon doen wat zij willen, maar
binnen een opdracht mogen zij kiezen hoe zij het aanpakken.
3. Ik doe weinig aparte spreekvaardigheid opdrachten. Ik gebruik de opdrachten niet uit het
boek omdat zij stomme opdrachten zijn. Ik doe verder geen specifieke spreekvaardigheid
oefeningen omdat zij spreken zo vaak Engels.
4. De sectie Engels wilt dat ik het boek gebruik als uitgangspunt, ik liever niet, dus ik zit een
beetje tussenin uitgangspunt en leidraad. Wij gebruiken dit jaar een nieuwe versie van
Stepping Stones, dus ik gebruik het boek iets meer omdat het nieuw is. (Ik vroeg dan hoe zij
Stepping Stones vond). Ik vind het niet zo veel, de nieuwe editie is iets beter, maar niet heel
veel.
5. Ik doe weinig gestructureerde spreekvaardigheid oefeningen omdat Engels gewoon de
doeltaal is in de les. Ik ga ervan uit dat zij Engels met elkaar spreken, maar soms moet ik ze
wel daaraan herinneren. Zij praten met elkaar in het Engels bijvoorbeeld over het weekend
en ze doen ook presentaties voor de klas. Ik geef ze wel een vrije hand.
6. Ik heb dat nog niet gedaan. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik niet zo goed in ben. Als docent moet je
wel je eigen schaamte voorbij en dat is moeilijk. Ik vind het wel leuk om aan dramaactiviteiten mee te doen, maar het is anders als je leerlingen daarin moet begeleiden.
7. n.v.t.
8. Het is een goede sfeer in de groep. Het is een kleine groep—15 leerlingen. De sfeer wordt
niet echt beïnvloed door bepaalde activiteiten.
9. Standaard spreek ik Engels met ze, alleen Engels.
10. Ik verwacht dat zij Engels tegen mij spreken. Als zij Nederlands tegen mij spreken, zeg ik
“sorry?” Maar als iemand echt niet weet wij hij wilt zeggen, soms mag hij een beetje
Nederlands spreken, maar ik moedig ze aan om altijd Engels te spreken.
(Ik heb ook gevraagd wat haar verwachtingen zijn voor de drama-activiteiten zijn, hoe denk ze dat de
klas gaat reageren.) Ik denk dat zij het heel leuk gaan vinden. Er zijn een paar die niks leuk vinden,
maar over het algemeen verwacht ik dat zij ze leuk gaan vinden.
35
(Ik vroeg of iemand weigert Engels te spreken.) Er is niemand die weigert om Engels te spreken,
maar er zijn een stuk of 3 of 4 leerlingen die het lastig vinden.
Teacher B
1. Nee, eigenlijk nooit.
2. Ja, af en toe.
3. Sowieso moeten deze leerlingen Engels spreken in de les en in de onderbouw doe je als
leraar vaak spraakoefeningen.
4. Nee, het boek is voor erbij.
5. Onderbouw af en toe voor de groep, bovenbouw niet (behalve bij presentaties).
6. Nee, nooit.
7. N.v.t.
8. Prima!
9. Yes 
10. Definitely!
Teacher C
1. I allow them to sit wherever they want, but they usually sit in the same place. Even if I tell
them they can sit somewhere else they usually just go to the same place. I don’t have a
specific structure for each lessons. I don’t know, maybe if I would ask students they would
say I do. I always give the shortest possible instruction, then they work out of the book. I
walk around while they work and if I hear the same question a number of times, I tell the
class to listen while I re-explain something.
2. Since the time for instruction is very short, students have a lot of time to do their own thing.
I never give them homework, unless they are studying for a test, but they do have to finish
their work. I don’t tell them to work in pairs, but they choose that themselves and they
check work themselves. When they are finished with an assignment, they know where to
find the key.
3. Not often, once a chapter. We use the method Go For It. I like it, it is clear and students can
work individually. I don’t have to tell them how it works and the subjects are modern and
suitable for their age. They never complain about the method. For speaking skills activities
they read dialogues aloud from the book, there was one recently about going to a tea room.
They are usually pretty reluctant to read them in front of the class. There are always two or
three who want to. I walk around and listen to them reading it in pairs, and then I ask some
of them to read them in front of the class. I have some props in the class, like a bobby hat
that I put on, or I will put a picture on the SMART board to set the mood. But speaking
exercises are not something we do often, they like the structure of going into class and
getting their work done.
4. We (the English Department) agreed to use the book regularly, we have a PTA with S.O.’s
and quizzes and you have to use the book.
5. Pronunciation is a problem; I am not very strict about it unless the message is lost. In the
second year it is difficult to do speaking skill activities, such as presentations, but I do it in
the 3rd year.
6. Sometimes I use props and we did role-plays to prepare for Taaldorp. They practices
sketches for the police station or ordering a coke.
36
7. They enjoyed it, although not all of them. Some were afraid to speak English. With Taaldorp
most of them memorized what to say and if something was said to them that was different
than what they practiced, they usually just said the same thing.
8. They are my mentor class and I have them 12 hours a week. The atmosphere is good, but it
depends on whether 2 certain pupils are there. A shudder seems to go through the class
when they are there, although one of them went to Rebound and the other one has decided
not to come to school anymore. The others flourish when those two are not there. I’ve tried
everything with those two and it doesn’t change.
9. I didn’t usually speak English that much, but since I am doing a master’s program now I have
started speaking English in the class a lot more because I have to, and my students don’t
seem to mind. They like it.
10. They don’t answer me in English very much. There are a few who are really good and they
like to show off. They like that I am speaking English.
(I asked what he thought the students would think about doing the drama activities.) I don’t expect
resistance and I am glad to have some extra assignments because I have gotten through the book
already.
Teacher D
1. Ze hebben vaste zitplekken en er is bijna altijd een vaste lesindeling. Eerst bespreken we het
huiswerk en dan doen we een luister/spreek of leesvaardigheid activiteit, bijvoorbeeld. We
gebruiken Stepping Stones. Voor vmbo vind ik het een leuke methode omdat deze leerlingen
structuur nodig hebben, maar niet voor vwo. De leerlingen vinden het ook een leuke
methode. Op school mogen wij maximaal 20 minuten klassikaal instructie geven. De rest
gebruik ik voor huiswerk of een speciale opdracht.
2. Voor ongeveer 20 minuten mogen ze hun Engels huiswerk doen maar ook huiswerk voor een
ander vak, of doen we een creatieve opdracht. In januari, bijvoorbeeld, maakten ze een
poster over welk gevoel zij krijgen bij de Engelse taal, bijvoorbeeld Stonehenge, Big Ben,
maar ook eten, voetbal of allerlei dingen uit Amerika.
3. Te weinig, er zijn rollenspellen kaarten in Stepping Stones maar ze zijn waardeloos, heel
onduidelijk. Ik gebruik zoveel mogelijk doeltaal/voertaal, maar niet altijd. Wij doen kleine
opdrachtjes in tweetallen, maar niet voor de klas. Zij doen ook nu een Tablet Project met
allerlei leuke apps. Zij doen een English Speaking World Project, daarvoor moeten ze iets
inspreken. Dat komt wel voor de klas, maar ze staan niet zélf voor de klas.
4. Het boek is net nieuw dus het is vooral een leidraad dit jaar. Ik ben iemand die snel dingen
er uithaalt. Als dit Tablet Project doorgaat, mag het boek van mij helemaal weggaan. Dan
hebben leerlingen ook toegang tot de boeken op verschillende niveaus en dan kun je
differentiëren. Ik wil de methode aanvullen met meer spreekvaardigheid. In de bovenbouw
gebruik ik het boek minimaal.
5. Ik probeer ze zo min mogelijk te sturen. Ik wil hun creativiteit niet belemmeren. Ik zeg wel
dat ze een aantal punten met elkaar moeten bespreken, maar verder niet zo veel, en ze
mogen alles gebruiken, de Tablet, woordenboeken enzovoorts.
6. Nee, maar wel in de 4de. Daar hebben zij een examentekst en ze moeten een
televisieprogramma maken over een bepaalde nieuws item. Ik doe wel een circuit met ze (de
eerste klas). Ze hebben kaartjes met informatie die ze moeten bespreken, bijvoorbeeld dat
ze op een camping komen, maar deze opdrachten komen uit het boek en ze zijn vaag. De
leerlingen willen deze activiteiten best wel doen, maar ze zijn niet goed geschreven.
7. Wat je doet buiten de methode vinden ze leuk als het maar creatief en speels is.
37
8. Redelijk rustig, maar er begint een beetje spanning in te komen. Er zijn een paar leerlingen
voor wie het te moeilijk is en zij storen de anderen.
9. Ik probeer om in de eerste klas 50 tot 75% Engels te praten, het begin van de les, bij het
nakijken, bij opdrachten geven, bij een praatje maken. Gewoon zoveel mogelijk eigenlijk.
10. Uiteraard wil ik dat leerlingen zoveel mogelijk Engels gebruiken maar veel leerlingen
vinden dat heel moeilijk of eng. Ik dwing ze in de eerste klas niet, in de derde klas wel.
(Ik vroeg wat haar verwachting waren m.b.t. de drama-activiteiten.) Ze gaan het leuk vinden. Alleen
een paar vinden het eng om Engels te spreken.
Teacher E
1. Nee, ik werk heel intuïtief, ben een slechte planner. Ik zet nooit iets op papier en geef bijna
nooit huiswerk. Ik vraag vaak waar we zijn en wat we nog moeten behandelen. Over het
algemeen werkt dat prima.
2. Ja, als de leerlingen goed bezig zijn wil ik ze nog wel eens hun eigen gang laten gaan. Ze
kunnen dan bijvoorbeeld vooruitwerken. Erg goede leerlingen kunnen zelfs even iets doen
voor een ander vak als ze al klaar zijn met Engels.
3. Ik doe best heel veel aan spreekvaardigheid, ga graag de discussie aan met de leerlingen
over zaken die spelen en wil graag dat ze dan in het Engels hun mening geven.
4. Als uitgangspunt. Ik wil zelf ontdekken en de leerlingen láten ontdekken. Voor hun portfolioopdrachten bijvoorbeeld wil ik dat ze zelf op zoek gaan en hun zaak kunnen beargumenteren
zonder dat ik daar van alle voor aandraag. Ik help ze uiteraard wel, maar ze moeten veel zelf
doen. Zo gaat het met alles in de les; ik vind het prima om af te wijken van het boek.
5. Meestal laat ik de leerlingen klassikaal spreken, zo leren ze ook hun angst daarvoor te
overwinnen. Er mag geen schaamte zijn om in een vreemde taal te spreken. Hoe minder erg
ze het vinden om fouten te maken, hoe beter.
6. Niet vaak, soms. Ik vind het wel leuk en wil het eigenlijk vaker doen.
7. De leerlingen vinden het gewoon leuk. Ik hou zelf ook wel van een beetje theatraal en maf
doen. Als je lol hebt in de les slaat dat ook over op de leerlingen en heb je vanzelf een betere
les.
8. Eigenlijk wel positief gewoon. ‘Tuurlijk! Zoals ik al zei, als ik vrolijk ben wordt de klas ook
vrolijk. Als ik wel eens door leerlingen genegeerd word of als ze weigeren mee te doen of op
te letten, kan ik daar ook chagrijnig van worden.
9. Ja, ja. Zeker.
10. JA!
38