In the evolving field of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education, developing oral communicative competence and autonomy among preservice teachers is pivotal. These skills are crucial for their professional success and effectiveness in the classroom. This research leveraged the transformative potential of integrating literature circles (LCs) and process drama (PD) to empower preservice teachers with these essential competencies.
The urgency for such interventions is underscored by the global prominence of English, which demands tailored approaches for preservice teachers to navigate communicative challenges effectively (Keshmirshekan, 2019; Maguddayao & Medriano, 2019; Ironsi & Popescu, 2021). Previous studies have revealed a concerning decline in linguistic and oral communicative abilities among EFL preservice teachers (Ahmed, 2008; Mohammed, 2011). Moreover, a pilot study conducted by the researcher on junior EFL preservice teachers identified significant deficiencies in their OCC, particularly in strategic and sociolinguistic competence.
Participants struggled with deploying strategies such as circumlocution and synonyms to overcome communication obstacles, maintaining a continuous flow of speech, displaying confidence, and using appropriate lexis for diverse situations.
Building on the insights of Little (2007) and Irie & Stewart (2011), who emphasized that language learner autonomy and communicative competence are two sides of the same coin, the study also assessed learner autonomy (LA). The evaluation revealed low levels of LA among participants, who showed passivity due to the traditional method of lecturing, highlighting challenges in taking responsibility, initiative, self-monitoring, and social interaction during the learning process.
This research addressed significant gaps in the literature concerning the cultivation of strategic and sociolinguistic competence, integral to oral communicative competence among EFL preservice teachers in a teacher-centered classroom with insufficient technology and equipment for the 500 students to practice English (Mohammed, 2011; Tohamey, 2016). It underscored the transition from passive learning to active participation, as highlighted in studies on learner autonomy (Arıkan & Bakla, 2011; Bayat, 2011; Hashimoto, 2012; Izquierdo-Castillo & Jiménez Bonilla, 2014; Mutlu & Eroz-Tuga, 2013).
The contributions of PD and LCs in enhancing English language skills, particularly strategic competence, sociolinguistic competence, and autonomy, are well-documented (Briggs, 2010; Canals, 2011; Hamilton, 2013; Ma et al., 2023; McElvain, 2010; O’Neill & Lambert, 1982). Techniques like role-playing, improvisation, and story dramatization have been linked to improved communication skills (Rosler, 2008; Toepfer, 2008). These approaches align with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, supporting their theoretical basis (Briggs, 2010; Rosler, 2008; Toepfer, 2008).
Building on this foundation, the research introduced a unique design intertwining LCs and PD to address deficiencies in OCC, specifically strategic and sociolinguistic competence, and autonomy in three phases of study. During the introductory phase, students were guided to express opinions on their current educational experiences, recognize their learning aims, and determine their learning objectives and roles within the educational process.
LCs promoted independent learning and collaborative discussions, enhancing reading comprehension and oral communication (Elhess & Egbert, 2015). Roles within LCs, such as the Discussion Director, Literary Luminary, Connector, and Summarizer, allowed students to take initiative, monitor their learning, interact in groups, and evaluate the learning process. Students discussed new words, asked clarifying questions, made predictions, visualized story events, wrote personal thoughts in double journal entries, and cooperated during reading sessions. This approach fostered a collaborative learning environment and enhanced strategic competence by encouraging the use of paraphrasing, circumlocution, and stalling devices to overcome communication barriers. It also developed sociolinguistic competence by requiring appropriate language use in various social contexts and promoting continuous, confident interactions.
Concurrently, PD, a student-centric strategy involving improvisation, stimulated active student engagement (Jones, 2014). The final phase of PD involved techniques such as improvisation, tableaux, and story dramatization. These activities allowed students to re-enact and reflect on story events, using body language and strategic competence to communicate effectively. Students practiced using language appropriately in different social contexts, maintaining a continuous flow of speech, and displaying confidence during interactions. This approach further developed students' sociolinguistic competence by requiring them to use language in various social contexts and maintain continuous, confident, and appropriately intoned speech. Moreover, the research revealed that the integration of LCs and PD significantly enhanced learner autonomy by encouraging students to take responsibility for their learning, engage in self-monitoring while performing the scenes, and participate actively in social interactions to reflect on them.
Finally, this design allowed students to improve their OCC and exercise autonomy in setting goals, evaluating their progress, and collaborating with peers. It also fostered an environment that emphasizes the learning process rather than the outcome, helping students transition from passive learners to active participants. This ultimately enhances their future effectiveness as English educators who are autonomous and competent in their oral communicative skills. This research presented the findings originally presented in my unpublished master’s thesis (Nasr, 2016) with an updated literature review.
Theoretical Underpinnings
Communicative Competence
Communicative competence (CC) has come to the forefront in language education, initially pioneered by Hymes (1972) and expanded by Canale and Swain (1980) to include grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic abilities. CC, as articulated by Kramsch (2007), revolves around the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning between interlocutors or between individuals and the texts they engage with. Various models of CC, such as those by Canale and Swain, Bachman and Palmer, Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, and Thurrell, and Bagarić and Djigunović, offer distinct perspectives. However, Şenel (2011) provides a comprehensive framework consisting of four core components: grammatical/linguistic competence, strategic competence, sociolinguistic competence, and discourse competence.
Strategic and Sociolinguistic Competence
Strategic and sociolinguistic competences are essential components of oral communicative competence (OCC). In examining OCC, Şenel (2011) highlights the symbiotic relationship between strategic and sociolinguistic dimensions, particularly crucial in contexts where sociolinguistic competence is underdeveloped (Savignon, 1972). Strategic competence, endorsed by Cohen (1995), is vital for achieving fluency and involves using paraphrasing, circumlocution, and stalling devices to overcome communication barriers. Sociolinguistic competence, on the other hand, involves the ability to use language appropriately in various social contexts, maintaining a continuous flow of speech and displaying confidence during interactions. These competencies are interconnected, contributing to intercultural competence (Fantini, 2006) and are essential for meaningful and coherent dialogues (Celce-Murcia et al., 1995). The fusion of these dimensions is underscored by empirical studies (Amodeo, 2000; Nitta, 2004), emphasizing their interconnected nature.
Operationally OCC could be defined as the EFL prospective teachers’ knowledge of how to overcome some deficiencies in using language in several contexts both receptively and productively to communicate appropriately and effectively.
The interconnected nature of strategic and sociolinguistic competence underscores the need for innovative and context-tailored approaches to developing oral communicative competence. Scholars like Fang (2010) and Ahmed (2008) reveal that limited student-teacher contact, and inflexible assessments pose significant challenges, demanding innovative solutions. Globalization further highlights the necessity for effective instruction tailored to localized contexts, as advocated by Ironsi and Popescu (2021). They emphasize customizing pedagogies for specific classroom environments, such as using cultural podcasts to prioritize listening and strategic speaking practice. These approaches scaffold communicative competence development through contextual relevance, rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach and promoting intercultural understanding. Tailoring strategies to fit local contexts and adopting student-focused approaches are crucial in encouraging intercultural environments (Ablakulov, 2023). Balancing linguistic precision with real-world applicability across global contexts emerges as an essential consideration for future research (Keshmirshekan, 2019; Maguddayao & Medriano, 2019).
Learner Autonomy
Learner autonomy (LA) refers to the ability of learners to take charge of their own learning process, including making decisions about what, when, and how to learn, as well as engaging in self-assessment (Gardner & Miller, 1999). Little (2003) argues that autonomy requires insight, a positive attitude, reflection, and proactive self-management. An autonomy-supportive environment cultivates persistence and motivation (Deci et al., 1991), forming two sides of the same pedagogical coin with communicative competence (CC) (Little, 2007).
Operationally, LA can be defined as the way in which EFL prospective teachers have the opportunity to take charge or control over their learning, starting from setting goals and organizing the learning process to monitoring and evaluating the entire learning process outcome.
The essence of language in communication (Savignon, 2002) aligns with the goal of empowering learners in a foreign language (Wenden, 2002). The crucial connection between CC and LA necessitates active engagement in independent learning and target language practice (Widdowson, 2003). Irie and Stewart (2011) affirm the profound link between fostering autonomy and enhancing CC, emphasizing motivation in an autonomy-supportive environment.
Learners, when entrusted with decisions on what, when, and how to learn, take personal responsibility for their progress, incorporating self-assessment. Cooperative learning positively influences autonomy, aiding the transition from interdependence to independence (Xu-sheng, 2010). Developing LA is intrinsic to the learning process, urging acknowledgment and promotion within language classrooms, especially in EFL contexts (Little, 1991).
The symbiotic relationship between CC and LA in EFL contexts is well-documented, emphasizing the need for strategic competence and learner agency interventions (Çoban, 2002; Özdere, 2005). Studies highlight the necessity of fostering autonomy and language performance, underscoring the importance of bridging theoretical insights with practical applications to enhance CC and LA in EFL education (Balçıkanlı, 2008; Koçak, 2003; Zarei & Gahremani, 2010).
Literature Circles (LCs)
Literature Circles (LCs) have emerged as a dynamic pedagogical strategy, engaging students in active sense-making through collaborative interactions. Inspired by Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), LCs emphasize collaborative learning, enabling students to develop skills independently with the support of peers or adults. True collaboration is evident in LCs through student-initiated inquiries, choices, self-direction, and mutual interdependence. Cameron et al. (2012) define LCs as "student-led book groups or clubs" where students take responsibility for their learning. Shelton-Strong (2012) characterizes LCs as "small peer-led discussion groups," emphasizing regular programmed meetings for sharing interpretations of common literature. This research defines LCs as a communicative reading strategy where students take control, forming small peer-led groups to read, discuss, analyze, and reflect on specific texts.
Originating in the mid-1980s as student book clubs, LCs have evolved into structured reading circles where students select reading materials, form groups, and engage in regular discussions (Daniels, 2002). Roles such as discussion director, literary luminary, connector, and illustrator foster diverse perspectives and analytical engagement. Optional roles, including researcher, summarizer, and vocabulary enricher, ensure active participation and promote language skills development (Daniels & Steineke, 2004).
Theoretical Foundations of LCs
LCs are rooted in constructivism and socio-cultural theory. Aligned with Piaget's constructivist principles, LCs emphasize learners actively constructing knowledge by choosing reading materials and engaging in collaborative discussions (Daniels, 1994). Vygotsky's ZPD highlights the importance of social interaction for learning, suggesting learners achieve more with peer or adult support (Cameron et al., 2012). Emphasizing student-led discussions and mutual interdependence, LCs exemplify collaborative principles in socio-cultural theory (Daniels, 2002). LCs integrate theories that emphasize the interconnectedness of reading and writing, viewing reading as enriched through social interactions. Small group discussions enhance critical and literary thinking (Lehman & Scharer, 1996; McMahon & Raphael, 1997). The focus on independent learning aligns with theories advocating student autonomy, fostering ownership and intrinsic motivation—key aspects of effective education (Cohen, 1983; Daniels & Steineke, 2004).
Advantages of LCs
The efficacy of LCs in enhancing reading comprehension is well-documented. Studies have shown that LCs significantly improve students' reading skills, foundational for developing communicative competence and learner autonomy. The practice of reading comprehension within LCs underpins both communicative competence and autonomy by engaging students in meaningful discussions and reflections on the text (Avci & Yuksel, 2011; Brown, 2002; McElvain, 2010). Moreover, LCs are versatile and can be applied across various educational levels, from primary to university settings, demonstrating their wide applicability and effectiveness (Eeds & Wells, 1989; Thomas, 2013).
LCs foster a student-centered learning environment that promotes autonomy, ownership, and intrinsic motivation. By rotating roles and participating actively, students develop comprehensive language skills and gain confidence in their abilities. The structured yet flexible nature of LCs allows students to exercise critical choices within a supportive framework, enhancing their engagement and learning outcomes (Daniels & Steineke, 2004). This approach not only prepares students for academic success but also equips them with lifelong learning skills, justifying the incorporation of LCs into programs aimed at developing EFL prospective teachers' communicative competence and autonomy.
Process Drama
Process Drama (PD) is a transformative pedagogical startegy that emphasizes collaborative world-building through immersive role-playing and structured drama conventions. Pioneered by Dorothy Heathcote in the 1980s, PD shifts the focus from the final product to the process of creation, fostering self-discovery and enhancing language skills among second and foreign-language learners (Aitken, 2021; Heathcote & Bolton, 1995). This student-centric approach encourages participants to become co-creators in an improvisational educational strategy, facilitating authentic interaction and expression (McCracken et al., 2006). Heathcote’s innovations, such as teacher-in-role techniques and mantle of the expert, distinguish PD by pushing the boundaries beyond conventional knowledge transmission (Anderson et al., 2008; Kelner & Flynn, 2006; Schneider et al., 2006).
Theoretical Foundations of PD
The theoretical foundations of PD trace back to early 20th-century educational theories, particularly John Dewey's emphasis on experiential learning (Kelner & Flynn, 2006; Taylor, 2000). Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is crucial in PD, advocating for peer interaction to facilitate skill development (Vygotsky, 1978). Strategies like teacher-in-role and mantle-of-the-expert leverage the ZPD, enabling active student participation (DuPont, 2009; Heathcote & Bolton, 1995). Freire's pedagogical philosophy, which promotes critical thinking and dismantles traditional power structures, aligns seamlessly with PD’s objectives (Gervais, 2006; McCracken et al., 2006). PD also integrates Dewey's learning-by-doing philosophy, Kolb's experiential learning model, Gardner's multiple intelligences, and emotional intelligence, enriching its theoretical base (Cramer et al., 2007; Pearce & Jackson, 2009).
PD’s Role in Contemporary Education
In contemporary education, PD continues to evolve, addressing challenges like those presented by the global pandemic. Its transformative power as a pedagogical tool fosters critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration, making it significant in the twenty-first-century educational landscape (McLaren et al., 2021; Wells et al., 2021; Wells et al., 2023). The pandemic, which heightened feelings of isolation and disrupted traditional learning environments, underscores PD’s value in fostering transformative learning experiences (O'Connor, 2020). Its adaptability and innovative approach remain essential in meeting the evolving needs of students and educators, solidifying its position at the forefront of educational innovation.
Process Drama (PD): Functions, Features, Implementation, and Impact
Process Drama (PD) balances cognitive, social, and affective functions in language classrooms, promoting scientific literacy, problem-solving skills, and real-life communication (Gervais, 2006; Pongsophon et al., 2010; Rothwell, 2011). Reflecting Communicative Approach principles, PD includes thematic exploration, non-scripted experiences, participant-focused change, and improvisation (Taylor & Warner, 2006). Implementation involves context determination, role identification, tension building, and using body and language for communicative competence, integrating drama with writing and reading skills (Liu, 2002).
PD's transformative potential caters to diverse learning styles, offering alternatives for struggling students (DuPont, 2009; Schmidt, 2008; Toepfer, 2008). It enhances reading motivation, engagement, and critical response, serving as a valuable pre-reading strategy and fostering autonomy through skills like summarizing, questioning, and cooperative learning (Samuels, 2011). Process Drama techniques like the human slide show improve reading skills, empathy, and communicative competence (Alam et al., 2020; Edmiston, 2015). PD impacts students' imagination and critical thinking, fostering authentic communicative situations and enhancing communicative competence and autonomy (Alam et al., 2020; Garcia, 2014; Jones, 2014; Koosha, Abdollahi, & Karimi, 2016; Zarei & Gahremani, 2010).
The Literature Circles and Process Drama (LCPD) Design
Operationally, LCPD is a dynamic, student-centered teaching and learning strategy where participants collaboratively engage in reading, discussing, and critically reflecting on texts within small peer-led groups while simultaneously stepping into imaginative dramatic roles to explore, interpret, and address various problems, situations, themes, or series of related themes.
This integrative strategy emphasizes the process of learning, with students assuming rotating roles within the literature circles to facilitate discussions and taking on characters in process drama to deepen their understanding and reflection. The primary focus is on the participants' autonomous learning experience rather than producing a final product, aiming to enhance their oral communicative competence through continuous interaction and active engagement.
This instructional strategy design aligns with suggestions from recent studies emphasizing the importance of focusing on student-centered and interactive learning to create more engaging and effective educational experiences that cater to diverse learner needs (Beckett, 2024; Ly, 2024).
Consequently, the literature review examined how the LCPD design could develop EFL learners' oral communicative competence and autonomy. LCs engage students in peer-led discussions, fostering their autonomy and engagement, while PD emphasizes experiential, student-centered learning, enhancing oral language skills and social interaction. Both strategies are underpinned by Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, highlighting the importance of social learning. This justified the research focus on combining LCs and PD to create a comprehensive instructional strategy.
Research Questions
In pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, the research formulates the following research questions and hypotheses:
RQ1. To what extent does the LCPD Design affect the development of OCC of junior EFL preservice teachers?
Hypothesis 1: There is a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the treatment group on the pre- and post-administration of the overall OCC test in each subcomponent, favoring the post-administration.
Hypothesis 2: The Design positively affects OCC as a whole and each subcomponent.
RQ2. To what extent does the design affect the development of autonomy in junior EFL preservice teachers?
Hypothesis 3: There is a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the treatment group on the pre- and post-administration of the autonomy scale as a whole and in each dimension, favoring the post-administration.
Hypothesis 4: The Design positively develops the overall students’ autonomy and each dimension.