الفهرس 
Oral Expression skillsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 419 |  |  |
| | | from | 419 | | |
Abstract
Introduction:-
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of a strategy in the light of content based instruction and drama activities in developing the oral expression skills of preparatory language school students through the drama course. However in some places, English is still being taught in a dusty academic way which often provokes a shiver of awe and revulsion in our students, reflected by the high failure rate in the English subject. This is a clear indication of the dire need for a change in the policy, including fresh approach, teaching methodology and textbooks (Sturtridge,1989;for example , see the strategy Inventory for Language learning in Oxford,1990).
Shehzad 2006, mentioned that the difficulty level of the English textbooks used at the college and university level is higher than the English proficiency level of an average student. Even many above-average students find it difficult to cope with the archaic literary language used in these in these textbooks. The person who can help learners understand and interpret accurately and appropriately is the teacher. But unfortunately, not all teachers apply this procedure.
Research in L1 classrooms has revealed that teachers tend to do most of the talking (see Cadzen, 1998;Mehan,1979). In most educational settings, the teachers sets the same instructional pace and content for everyone, by lecturing, explaining a grammatical rule, leading drill work, or asking questions to the whole class. Research in L2 classrooms tends to support similar conclusions. In terms of quantity of teacher talk, two third of classroom speech can be attributed the teacher (long&Porter,1985;Nunan,1989). In terms of the quantity, there are also series limitations.L2 classrooms have been characterized by an abundance of questions asked by the teacher(White &Lihgtbrown1991); a predominance of display questions (Long & Stato, 1983);an extremely high proportion of teacher –initiated interactions(Bialystok,Frohlich,&Howard,1978);a high number of imperatives to classroom management and disciplinary matters and explanations (Ramierz & Merino,1990).Thus, the quality and amount of student participation in L2 classes are indeed limited. As Sinclair and Brazil (1982) point out, “the pupils have a very restricted range of verbal functions to perform. The rarely initiate, and never follow-up.Most of their verbal activity is response, and normally confined strictly to the terms of initiation”(p.58).
The present research has been designed with the major objective of minimizing the dependency of the teachers and students on language usage to language use, thus introducing an approach that will lead towards learner autonomy. It will help in encouraging the learners to take the responsibility of learning, improving and practicing functional skills of English language, rather than memorizing and rote-learning.
In recent years ,discussions about L2 teaching have changed from a focus on grammatical form to meaningful interaction. In the view of many researchers and practitioners ( see Allwright,1980;Ellis ,1984,1992;Pica,1987&Doughty,1985;Varions &Gass,1986),conversation and instructional exchanges between teachers and students when authentic and relevant –can provide the best opportunities for learners to practice L2 skills, to test out their hypothesis about how the language works, and to get useful feedback. This type of meaningful conversation is what Allwrigt (1980) has called “real attempts at communication”( p.185).He suggests that the benefit of this form of engagement for language learning is not only for the participating speaker but also those listening. By listening to other students , Learners can observe ,and later practice ,different communicative strategies used by other to keep the flow of the conversation
Hypotheses of the study:-
There will be statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group who received the content-based instruction as well as the drama activities and the control group who did not received the strategy on the posttest in favor of the experimental group in each of the following verbal Communication skills : cohesion , content , Pronunciation , accuracy and fluency.
There will be statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group who received the content-based instruction as well as the drama activities and the control group who did not received the strategy on the posttest in favor of the experimental group in each of the following non verbal Communication skills: - eye contact , gestures ,body language and facial Expressions .
There will be statically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students who receive the drama activities and content based instruction and the control group students who do not receive these drama activities and content based instruction on the overall pre- post test oral expression skills test in favor of the experimental group.
There will be statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group on the pre-posttest on the oral expression skills in favour of the post test.
There will be statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group on the drama achievement final test in favour of the experimental group.
Variables of the study:-
Independent Variable:-
Content based instruction and drama activities the experimental group versus regular instruction with the control group in teaching the drama course.
Dependent Variables:-
English students’ performance in the oral expression skills posttest in each of the sub – skills: cohesion, pronunciation, fluency, comprehension, accuracy, eye contact, body language, facial expressions and gestures.
English language majors’ performance in the skills posttest in each of the sub-skills : oral expression.
The achievement of the experimental group students in the drama course.
Delimitations of the study:-
The preset study is delimited to:-
Third preparatory students in English language schools.
Using the drama course as the subject – matter content area through which the oral expression skills.
The content – based instruction model called theme – based instruction is the core of the present study, which deals with one general subject. Therefore, the drama course harmonizes well with this type of instruction.
Oral expression skills needed for preparatory students in a language school as agreed upon by a number of jury, are: cohesion, pronunciation, fluency, comprehension, accuracy, eye contact, body language, facial expressions and gestures.
Design of the study:-
The design of this study is the pre-posttest experimental design. Two groups, from third year preparatory students on English language school were randomly selected and then randomly assigned to two groups experimental and control. To control for initial differences between the two groups before the treatment, a pre – test in oral expression skills was administered.
A posttest was administered at the end of the experiment and the differences were calculated by means of tests.
Subjects:-
The subjects of the study included 40 students randomly selected from third year preparatory in an English language school. The 40 students were randomly assigned into two groups, experimental (20) and control (20). All subjects were students of English language school again between 14 to 15. The experimental group studied the drama course through content – based instruction and drama activities strategy, while the control group received regular instruction for the same drama course.
Instrumentation:-
To collect data the following instruments were used:-
1-A pre-posttest in oral expression skills prepared by the researcher.
2-The course evaluation satisfactory Questionnaire.
3-Drama course achievement test.
Procedures:-
1-Reviewing the literature related to content - based instruction, oral expression skills.
2- Constructing pre-posttests for both the control and experimental group to measure the students’ oral expression skills.
3- Establishing the validity of the pre-posttests.
4- Establishing the inter-rater reliability.
5-Developing content – based and drama activities strategy based on the drama course to develop students’ oral expression skills.
6- Administering the strategy to the experimental group, while the control group studies the same drama course through the regular instruction.
7- Applying the posttests for both groups after the application of the strategy.
8-A course evaluation questionnaire was provided to both groups to give an indication of their attitudes toward the course they studied.
9- Analyzing the data.
10-Suggesting further topics for further research