Enhancing ESL Learners’ Non-Verbal Communication Skills through Process Drama

Enhancing ESL Learners’ Non-Verbal Communication Skills through Process Drama

Norhanim Abdul Samat¹, Terry Locke², Viv Aitken³

¹Language Academy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

^2,3University of Waikato

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8120144

Received: 01 December 2024; Accepted: 06 December 2024; Published: 07 January 2025

ABSTRACT

This research aims at determining the effects of the process drama on non-verbal communication behaviour of ESL learners in secondary school (SS group) and at a university (TI group). Six participants, three from each group were examined as focus participants and their non-verbal behaviours, including movements and facial expressions were studied. According to the findings, students in the TI group had better levels of non-verbal communication than those in the SS group. Additionally, these participants thought they displayed a wider variety of non-verbal actions. The findings also revealed that participants from the university group had higher self-reported non-verbal communication ratings than those in the secondary school and that the former perceived themselves as using more non-verbal behaviours than the latter. The study also identified some similarities in the non-verbal behaviours of both groups, such as maintaining eye contact while speaking. However, some contradictions were found between self-reported data and their actual behaviour. The study suggests that engaging in process drama could enhance learners’ non-verbal communication skills. The study also concludes that process drama improves the non-verbal skills, which help in improving the self-esteem and confidence of the learners of both learners from the different educational levels.

Keywords: Process Drama, Non-Verbal Communication, ESL Learners, Secondary School and University Learners, Self-Esteem and Confidence

INTRODUCTION

The process of exchanging information using non-verbal communication is key to what we use to communicate messages and assign meaning without the need for words. These signals include posture, hand gestures, eye behaviour, facial expressions, and others. Instead of words, non-verbal cues like a smile or head nod are used. As highlighted by Paranduk and Karisi (2020), non-verbal gestures not only enhance language learning but also encourage more students to participate in the class. They further highlight that using positive non-verbal behaviours like smiling or nodding can help to reinforce speaking, and gestures are an effective way of supporting language development and encouraging learners to contribute more.

Process drama could provide students a deeper knowledge of how non-verbal gestures are used to communicate meaning in a variety of contexts, Students are assigned roles in process drama and they engage in improvised scenes to understand the degree of intelligibility of their non-verbal way of communication.  When learners are engaged in the activities, they understand more effectively how non-verbal cues help to convey the meaning. For instance, process drama can help students establish familiarization with cultural standards and non-verbal communication. Students from different cultural backgrounds might need to identify the variety of non-verbals that each culture uses and how to interpret them.

Another example is, a scenario could be composed of two students who are not able to communicate verbally because of language barriers, putting them in a situation which forces them to communicate through gestures, facial expressions, and posturing. This is the way that students will pick up deeper comprehension and understanding of non-verbal approaches through a process of self-identifying a range of non-verbal tools to communicate with others.

This study aims to explain how process drama has an impact on increasing the non-verbal communication skills of ESL (English as a Second Language) learners by identifying changes in their behaviours before and after a series of process drama workshops. The central research question guiding this study is: What are the noticeable changes in the participants’ non-verbal communication behaviours as a result of participating in process drama workshops? To fill this gap of research, it is the intention of this study to compare the effectiveness of process drama in enhancing the non-verbal communication skills of secondary and university students

LITERATURE REVIEW

One of the significant components of communication is non-verbal communication and for a second or foreign language is an essential asset whenever verbal communication fails (Surkamp, 2014). Intonation, tone of voice, body posture, movement, facial expressions, eye contact, and distance are also crucial factors that influence interactions. Although non-verbal behaviour is important, its role in communication is often overlooked, and the literature on teaching language learners about non-verbal behaviours does not place enough emphasis on it. According to Gregersen, Olivares-Cuhat, & Storm (2009), little seems to be said about the teaching of non-verbal behaviours to language learners. They further point out that humans rely on non-verbal cues to communicate more effectively and to understand messages from others. Likewise, Saleem, Rana, & Bashir (2022) emphasize the importance of non-verbal communication in ESL classrooms. In line with this, Berko, Rosenfeld, and Samavar (1997) contend that non-verbal behaviours are authentic expressions of an individual’s feelings because they are spontaneous. This emphasizes the need for a more thorough understanding of non-verbal communication behaviours among language learners.

Researching process drama and non-verbal communication shows that process drama could be one of the best approaches for increasing ESL students’ non-verbal communication. In a study, Hu and Wang, (2014) reported that process drama can enhance ESL students’ non-verbal communication and language comprehension.  Process drama has also been examined by others for non-verbal communication skills. To illustrate, Wu (2020) discovered that the utilization of process drama in a Chinese language class enhanced students’ non-verbal communication, including facial expressions, gestures, and eye contact. It is found in the study that the students who were involved in the drama intervention had a remarkable improvement in their non-verbal communication skills, among other ones such as facial expressions, gestures, and eye contact. The drama intervention was considered by the respondents as enjoyable and helpful as it improved their language and communication skills.

Further studies have revealed that process drama is one of the best means to develop handling non-verbal communication by ESL students. Yılmaz and Altun (2019) saw major improvement in the non-verbal communication competencies of the thirty participants who took part in their six-week drama program. The impact of the project was certain that the students outperformed their peers who did not take part in this program, in gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

In another study, Mehrpour and Khojasteh (2021) implemented a five-week process drama program. with twenty-two Turkish EFL students. The program was developed to improve the non-verbal communication skills of children, namely through eye contact, facial expressions, and body language. The evidence demonstrated above proves that process drama supports the development of non-verbal communication skills of ESL/EFL students. In process drama like this, students can learn to use and develop their non-verbal communication skills well in a setting that is safe and encouraging and as a result, they will be more confident to speak.

METHODOLOGY

This mixed-method study involved six focus participants (three randomly selected for each group TI and SS) who were selected for body and facial expressions during video recording of process drama interventions. Nan, Zu and Min were from the SS group of secondary school and Al, Yan, and May were from the TI group (university).

The participants answered 24 items related to Non-Verbal Immediacy Scale (NIS-S), with 12 positives and 12 negatives. The NIS-S is a tool for evaluating the types and frequency of non-verbal behaviours used in communication. It assesses various non-verbal indicators, including body language, touch, intonation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale, with “5” indicating “very often” and “1” indicating “never.” This test was carried out after the drama intervention to evaluate participants’ self-reported non-verbal behaviours.

Following the drama intervention, video data of six participants (three from each group) were used to analyse the participants’ body language. As Stringer (2004) notes, “video recording has the advantage of making the scene immediately available to viewers, providing a depth of understanding of the acts, activities, events, interactions, behaviours and the nature of the context” (p. 82).  Facial expressions, body language and proxemics were analysed in detail for each of the six participants throughout drama sessions.

The researchers observed for each student if there was any consistency in their non-verbal communicative behaviours in English during the entire intervention. The analysis of the videoed sessions focused on different aspects of non-verbal behaviours, with positive non-verbal cues rated based on facial expressions that depicted happiness, enjoyment, interest, and the participant’s level of involvement, as well as eye contact that expressed satisfaction, enjoyment and interest.

FINDINGS

Below is the presentation of the findings, derived from the self-reported Non-Verbal Immediacy Scale (NIS-S), analysis of non-verbal behaviours and analysis from interview data with the participants.

Self-reported non-verbal behaviours

Table 1 below highlights items drawn from the self-report Non-Verbal Immediacy Scale (NIS-S), which we have categorized into headings such as facial expressions, eye contact, touch, body position, gestures, and voice. The items were ranked from 1 to 5, with one representing ‘never’ and five representing ‘very often’. These mean scores are based on 29 participants from the TI group and 27 from the SS group taking part in the the drama intervention. The focus participants’ mean scores for the respective groups are highlighted in the boxes to show where they are with the mean values of their respective groups.

Table I Participants Self-Report the Nis-S (Mean Scores)

The information in Table 1 covers the behaviours of non-verbal secondary school students (referred to as the SS group) and university students (referred to as the TI group). In the self-reported scale, the TI group believed they produced a higher number of non-verbal behaviours compared to the SS group. The non-verbal behaviour of “smiling while speaking” was more common in both groups, with an average score of 4.21 in the TI group and 3.21 in the SS group. The groups frequently utilized eye contact as another non-verbal behaviour. The average score for looking directly at people while speaking was 3.11 for the SS group and 3.55 for the TI group.

Regarding their self-perception, TI participants also showed a higher level of eye contact during conversations, averaging 3.59 compared to the SS group’s 3.00. The TI group viewed themselves as being more animated and dynamic compared to the SS group. The results suggest that the average discrepancy in values for the expression “I use hand movements while talking to others” was 0.81. The TI group is ahead with a mean difference of 1.13 for the statement “I am energetic while speaking to people.” The TI group used hand and arm gestures more often during conversations with others compared to the SS group, with an average difference of 0.46.

The TI group chose the item “leaning towards people when I talk to them” with a mean score of 3.38 concerning body position during communication. This mean value was 0.27 points greater than that of the SS group. The TI group self-rated that they “move closer to individuals when we chat to them,” with a mean value of 3.45, whereas the SS group self-rated this with a mean value of 2.96. The TI group chose higher on the item “I sit or stand near others while conversing” by a margin of 0.14 standard deviations. The item “I have a relaxed body position when speaking with others” had a higher mean score in the TI group than in the SS group, 3.24 against 2.74. “I gesture with my hands and arms” (Item 1) was given a mean score of 2.94 in the TI group and 2.89 in the SS group.

The TI group believed they used more vocal variety than the SS group when speaking. The SS group gave a mean value of 2.22 to the statement, “I have a lot of vocal variation when I chat with people,” while the TI group assigned a mean score of 2.93. For the statement, “I employ a range of vocal expressions when I speak with others,” the mean score for the TI group was 0.62 points higher than the SS group.

To sum up, the TI group reported higher levels of non-verbal communication than the SS group. We discovered some commonalities in the non-verbal behaviours of both groups. Those who have greater self-assurance kept eye contact while speaking. Conversely, those lacking confidence tried to hide their fears by turning their gaze away from their teammates or the audience or occasionally staring at the ground. Several individuals exhibited low eye contact, indicating they hesitated to participate in the intervention. There was no difference between Malay and Chinese non-verbal behaviours. Students from both ethnic groups exhibited nearly identical non-verbal behaviours.

Observation data of the focus participants

Analysis of the ranking level of the Non-verbal Immediacy scale on the six participants under close study revealed the following. Our observation of the six focus group participants revealed that May smiled the most. Yet, she rated herself as occasionally smiling. The SS participant, Nan, placed herself higher than her peers. This correlates with the video data, which depicted her as a cheerful individual. Yan from the TI group TI ranked himself higher than other group members. This result contradicted qualitative evidence which indicated him displaying low eye contact.

In Min’s (SS group) assessment, another inconsistency was detected. She self-reported making “occasional” eye contact, while qualitative data of the video observation revealed she never made eye contact. Meanwhile, the TI and SS groups perceived they exhibited less “touching” behaviours. The mean value for the SS group was 2.52, whereas the mean value for the TI group was 2.34. Touching can be problematic, particularly in Malaysian mixed-gender educational environments. In an interview, Min stated that she “never” touched other people (her group members), which is supported by the fact that whenever she spoke, her hands were at her side.

It is also observed that Yan employed the most non-verbal behaviours, based on a comprehensive analysis of the six focus group participants. In the case of Yan, non-verbal behaviours were used to supplement his vocal communication. The video analysis of Yan revealed that Yan utilized non-verbal cues to express meanings while performing drama. The more comfortable he felt in the drama, the more non-verbal behaviours he used.

During the initial part of the session, Yan demonstrated more non-verbal communication behaviours than in the second half, while Min used the fewest non-verbal behaviours. The investigation revealed no statistically significant differences in Min’s non-verbal communication patterns. This may suggest that Min was more constrained in his non-verbal communication. This may be due to his lack of comprehension of the employed actions.

Nan’s non-verbal communication behaviours complemented her vocal signals rather well. She displayed a similar frequency of non-verbal behaviours in the first and second halves of the intervention, as did Yan. In contrast, Zu demonstrated fewer non-verbal behaviours in the second half, indicating that her fears had diminished.

Analysis of the data shows that May, Nan, and Yan revealed more paralinguistic features during the first part of the intervention, while Min and Zu displayed more features during the second half. This finding suggests that May, Nan, and Yan may have increased their speaking confidence and decreased their fear. They probably could have improved their language skills.

Throughout the first half of the intervention, Min employed more hand motions. Zu’s hand movements in the first half exhibited a similar pattern with increased frequency. The somewhat increased frequency of hand motions by Nan, May, Al, and Yan in the second half was notable. Hand gestures are frequently employed by second-language learners, particularly Malaysian second-language learners. The use of hand gestures may be a universal pattern of movement, regardless of the speaker’s native or second language. This type of movement would complement their speech, in my opinion.

During the second part of the intervention, there was a minor decline in the frequency of facial expressions for Al and Zu, but not for the other facial expressions. It is interesting to note that this non-verbal behaviour may reflect the participants’ passivity if they were exposed to a passive training education system. So, even if they speak a second language, they would struggle to use the appropriate facial expression to complement communication.

A movement examination of Nan, Min, and Zu revealed a higher movement frequency in the first half and a lower frequency in the second. The self-reported non-verbal behaviour demonstrates a similar pattern of occurrences occurring less frequently among the individuals. The researchers would associate this behaviour with Eastern culture, which could show a lack of respect if the speaker moves excessively.

Examination of self-reported non-verbal immediacy behaviour revealed that the non-verbal immediacy of most individuals in the TI group was average. Simultaneously, a small number had low self-reported non-verbal immediacy. Over half of the SS group assessed their non-verbal immediacy as poor, whereas fewer than half rated it as average. Overall, the TI group considered themselves to be using more non-verbal behaviours than the SS group.

As previously stated, Yan’s impression of his smiling behaviour was above the group’s mean, in contrast to observation, which assessed May as the person who smiled the most. Eye contact was yet another often-reported non-verbal behaviour among the groups. Yan (TI group) evaluated himself higher than other group members, which contradicts qualitative evidence indicating that he had minimal eye contact over numerous sessions. A similar inconsistency was discovered in Min’s self-rating for eye contact. The TI group viewed themselves as utilizing more gestures, being livelier, adopting more relaxed body dispositions, and employing a greater variety of communication than the SS group.

Counts of non-verbal behaviours

The ranking of the counts of non-verbal behaviours over time (seconds) is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Ranking of the Counts of Non-Verbal Behaviours Over Time

Yan demonstrated the highest frequency of non-verbal behaviours among the six participants, with a rate of 0.086 counts per second, as shown in Table 2. This analysis placed him first in terms of non-verbal activity. With a frequency of 0.079, Nan ranked second (out of six) based on an analysis of the counts of non-verbal behaviours through time. This finding demonstrates that Nan employed various non-verbal communication behaviours among the six participants to supplement her verbal communication.

Meanwhile, May’s non-verbal behaviour counts placed her in the middle, ranking third among the six participants, with a frequency of 0.065 counts per second. Her use of non-verbal communicative behaviours was considered modest in comparison to the others.

To add to the description, an analysis of non-verbal behaviours recorded shows Zu ranking fourth among the six participants, with a rate of 0.062 counts per second. This implies that her non-verbal actions were rather restricted.

On another note, examining the counts of non-verbal behaviours over time, Al ranks fifth (out of six) with 0.059 counts per second, indicating that he displayed fewer non-verbal behaviours than the four people before him.

Examination of the counts of non-verbal behaviours over time put Min in the lowest rank (out of six) with a frequency of 0.058 counts per second overall.  This result indicates that of the six, Min exhibited the fewest instances of non-verbal behaviours throughout the intervention.

Observation data

The observational data gathered during the sessions is presented in the next part, with an emphasis on the non-verbal behaviours of each of the focus groups and how they responded to the process drama approach.

Observation of Yan’s non-verbal behaviours

Our observational data indicates that throughout the three videos viewed, Yan appeared tense and severe. He was also quite attentive in the videos. These indicators suggest that he attempted to assimilate the information or new knowledge. In one of the interviews, Yan revealed that he was utterly unfamiliar with drama. This type of teaching and learning proved to be a novel experience for him regarding language acquisition. During group conversations and role-playing sessions, Yan made minimal eye contact with his teammates, indicating he was likely anxious. Yan confessed in an interview that he felt uneasy when gathered with female students. Hence, he avoided making eye contact with them when conversing.

Yan demonstrated a more significant number of non-verbal behaviours than the other five participants. His preference for touching his face or head frequently became a typical behaviour. As he spoke, we observed him putting his hand in his jeans pocket and touching the corner of his shirt. He enjoyed scratching his head, brushing his arms when speaking, and inserting his finger into his ear. In addition to touching, Yan would manipulate an object while speaking. Also, Yan made extensive use of gestures to emphasize his ideas. For example, when he spoke the word “government,” he raised his hands to indicate a person of a higher status.

Yan used effective signalling ways to communicate his many points. For example, when making a point, he used phrases such as “the first” and “the second.”

In addition, he used a range of pertinent gestures to back his assertions. They included placing his hand far over his body, referring to “the government,” pointing his hands to himself while referring to the term “us,” and pointing his index finger to emphasize an essential point. We observed him using fillers such as “ah” and “err” and rolling his eyes when he was at a loss for words. During a stimulated recollection interview, he stated, “When I see my peers, I am speechless. and then I used my own words to survive” (SRI, TI Y 24, original). Likewise, when he wanted to emphasize his strong points, he used higher intonation to grab the listeners’ attention.

Observation of Nan’s non-verbal behaviours

Our observations indicate that Nan’s command of the English language was not fluent. During class, we noticed that she was excited and content. She was consistently smiling throughout the sessions. Nan exhibited a relaxed posture throughout the sessions, with her body language appearing more open and less stiff. She often tilted her head as a sign of attentiveness while listening to instructions. Like her peers Yan and Al, Nan displayed self-touching behaviours. When speaking, she tended to cover her mouth, and while listening, she would frequently touch her scarf or brush her neck. Although Nan’s language ability was average, she was a very confident student. Like other participants, she used a variety of hand gestures to accompany her vocal speaking and spoke slowly for others to understand her.

Even though Nan did her best to convey her point, she displayed insecurity. She enjoyed touching her hijab while speaking. Touching the ‘hijab’ is a prevalent non-verbal behaviour exhibited by many second-language learners in Malaysia who wear the ‘hijab’ This caressing behaviour indicates a feeling of insecurity. Her facial expressions, though, were fairly controlled and composed. The videos we observed demonstrate her skill in expressing her emotions through facial expressions.

Also, her facial expressions complemented the words she stated. She would grin at the audience to reassure them that she controlled the matter. While Nan displayed indicators of language impairment, she tried to avoid using Malay. To emphasize her arguments, she was able to modify the tone of her voice, which constituted an aspect of her non-verbal behaviour.

Observation of May’s non-verbal behaviours

Out of the whole group members, May was specifically commended as she seemed fully engaged in the lessons and this is evident in her eyes that were sparkling with enthusiasm. Our findings also suggest that she was calm and at ease with the learning process. Each time May spoke, it was audible and distinct. Additionally, May spoke at a pace that others could follow. When discussions began, she was always among the first ones to act as a volunteer in role plays or demonstrations.

It is something common with girls who wear ‘hijab’ when they speak to touch their hijabs’. The touching action demonstrates apprehensive feelings when speaking out about an idea. In groups where all other girls wore a ‘hijab’, we did not see her touch hers while delivering presentations in discussions or participating in the talk during lectures. This illustrated her confidence after speaking English.

In one of the video clips included above there is a task where May is giving a presentation. To start the speech, she smiled at the audience. She had good voice quality which made it possible for everyone else in class to hear what she said. When May had difficulty selecting certain words or checking what she wanted to say, she would make eye contact with her team members, especially Ed, ensuring she was speaking correctly, as the group had discussed earlier.

During the interview, May admitted that she believed everything would go well when she talked. She also admitted to being fearful because she could not find the appropriate words to use. “I’m worried I might stutter or not be able to express myself” (SRI, TI MM 15, paraphrased).

Observation of Zu’s non-verbal behaviours

Our findings from observing during the intervention indicate that Zu only displayed a smile when she seemed to be having a good time. In the three videos, she appeared to be calm and at ease. Sometimes, her face would seem to lack expression. In group conversations, we observed that she tends to display a preference for shrugging her shoulders. This could suggest that she is speculating or showing uncertainty.

However, Zu exhibited favourable conduct in many of the sessions. She was at ease speaking Malay and made a great effort to pronounce English words. This led her to use a range of fillers to communicate her message.  Whenever Zu spoke, we noticed her difficulties uttering the words she wanted to say.  We also noted that sometimes Zu was reluctant to talk because she wanted her other classmates to try talking. In an interview, Zu said:

Everyone had problems using English. We had many ideas when speaking in Malay, but the difficulty was when we used English. Sometimes I keep quiet because I want my group to say something. They always want me to speak, but they keep quiet (SRI, SS ZZ 25, translated).

Similar to other participants, Zu utilized hand gestures to enhance her spoken communication and relied heavily on fillers when struggling to articulate her thoughts. Occasionally, Zu would shy away from making eye contact with either the teacher or the audience while engaging in role-playing. Even while giving presentations, she preferred to make eye contact with her partner or colleagues instead of the audience.

At times, the researchers observed her gazing at the ceiling when she struggled to find words to say. Occasionally, she liked to gaze at the wall or the other side of the room, thinking about how she was feeling anxious. Touching behaviour was also observed in some cases. Zu enjoyed scratching her neck or adjusting her ‘hijab’ while talking.

In one of the video sessions, Zu was seen discussing her group’s argument about a painting showing a scene from a war. In the video, even though Zu relied on her notes to speak, she excelled when she tried to deliver the presentation. Consequently, there were a lot of indications that she used fillers. She seemed unsure as well in the recordings. Zu frequently adjusted her ‘hijab’ to make sure she appeared well-groomed. This behaviour may be perceived as a lack of self-assurance, indicating that she was reassuring herself that everything would be okay. During an interview, Zu admitted that she touched her ‘hijab’ because she “felt less confident and didn’t know what to say” (SRI SS ZZ, 20 & 21).

Observation of Al’s non-verbal behaviours

The researchers observed that Al would only grin when he had something to say. At the beginning of the intervention, his facial expression was highly rigid, and he occasionally lacked any expression. He displayed signs of restlessness in the first two videos he appeared in. This was evident when he was required to improvise in front of other classmates. Al made little eye contact during class discussions and sessions. Most of the time, he attempted to avoid the teacher’s gaze. This behaviour indicated negative emotions, suggesting that Al may be anxious. Throughout group talks, Al’s facial expressions were notably absent during most activities. He only seemed to brighten up when he was not the centre of attention or when the class activities involved everyone at the same time, such as during pair work.

At the beginning of the intervention, Al often spoke in a low murmur, making it difficult to understand his intended message. However, as the sessions continued, there was a noticeable improvement in his communication. Although he was generally quiet and at times seemed disengaged, Al maintained an upright posture while seated on the floor, occasionally leaning in slightly, which might suggest a degree of involvement.

The researchers also observed that he liked to position himself behind his team. Whenever there were conversations, we observed that he was seated apart from his team. Whether improvising or delivering a speech to a group, he employed a range of touching techniques. Occasionally, he scratched his head or knee and placed his hands in his pocket. These movements revealed his anxiousness and nervousness during the activities. In one video, we observed him speaking to the class with a leg raised on the knee and both arms shaking. These non-verbal actions may have been a result of his nervousness.

During a stimulated recall interview, Al mentioned that he had to consider the fact that “I am unable to think in English ” (SRI, TI Al, 18). He expressed that it took a long time for them to find the correct words. Although uncertain about the accuracy of the terminology, Al still blurted it out. He used the word “herbal” to characterize “awful.” Additionally, Al’s non-verbal cues suggested that he was not pleased. I saw his knee bend, his thigh hit, and his body transformed as his arms moved rapidly. He often looked down, showing his discomfort. Al eventually quit speaking in the English language. He finished his talk by informing his colleagues in Malay that he was unable to proceed.

Observation of Min’s non-verbal behaviours

Observation of Min’s behaviours show very little facial movement and sometimes no facial movement at all. We noticed her lifting her eyebrows multiple times, indicating she could be confused. We consistently noticed her attempting to hide her face with a paper, book, or any object she was holding whenever the camera zoomed in on her. Perhaps, she was uneasy about being photographed. When Min was standing, she appeared to be stiff and erect. When sitting on the floor, she appeared bent over. Her actions were quite constrained; sometimes, she would freeze when asked to play certain characters. Her expressions revealed her lack of confidence. Occasionally she displayed nail-biting gestures that suggested anxiety, doubt, and a lack of security.

While Min was standing up, she seemed rigid and upright. When she was seated on the ground, she looked hunched over. Every so often, she exhibited nail-biting movements indicating feelings of unease, uncertainty, and insecurity. Out of the six participants, Min avoided making eye contact with both the teacher and her classmates. As she spoke, she attempted to stammer.

The researchers observed that she would scratch her head when she could not remember what to say or when prompted to talk louder. “Initially, I had already planned my words. When I raised my voice, the words disappeared. I had no thoughts in my mind. I felt very ashamed,” Min said in an interview. It appeared as if she had completely memorized the script for all of the videos based on her delivery. Her lack of eye contact appeared to show her nervousness – frequently, she would scratch her head while speaking, indicating a lack of confidence.

DISCUSSION

Overall, it can be implied that the study focused on analysing the non-verbal communication behaviours of the TI and SS groups. The analysis revealed that participants in the TI group displayed higher self-reported non-verbal communication ratings compared to the SS group. The analysis also identified some similarities in the non-verbal behaviours of both groups, such as maintaining eye contact while speaking for participants who felt confident. At the same time, those who lacked confidence tended to look away or down. These findings align to the study by Paranduk & Karisi (2020) which highlight those good non-verbal clues like gestures and eye contact might improve students’ engagement and learning experiences,

This study also examined the non-verbal actions of six main participants and identified that Yan used the highest number of non-verbal actions to support his spoken statements, whereas Min employed the lowest. May, Nan, and Yan had a higher occurrence of paralinguistic features in the first half of the intervention, whereas Min and Zu showed more features in the second half. Most participants did not show a significant change in facial expression analysis, except for Al and Zu, who exhibited a slight decrease in frequency during the latter part of the intervention. The movement analysis of Nan, Min, and Zu showed a higher frequency of movement in the first half and a lower frequency in the second half. The results of this analysis are consistent with previous research that emphasizes the differences in participants’ non-verbal communication. Learners may display varying frequencies of paralinguistic elements, which suggests that their communicative engagement has changed over time (Aydın et al., 2013).

The self-reported non-verbal immediacy behaviour indicated that most participants in the TI group rated themselves as average, with a few ratings themselves as low. At the same time, over half of the SS group assessed themselves as having low levels of non-verbal immediacy. In general, the TI group believed they used a greater number of non-verbal behaviours compared to the SS group. The research also found discrepancies between self-reported information and real actions, like Yan’s belief about his smiling habits not matching the fact that May smiled the most. Ultimately, the research indicated that non-verbal behaviours can be shaped by cultural norms and the educational system. This discrepancy relate to how individuals frequently misinterpret their non-verbal communication signals, which can result in misunderstandings about how efficient they are at communicating (Richmond et al., 2003).

Implication

The analysis results above have various implications for using process drama to enhance non-verbal communication. The fact that the TI group scored higher on self-reported non-verbal communication than the SS group suggests that process drama can help improve non-verbal communication abilities. While speaking, confident people frequently keep eye contact, while

insecure people avoid eye contact, glance away, or look down. Specific interventions focused on boosting participants’ self-esteem and confidence may benefit those lacking confidence.

Process drama interventions can be created to assist participants in strengthening their capacity to support their verbal communication with non-verbal cues. Participants’ non-verbal behaviour may be correlated with their anxiety levels and a general understanding of the process drama’s activities. Interventions can be designed to deal with these problems and assist participants in feeling more at ease and self-assured while using non-verbal communication.

A typical movement pattern among individuals learning a second language is hand gestures, which can be used to complement speaking. Process drama interventions can be created to assist participants in using hand gestures to enhance their verbal communication more successfully. The movement and facial emotions participants use during process drama interventions may be influenced by cultural conventions. Thus, interventions can be designed to assist participants in increasing their awareness of cultural differences and in developing the skills necessary to negotiate them successfully. As demonstrated by Yan and Min’s self-ratings for eye contact, self-reported data may not always precisely reflect actual behaviour. Gathering information from various sources is crucial when evaluating non-verbal communication abilities.

As we examined the data on non-verbal behaviours, we found similarities between the subjects. Many participants in the TI group were more confident than those in the SS group. Their gestures, body posture, and stance revealed this. Those in the SS group had restricted movement, indicating their insecurity, but those in the TI group exhibited less restriction. In Asian traditions, gazing down suggests respect between the speaker and the listener. Most participants in both groups avoided direct eye contact with the teacher or their partners by looking down or at their hands. Few individuals dare to establish eye contact with the teacher.

CONCLUSION

Process drama can, in general, be a valuable method for enhancing non-verbal communication abilities. Still, treatments should be customized to reflect individual differences and cultural norms, and success should be evaluated using various data sources. Participants who utilize more non-verbal behaviours tend to improve their verbal messages more successfully, and specific interventions focused on boosting participants’ self-esteem, and confidence may benefit those lacking confidence.

Process drama interventions can be created to assist participants in strengthening their capacity to support their verbal communication with non-verbal cues, such as hand gestures. Moreover, interventions can be designed to increase participants’ awareness of cultural differences and to develop the skills necessary to negotiate them successfully. The study suggests that process drama can be a useful tool in enhancing non-verbal communication abilities. Specific interventions focused on boosting participants’ self-esteem, and confidence may benefit those who lack confidence.

REFERENCE

1. Aydın, M. D., Miller, J. K., Xiaojun, Y., Mentes, T., Leblebici, D. N., Yıldız, M., & Erkul, E. (2013). Non-verbal immediacy and perception of learning: A cross-cultural survey in Turkey, USA, and China. Journal of Education, 44, 27-42.
2. Berko, R. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Samovar, L. A. (1997). Connecting: A Culture Sensitive Approach to Interpersonal Communication Competency. The United States of America: Harcourt Brace &Company
3. Farzaneh Jahangiri, Ali Mohammadi & Bahman Taraghi (2021). A case study of using process drama to develop non-verbal communication skills of medical students. Journal of Education and Learning.
4. Gregersen, Olivares-Cuhat & Storm (2009). An Examination of L1 and L2 Gesture Use: What Role Does Proficiency Play? Modern Language Journal 93(2), 195 – 208.
5. Gregersen, T. (2007). Breaking the code of silence: A study of teachers’ non-verbal decoding accuracy of foreign language anxiety. Language Teaching Research, 11, 209-221.
6. Mehrpour, S., & Khojasteh, L. (2021). Process drama as a tool for developing non-verbal communication skills of EFL learners. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 9(1), 29-43.
7. Paranduk, R., & Karisi, Y. (2020). The Effectiveness of Non-Verbal Communication in Teaching and Learning English: A Systematic Review. Journal of English Culture, Language, Literature and Education, 8(2), 140-154.
8. Sönmez, S. M. (2017). The effectiveness of process drama on non-verbal communication skills of Turkish EFL learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 12-25.
9. Stringer, E. (2004). Action Research in Education. Columbus, OH: Pearson.
10. Surkamp, C. (2014) Non-Verbal Communication: Why We Need It in Foreign Language Teaching and How We Can Foster It with Drama Activities, Scenario, Volume VIII (2).
11. Wu, Y. (2020). Using process drama to enhance non-verbal communication in Chinese language learning. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 9(2), 1-12.
12. Yılmaz, R., & Altun, S. (2019). Enhancing ESL learners’ non-verbal communication skills through process drama. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1), 96-104.
13. Paranduk, R., & Karisi, Y. (2020). The effectiveness of non-verbal communication in teaching and learning English: A systematic review. Journal of English Culture, Language, Literature and Education, 8(2), 140-154.
14. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. (2003). Non-verbal immediacy and perception of learning: A cross-cultural survey. Journal of Education, 44, 27-42.
15. Saleem, A., Rana, S., & Bashir, M. (2022). Role of non-verbal communication as a supplementary tool to verbal communication in ESL classrooms: A case study. Propel Journal of Academic Research, 2(2), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.55464/pjar.v2i2.39.