This study aimed to examine whether the 14-week RT implementation would make a difference on Taiwanese EFL elementary higher-grade students’ speaking proficiency. According to the results in Chapter Four, they completely support the hypothesis Chapter One, and the further interpretation from the results were provided in next sections which were students’ speaking proficiency, instructor’s journals and students’ feedbacks.
5.2.1 The Discussion of Students’ Speaking Proficiency
Research Question 1
To what degree would a Readers Theater training in an elementary school make a difference on higher-grade students’ speaking proficiency as measured by?
Based on Table 4.2, Table 4.3 and Table 4.4, they showed that the experimental group got better scores in the posttest than in the pretest, and the significant progress indicated that students had improved significantly no matter on different themes or different language competence. That is to say, the 14-week RT implementation indeed could help students gain better English speaking proficiency. However, there hadn’t been a research which attempted to examine students’ English speaking proficiency by
utilizing RT implementation. Therefore, the researcher would provide the possible explanation in the discussion.
First of all, RT was a kind of drama form, and students needed to interpret different characters in the performance, though there was still some difference between RT and stage drama, both of them were doing the role-play as the interpretation. The results might correspond to a research which applied role-play to see the effect on students’
English speaking ability and attitudes/motivation. Su (2008) proposed the positive outcome between role-play and speaking ability. Moreover, Hsu (2011) claimed that students could realize the elements of language communication by interpreting characters in RT.
Secondly, the proper reading material might help the RT implementation work smoothly. This study applied the Curriculum-Based Readers Theater (CBRT) as the teaching material. The researcher adapted the textbook into the 4-unit RT scripts, and she instructed the scripts in the RT implementation. A number of empirical studies had attempted to utilize the scripts based on the textbooks in RT (Yang, 2006; Liu, 2008;
Chen, 2009; Wang, 2010) and suggested that the consideration of CBRT could ensure that it reached student’s language proficiency level. According to Chen’s (2009) study, she also mentioned CBRT provided an opportunity for the students to raise their awareness on speaking English with proper interpretation in both verbal and non-verbal aspects.
Speaking of interpretation, it was necessary in RT performance training because RT is the simplest drama form which readers used their voice, facial expression and body language to interpret the characters in front of the audience (Dixon et al., 1996;
Young & Rasinski, 2009). Based on the empirical studies, Chen (2009) indicated that the students put life to the character through voice variation, voice volume, intonation, body movement, and so on. Chen (2008) stated that students had gradually improved in
the aspect of English speaking and oral interpretation. Moreover, Liao (2007) proposed that pronunciation was the first step as people learn to talk, while intonation, stress, and rhythm are essential parts in language learning. Therefore, in this study, the reading skills which students had learned might assist them to progress in the Speaking Proficiency Assessment posttest.
Thirdly, Hsu (2011) suggested the RT periods of a unit should have three to six periods, and teachers might consider increasing or decreasing teaching periods based on students’ language level. In this study, the instructor taught a unit for six periods which was sufficient for the instructor and the students to get familiar with each unit and the RT procedure. Moreover, the instructor wasn’t the official English teacher of 6-A, except the students regularly had three English periods per week, the instructor implemented the RT training in another two periods a week. The lasting English training environment might also make students had more integration on language learning.
To sum up, with proper teaching material, constant oral interpretation training and ideal teaching period, no wonder students who accepted the RT implementation had improved a lot on their English speaking proficiency
5.2.2 The Discussion of Instructor’s Journals
Research Question 2
What were the suggestions to the implementation of RT from the instructor’s perspectives?
Based on the instructor’s journal, the researcher was going to provide the possible explanations about the problems which the instructor had met during each unit of RT implementation, and the researcher would collect the empirical studies to correspond with the explanations.
In the first unit, the instructor had faced the discipline management problem while
instructing Unit 2 RT, and the reason might be the instructor was unfamiliar with the students. The instructor made a convenience sampling of a class in and elementary school in New Taipei City; therefore the instructor only started getting along with students from September, 2013. Without the acquaintance, the instructor and the students were lack of connection in the first RT implementation. Cho (2010) also indicated the same difficulty in her interviewees’ viewpoints of RT implementation.
According to her Focus Group Interview data, it referred teachers were lack of understanding some students’ personalities, and which could connect to the problem which the instructor met in Unit 2 RT implementation.
In the second unit, the instructor described that the students tended to answer the comprehension questions briefly, and they were unable to state their views in complete sentences. Hence, the researcher supposed the possible reason was the original English class training and the teaching style of the original English teacher. Hsu (2010) discussed that generally the purpose of English teaching was restricted by memorizing vocabulary and substituting vocabulary in sentence patterns. Moreover, even though students could memorize the sentences, they still didn’t know how to communicate and discuss in English. Therefore, the traditional teaching ways not only couldn’t encourage students’ motivation but also their English ability.
In the third unit, the instructor tried to use a worksheet to build up students’ story comprehension of Unit 4 script. 70% students couldn’t do well in the worksheet, and most of them couldn’t match the sentence and the pictures even they worked in pairs, so the instructor immediately decided to try another strategy by asking students reread the script and discuss the content directly. According to the situation, the reason could be the design of the worksheet. As shown in Figure 4.1, it required student fill the answers;
however, writing ability and grammar development were not the goal of this study.
Therefore, the students needed more elicitation and guidance during the Unit 4 RT
implementation. Moreover, the researcher found students’ interpretation hadn’t changed a lot in the group rehearsal, so she combined another grouping way during the rehearsal. She arranged the students who played the same character into a group; thus, the instructor could instruct them group by group deliberately, and which could be connected to Hsu’s (2010) suggestion during the students’ preparation of RT. Hsu proposed the Pull-Out Strategy to check students’ preparation before the final RT performance; hence, the instructor had tried a suitable solution to her problems.
In the last unit, the instructor preferred students’ performance in the rehearsal because she thought more students read better than in the performance. Tsai (2010) also discovered students’ RT performance wasn’t better than the RT rehearsal because students were much more nervous on the stage. Except the nervousness, the researcher believed students’ shyness also caused this situation because these students were lack of performing experience since they had learned English.
5.2.3 The Discussion of Students’ Feedback
Research Question 3
What were the suggestions to the implementation of RT from the students’
perspectives?
The results from students’ feedback forms of 14-week RT implementation showed three parts which were pre-performance, performance and post-performance, and the researcher tried to display the explanations about the descriptions which the students had written in the feedback forms right after each RT performance. The researcher would also collect the empirical studies to correspond with the explanations.
In the pre-performance part, three questions were designed in the form. First of all, students described their difficulties and problems they had encountered and who had ever offered any assistance during the RT rehearsal. 60% students ever had vocabulary problems. As shown in Figure 4.2, about half students would seek for help from group
members while others would solve problems by asking the instructor or by themselves.
The reason why those students chose group members was the cooperative learning had created a supportive environment in students’ learning. Students were encouraged to discuss ideas and solve problems; therefore, students in the cooperative learning environment tended to show better achievement and positive attitude (Huang & Wu, 2006). However, the remained students who solved problems by asking the instructor or by themselves probably they were not good at social interaction or their ability was beyond other students. The instructor should frequently observe students’ learning situation and encourage their participation in a group. Secondly, students evaluated their own performance during the RT rehearsal whether they felt any improvement or not. Students also believed their vocabulary development, reading skills, speaking and listening ability had improved during the group rehearsal. According to Hsu (2010), RT enhanced students’ reading fluency and the recognition of sight words by constantly watching and reading scripts. Lin (2013) also claimed the participants gained in terms of language skills such as vocabulary learning, correct pronunciation and oral reading ability. As to the speaking and listening ability improvement, the researcher assumed the explanation was the instructor lectured almost in whole-English, and students are also encourage to speak in English. Additionally, students could also improve their listening ability by watch different groups’ performance. Thirdly, students agreed RT group rehearsal was joyful, cooperative and advantageous as referred in their reflection of the group rehearsal. With fresh experience and high independence of RT implementation, students had positive opinions toward the group rehearsal.
In the performance part, 80% students assumed they were anxious and terrified in the first performance (Unit 2), and only 20% students believed they were confident on stage. Surprisingly more students had agreed they became confident in the next three performances. As shown in Figure 4.3, fewer students felt anxious and scared in the
performance. Along with increasing motivation, performance experience and better self-efficiency, student gradually gained much more confidence no matter in the RT rehearsal or the RT performance. However, the remains also shouldn’t be neglected because those 30% students maybe hadn’t overcome the language anxiety during the RT implementation.
In the post-performance part, the researcher put emphasis on students’ attitude toward the RT implementation, and attempted to provide likely explanations. 70%
students kept positive attitude toward because they felt happy and enjoyable in the process. Contrarily, 20% students weren’t excited about the next RT implementation because they thought the RT scripts were too difficult, and they didn’t like to be on the stage. Chang (2008) also discovered that not all the students agreed with the improvement during the reading practice. According to the interview, Chang (2008) revealed the reason that students’ insecurity of English ability caused students’ negative attitude toward RT implementation. The researcher also assumed that lower-achievers easily kept rejection toward learning because of the unhappy learning experience, and perhaps the 14-week RT implementation wasn’t long enough to change lower-achieving students’ attitude.