Universidad Austral de Chile

Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades

Escuela de Pedagogía en Comunicación en Lengua Inglesa
Lead Advisor:
PhD. Amalia Ortiz de Zárate Fernández

Drama Techniques and Communicative

Competence: a Workshop conducted with First
Year Students of the ELT Training Programme at
Universidad Austral de Chile
Consuelo Amanda Avilés Parra
Victoria Francisca Martínez Villagra
Valdivia - 2015
 OUTLINE

• Antecedents
• Theoretical Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusions

1/21
 ANTECEDENTS
• Research Question

What are the changes regarding Communicative

Competence that First Year Students of the Uach ELT
Training Programme show after attending a Workshop
on Body Language and Voice Projection?

2/21
 ANTECEDENTS
• General Objective

To identify the changes regarding Communicative

Competence after the Body Language and Voice
Projection Workshop.

3/21
 ANTECEDENTS
• Specific Objectives

1. To identify the main problems students have when speaking in

front of an audience.
2. To implement a Body Language and Voice Projection
Workshop for Students of First Year of the UACh ELT Training
Programme.
3. To recollect students’ opinions regarding Communicative
Competence after the Body Language and Voice Projection
Workshop.
4. To document students’ changes regarding Communicative
Competence after attending the Body Language and Voice
Projection Workshop.
4/21
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
State of the Art
- The use of Drama Techniques in ELT Training
Programmes in the World and in Chile
(Stern, n.d; Martin and Lobos, 2013; University of Warwick,
2014; Universidad Austral de Chile, 2014)

Drama Techniques
(Wessels, 1987; Maley and Duff, 2005)

5/21
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Communication
- Communicative Competence
(Hymes, 1972; Morreale et al., 2007; Jin, 2008)

- Effectiveness
(Kelly and Watson,1989; Chambers, 2002; Morreale et al.,
2007; Collins, 2009; Gabor, 2010)

6/21
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Communication
- Verbal Communication
(Sperber and Wilson, 1986; Krauss, 2002; Myers and Anderson, 2008)

- Non-verbal Communication
(Burgoon and Saine, 1978; Andersen, 1999; Brown, 2001; Mottet et al.,
2004; Adair, 2009; Samovar et al., 2009)
• Kinesics (Myers and Anderson, 2008)
• Vocalics (Brown, 2011)
7/21
 METHODOLOGY
• Type of Research (Kumar, 2011)
• Subjects of Study: 25  17  3
• Data Collection Methods
- Observation through video recordings (Kothari, 2004; Hindmarch
and Luff, 2010)
- Questionnaires 1 and 2 (Burton and Bartlett, 2009)
• Workshop: Appendices (Boal, 1992; Maley, 2000)
• Criteria of Analysis
- Body Language and Voice Projection
- Communicative Competence
8/21
 RESULTS

Figures 1 and 5. How comfortable

do you feel when speaking in front
of an audience?
9/21
 Figure 2 and 6.
Situations
experienced when
Q1 speaking in front
of an audience

Q2

10/21
• Q1
- 68% did not know what to improve in order to
reinforce their Communicative Competence.
- 94% believed that Verbal and Non-verbal aspects were
equally important in oral presentations.

• Q2
- 94% believed that Drama Techniques exercises should
be included during Teachers’ Training.
- Feedback of the sessions carried out.

11/21

Pecha Kucha
Fragment: 03:15 – 03:20
“…that they are taking cover from a
tornado while they are recording”.
… (looking at audience) that they
(showing and looking at image) are
taking cover from a tornado (looks at
audience) (soft laugh) (mini pause) while
(bends left arm towards her body) they
(moves left arm towards the image) are
recor- (points) -ding (looks at audience)
(soft laugh).
Video Analysis – Subject #1
Dramatised Poem
Fragment: 00:17 – 00:20
“…then she laughs out laughing like
she’s an emperor”.
…then she laughs [runs] (swipes arm)
out laughing (showing hands at chest
level) like (hands towards herself) she’s
an (starts movement raising hands)
emperor (hands up simulating a crown in
her head).
12/21
 Video Analysis – Subject #1

Pecha Kucha Dramatised Poem

General comments: no use General comments: no use
of space (stays behind desk), of space, hands accompany
flat oral expression, hands are speech, eye contact is clearly
only used for pointing at the defined, intonation (ups and
images, no much eye contact, downs).
flat speech (no changes in
intonation), laughs nervously,
looks at her notes too much,
repeats “so…”.

13/21
 Video Analysis – Subject #3
Pecha Kucha
Fragment: 00:35 – 00:43
“…because it has…ahm… there are
many kinds of animals like
penguins, whales…and ok”
…(long pause – 3 seconds) (looks at
screen) (seems hesitant) because it
has…ahm (turns to the audience)…
there are many (holds hands together
briefly) (looks at the screen slightly
and turns to the audience) kinds of
animals like (holds hands together in a
shaky motion) penguins, (turns eyes to
the screen) whales…and ok
Dramatised Poem
Fragment: 31:41 – 31:47
“ when a friend calls me from the
road and slows his hor[se] no sorry
sorry sorry”
when(bended arms go down) a friend
(bended arms go up) calls me from
(bended arms are held still) the (moves
right hand to the side slowly with the
palm up) road and slows his (arms are
bended and held still again)
hor[se](bended arms move forward)
no sorry (drops hands) sorry (with
extended palms, hands are moved in an
in-and-out motion) sorry
14/21

Pecha Kucha
General comments: no use of
space, flat oral expression,
hands are not used to point at
images but they are kept at the
centre and they are shaky, not
much eye contact, no changes
in intonation (flat).
Video Analysis – Subject #3
Dramatised Poem
General comments: no use of
space – stands still in the
centre of the stage, flat oral
expression (the subjects recites
the poem very fast with no
pauses to avoid going blank),
arms are bended most of the
time and tend to shake, eye
contact is focused on one
person, intonation is used to
express a question.
15/21
 DISCUSSION

Body Language and Voice Projection

• Trainees awareness of non-verbal aspects
influenced improvements in oral presentations

- Q1 vs. Q2
- Pecha Kucha vs. Dramatised Poem

Wessels, 1987; Kelly and Watson, 1989; Maley and Duff, 2005
16/21
How comfortable do you feel when speaking in front
of an audience?

17/21
 DISCUSSION

Body Language and Voice Projection

• Trainees awareness of non-verbal aspects
influenced improvements in oral presentations

- Q1 vs. Q2
- Pecha Kucha vs. Dramatised Poem

Wessels, 1987; Kelly and Watson, 1989; Maley and Duff, 2005
18/21
 Communicative Competence
• Ability to face communicative problems =
use of Drama Techniques
10
9
Situations
8
7
experienced when
6
5 speaking in front of
4
3 an audience (total
2
1
0
number of answers)
Mumble Sweating Going Fidgeting Cannot Speaking Other
blank establish too fast
eye
contact
Q1 Q2

19/21
Communicative Competence

• Meaning and Intention

- Q1 vs. Q2
- Pecha Kucha vs. Dramatised Poem

20/21
 CONCLUSIONS
• Objectives were achieved
• Subjects’ improvements
- Awareness
- Closeness with the researchers
- Level of English
• Significance of Verbal and Non-verbal aspects
• Importance of Drama Techniques in ELT Training
Programmes = Competent teachers
• Further research

21/21
 REFERENCES
Adair, J. (2009). Effective Communication: The Most Important Management Skills of All. Pan Books

Benzer, A. (2012). Teachers’ opinion about the use of body language. Education, 132 (3), 467-473.

Collins, P. (2009). Speak with Power and Confidence. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.

Jin, G. (2008). Application of communicative approach in college English teaching. Asian

Social Science, 4(4), 81.

Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A Step-by-step Guide for Beginners. New Delhi: Sage Aisa

Kelly, L., Watson, A. (1989). Speaking with Confidence and Skill. University Press of America

Kothari, C. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age International
Publishers.

Maley, A., Duff, A. (2005). Drama Techniques. A resource book of communication activities for language
teachers. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Morreale, S., Spitzberg, B., Barge, K. (2007). Human Communication: Motivation, Knowledge, and Skills,
Second Edition. USA: Thomson Wadsworth

Mottet, T., Beebe, S., Raffeld, P., Paulsel, M. (2004). The effects of student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness
on teachers’ liking of students and willingness to comply with student requests. Communication Quarterly, 52,
27-38.

Myers, S., Anderson, C. (2008). The Fundamentals of Small Group Communication.SAGE. Retrieved from
http://books.google.cl/books?id=3tY6tBDsP4cC&pg=PA186&dq=verbal+communication+definition&hl=es&sa
=X&ei=4f5vU8HhAejjsAT3yIKwAw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=verbal%20communication%20def
inition&f=false

Samovar, A., Porter, R., McDaniel, E.(2009). Communication between cultures

Stern, S. (n.d). Why Drama Works: A Psycholinguistic Perspective. University of California. Los Angeles.
End of Workshop, December 2014