1044725

research-article2021
LTR0010.1177/13621688211044725Language Teaching ResearchZondag

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Student teachers’ experience

2024, Vol. 28(6) 2190­–2213
© The Author(s) 2021

with improvisation activities Article reuse guidelines:

for spontaneous speech sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13621688211044725
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044725

practice in English journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

Anke Zondag
Nord University, Norway

Abstract
Because most real-life foreign language speech is naturally unpredictable, spontaneous speech
should be practiced in the foreign language classroom. Student teachers of English as a foreign
language (EFL) may benefit from practising methodology for spontaneous speech practice.
This article reports the findings for a study into EFL student teachers’ experiences with using
improvisation activities, exploring the relevance of improvisation activities for spontaneous speech
practice. The data include semi-guided texts and reluctant speakers’ interviews. The findings
showed that improvisation activities facilitated spontaneous speech practice and strengthened
speaking confidence through enjoyment. The ‘spontaneous speech mindset’ enabled participants
to explore linguistic and creative boundaries. The study showed that application of improvisation
activities is an excellent method for spontaneous speech practice in EFL teacher education.

Keywords
drama, EFL, English as a foreign language, English language teaching, improvisation, oral language
pedagogy, reluctant speaker, speaking confidence, spontaneous speech mindset, spontaneous
speech practice, teacher education

I Introduction
Drama as an overarching discipline has been established as beneficial for foreign lan-
guage learning (FLL). Within education, improvisational practices have been mainly
applied and studied in drama lessons (Holdhus et al., 2016); more empirical research into
how drama and theatre techniques may stimulate the development of oral communica-
tion is necessary (Galante & Thomson, 2017). Although FLL textbooks describe drama-
based activities like (semi-)scripted role play and simulations as popular communicative

Corresponding author:
Anke Zondag, Nord University, Faculty of Education and Arts, Levanger, 7600, Norway.
Email: [email protected]
Zondag 2191

activities, not many textbooks have integrated activities for non-scripted drama activities
yet (Becker & Roos, 2016).
This discrepancy can be addressed in foreign language (FL) teacher education (TEd)
by integrating improvisation methodology in spontaneous speech practice which may
benefit student teachers and their future learners. In the present study spontaneous speech
is defined as unplanned, immediate oral communication; improvisation activities refer to
drama-based approaches where participants do not follow scripts or predetermined sce-
narios, but experiment with language by making up words and/or actions (Galante &
Thomson, 2017; Stinson, 2008).
This article shares findings for a study into spontaneous speech practice in English as
a foreign language (EFL)1 TEd. Student teachers’ experiences with doing improvisation
activities for spontaneous speech practice in English were examined, with special regard
for reluctant speakers. Through analysing retrospective texts (n = 41) and interviews
(n = 6) new insights were gained and concepts such as ‘spontaneous speech mindset’,
‘vicious circle of stress’ and ‘victorious circle of enjoyment’ were coined. It is argued
that the application of improvisation activities is a relevant method for spontaneous
speech practice in EFL Ted.

II Conceptual framework
1 Theatre improvisation
Since the 1950s, theatre improvisation has grown extensively as a training and perfor-
mance method, whereby improvisers collaborate to create most of the dialogue, story,
and characters during performances (Holdhus et al., 2016; Sawyer, 2015). The present
study focused on improvisation methodology by Spolin and Johnstone, who indepen-
dently developed improvisation theories and remain central in theatre improvisation
(Seppänen et al., 2019). Spolin developed improvisation games for children based on
problem solving, whereas Johnstone focused on storytelling and relationships (Johnstone,
1981, 1999; Spolin, 1983, 1986). Although these approaches vary, they contain similar
concepts for facilitation of improvisation training and performance. The central improvi-
sation principles (CIPs) formulated for the present study are:

1. Acceptance and elaboration (‘Yes, and’ rule): accepting whatever happens,

including mistakes. Verbal and non-verbal cues are called offers (Johnstone,
1981). Offers must be accepted without judgment and elaborated upon to estab-
lish communicative interaction and move stories forward (Johnstone, 1981;
Spolin, 1983). This principle is central to storytelling aspects of improvisation.
2. Risk-taking and spontaneity: reacting to any situation without planning or cen-
soring one’s ideas to allow spontaneity to arise (Johnstone, 1981). Spontaneity is
the moment of personal freedom when improvisers are faced with a fictional
reality, explore it and react without self-judgment (Spolin, 1983). This principle
is central to dramatic aspects of improvisation.
3. Relations and status: verbal and non-verbal communication expressing the rela-
tion or social position of an improviser towards other improvisers in scenes
2192 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

(Johnstone, 1981). All sounds and movements (such as posture) signal the type of
relationship to others. This principle is central to collaborative aspects of
improvisation.
4. Attentive listening: listening actively by being present in scenes, supporting other
improvisers and attending to everything in the moment (Johnstone, 1981; Spolin,
1983; Vera & Crossan, 2005). This mode is a separate CIP and supports other
CIPs.

2 Application of improvisation in educational contexts

a The role of drama and improvisation in FL education. Since the prevalence of commu-
nicative language teaching (CLT), drama-based methodology has been an inherent part
of FL teaching (Giebert, 2014). Savignon (2018) emphasizes learners’ needs to experi-
ence communication through participation in the interpretation, expression, and negotia-
tion of meaning. Role-play provides such a context for FL practice, for taking risks with
new vocabulary and constructions in an enjoyable and non-threatening situation (Clip-
son-Boyles, 2012). Nevertheless, some caution that scripted role- play should be applied
sparingly because its controlled language practice can reduce linguistic creativity and
actual interaction (Heathfield, 2007). A comparative study of adolescent EFL learners
(Galante & Thomson, 2017) indicated that techniques adapted from drama and theatre
can result in significantly greater improvements in English oral fluency compared to
more traditional communicative teaching.
The benefits of applying drama in language teaching have been studied thoroughly
(Lee et al., 2015). An overview of such benefits is, for instance, given by Boudreault
(2010) who presents drama as a powerful teaching tool for developing self-awareness
and an improved sense of confidence in students’ FLL abilities. Whereas controlled lan-
guage exercises may dominate classrooms, Almond (2004) emphasizes that drama gives
learners a genuine need for communication as well as the intricacy of unpredictable
language. Modern FL teachers agree that ‘drama fosters engagement, and engagement
fosters language acquisition’ (Koushki, 2019). In summary, drama supports the focus of
modern FL methodology on meaning.

b The role of drama and improvisation in tertiary education. Several empirical studies
have demonstrated positive effects of drama-based FL pedagogy in tertiary education
(cf. for example Abenoja & DeCoursey, 2019; Celik, 2019; Miccoli, 2003; Piazzoli,
2011; Stern, 1980). Stern hypothesized that drama positively influences FLL because it
stimulates the use of certain psychological factors that facilitate oral communication:
‘heightened self-esteem, motivation, and spontaneity; increased capacity for empathy;
and lowered sensitivity to rejection’ (1980, p. 95). Drama activities helped participants
to gain self-confidence in speaking English and develop their spontaneity (Stern, 1980).
Role-playing encourages participants to become more flexible by developing a sense of
mastery in various language situations (Stern, 1980). Piazzoli (2011) applied process
drama pedagogy in second language (L2) university classrooms and found that partici-
pants developed a degree of trust which replaced an earlier judgmental group dynamic.
A more collaborative, supportive learning environment arose, where participants took
Zondag 2193

risks and discarded earlier self-conscious attitudes towards the FL. In turn, this develop-
ment enabled some highly anxious participants to reduce their language anxiety and gain
more self-confidence which increased their spontaneous FL communication. The impro-
visational character of drama was limited because language structures and idioms were
introduced and revised.
In a recent study (Baykal et al., 2019), ELT pre-service teachers felt enjoyed (highest
occurrence), confident, motivated, creative and interested during drama activities. The
participants were, however, taking an elective course for Drama in ELT, which weakens
the findings. Interestingly, these participants expressed some concern for classroom
management and suitability for all types of learners. The authors conclude that the drama
course should be offered to all student teachers of English.
Evidently, unpredictability and creativity are important features of authentic FL dia-
logue (Sawyer, 2003; Winston & Stinson, 2011) as well as improvisation with its evanes-
cent nature (Davies, 1990; Winston & Stinson, 2011). According to Bygate (2001),
speaking FLs spontaneously requires the development of a specific type of communica-
tion skill, which must be practised using suitable methods. The ephemeral nature of
improvisation simulates real-life events (Winston & Stinson, 2011) and challenges the
basic skills of listening and communication (Crossan, 1998). Improvisation involves
spontaneous interactions in semi-authentic learning environments. This creates windows
of opportunity for flexible and creative learner-centred EFL practice (Kurtz, 2015).
Piccoli (2018) discusses improvisational theatrical techniques as creative, flexible teach-
ing resources which can be applied to expand students’ language competencies, particu-
larly oral proficiency skills.
In a general tertiary context, Berk and Trieber (2009) state that improvisation can be
a powerful teaching method in university, and support their view with four main didactic
arguments (DAs):

1. Improvisation corresponds to modern students’ expectations towards active, col-

laborative, social, and learner-centred classroom experiences.
2. Improvisation uses students’ multiple and emotional intelligences for problem-
solving and active discovery, especially verbal/linguistic, visual/spatial, bodily/
kinaesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.
3. Improvisation encourages collaborative learning by helping to build trust, respect,
listening, verbal and nonverbal communication, role-playing, and risk-taking
through spontaneous storytelling.
4. Improvisation stimulates deep learning through student active engagement, as
learner activity and interaction are inherent to improvisation activities.

These DAs can be related to other studies. Gallagher (2010) emphasizes that in learning
contexts, improvisation returns the body to its rightful state (body and mind) through its
holistic approach (DAs 2 and 4). Crossan (1998) discusses psychological risks (DA3)
caused by the nature of improvisation containing spontaneity and dependence on others.
Crossan explains that the spontaneous nature of improvisation relies on fundamental
communication skills, thereby expecting students to dedicate their complete attention to
the moment (DA4). Collaborative language production (DA3) is considered a central
2194 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

characteristic of spontaneous speech (Christie, 2016). With its focus on collaborative

learning, the present study could be placed within sociocultural theory, given its central
idea that people are essentially communicatively-formed beings (Lantolf, 2007). Canale
and Swain (1980) also regard communication as grounded in sociocultural interpersonal
interaction involving creativity and unpredictability.

c Anxiety and speaking reluctance in FLL TEd: the role of improvisation. Anxiety has been
widely studied in FLL research because of its debilitating effect on FLL performance
(Dewaele, 2013; Horwitz, 2001, 2010). Such communicative anxiety refers to FLL stu-
dents who ‘freeze and block when having to start a conversation, are very sensitive to
error correction, avoid participating and generally adopt passive language learning atti-
tudes’ (Rubio-Alcalá, 2017, p. 207). Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) state that for-
eign language classroom anxiety (FLCA) is a situation-specific anxiety, whereas Dewaele
(2013) found a significant link between anxiety as a personality trait and FLCA. Horwitz
et al. (1986) suggest teachers can either help anxious students to cope with stressful situ-
ations or make learning contexts less stressful, while Dewaele and his colleagues
(Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2016; Dewaele et al., 2017) advocate teachers to focus on FLL
enjoyment. When inhibited students do not engage actively in EFL speaking activities,
their speaking reluctance becomes self-enforcing because they should be more orally
productive to develop their speaking skills (Savaşçı, 2014). Matsuda and Gobel (2004)
emphasize the importance of furthering students’ self-confidence in EFL classrooms.
They conclude self-confidence could be developed by encouraging student involvement
in classroom activities, and by creating a comfortable atmosphere through games and
role-plays (for example). Research on affective variables has been preoccupied with FL
learners’ negative emotions excessively long (Dewaele et al., 2017).
In an intervention study, Seppänen et al. (2019) found that improvisation methods
increased interpersonal confidence of initially inhibited student teachers. Including
improvisation methodology in TEd curricula can improve student teachers’ social inter-
action abilities and their teaching responses (Seppänen et al., 2019). Comedy improvisa-
tion has been successfully applied by mental health professionals to treat psychological
conditions such as social anxiety disorder (Phillips Sheesley et al., 2016). Participants
in an improvisational theatre intervention demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of
verbal productive creativity, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Schwenke et al., 2020).
According to these studies, improvisation activities may help reluctant speakers (defined
as learners who regularly and consciously avoid speaking English spontaneously) prac-
tise spontaneous speech. To experience language learning progress and to become really
communicatively competent, learners must manage using FL spontaneously and crea-
tively (Becker & Roos, 2016). Nevertheless, there has been little academic research into
improvisation as a didactic approach for EFL student teachers. Therefore, the present
study addresses the following research questions:

1. How have student teachers experienced participating in improvisation activities

for spontaneous speech practice in English?
2. How have reluctant speakers experienced participating in these improvisation
activities?
Zondag 2195

III Methods and data

1 Methodology
The research site was a TEd faculty at a Norwegian university and the study was con-
ducted during regular teaching EFL (TEFL) courses. Through writing retrospective texts,
participants reflected on their experience with the spontaneous speech practice as a
whole. This process highlights the value of accessing and developing professional and
practical knowledge through reflection. The discussion draws on findings from retro-
spective texts from a larger group (n = 41) and interviews with (very) reluctant speakers
(n = 6). The qualitative study applies Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as
the central perspective for examining the data (Smith et al., 2009) which facilitated a
sensitivity to student teachers’ experiences.
The study satisfies most of the characteristics Creswell (2013) identifies for qualita-
tive research: it takes place in a natural setting (i.e. classroom in a regular course), the
researcher is the key instrument gathering data using multiple methods, focusing on
participants’ meanings through an emergent design. The last element refers to the
implementation of interviews after analysis of retrospective texts.

2 Participants
Over two years, 41 student teachers of English for grades 5–10 participated in the
research. Of these, 28 were pre-service primary education student teachers and 13 were
primary and lower secondary education teachers with an average of 11 years’ teaching
experience. The participants were anonymized and are all referred to as student teachers.
Each course was randomly given a number (e.g. 100, 500) and the participants were
randomly assigned a number within that course (e.g. P101, P513). These participant
numbers have been included when referring to participants’ reflections. Because female
students represent the majority in TEFL courses, participants are referred to by female
pronouns (she/her) as the unbiased pronoun. In the second year, six participants were
interviewed.

3 Teaching procedures
The teacher educator adapted and taught improvisation activities in TEFL courses. The
hour-long sessions contained increasingly more challenging activities in language and
creativity. Although nearly every improvisation activity can teach listening and speaking
(McKnight & Scruggs, 2008), the following activities were selected:

a Session 1: Storytelling (CIP1, CIP2, CIP4). During the warming up Zip, Zap, Zop, partici-
pants stood in a circle and physically sent a pulse clockwise or anti-clockwise saying
zip-zap-zop. In this activity, they made mistakes when they lost focus, a practice for
accepting failure. Subsequently, participants performed collaborative storytelling activi-
ties of One Word Story and Three Sentence Story. Finally, a collaborative story (Dice
Based Story) was told using Rory’s story cubes.
2196 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

b Session 2: Conversations (CIP1, CIP2, CIP3, CIP4). The activities challenged participants
to play roles, and status was implicitly practised through characters’ relations. In Man on
the Street, participants initially shaped ‘reporter’ and ‘stranger’ roles themselves. After-
wards, reporters defined strangers through a greeting such as ‘Hello, little girl . . .’ or
‘Good afternoon, Prime Minister’. Strangers accepted reporters’ offers and reacted in
character. Other activities included Customer Service (with a mystery object) and Noah’s
Ark (formal speech).

c Session 3: Status expressions (CIP1, CIP2, CIP3, CIP4). To create an understanding of the
physical concept of status, participants warmed up with a Status Walk, in which they
embodied imaginary high and low statuses. Here, social relations and characters’ status
were used as an accessible introduction to the theatrical concept of status. The first activ-
ity was Downton Abbey, inspired by Johnstone’s master–servant game (Johnstone, 1981)
and the television series for setting. In Meeting, participants were given a secret social
order, then performed a planning meeting with subtle hints about their status. The final
activity (Park Bench) was a meeting between strangers.

4 Data collection
Immediately after each improvisation session, participants wrote a learning diary in
English. One week after the final session, participants wrote a retrospective text based on
these diaries under semi-structured guidance (see Appendix 1). Texts were collected
through learning management systems (LMS).
Some relevant perspectives from reluctant speakers did not meet the 33% threshold
for recurrent themes. To gain a deeper understanding of reluctant speakers’ experiences,
interviews were added in the second year of the study. Participants were also provided
with tablets to film improvisation activities in university classrooms. Retrospective texts
were then examined closely regarding reluctant speakers. Two participants emerged as
very reluctant speakers and four as reluctant speakers. Semi-structured individual inter-
views (length 44-59 minutes) encouraged participants to share experiences in more detail
in an interactive, dialogic reflection (see Appendix 2). To prompt their memory, footage
of their improvisation activities was shown during interviews. Participants initiated com-
ments and the interviewer stopped the footage at natural intervals, e.g. when an activity
was finished. This approach is based on stimulated recall, an effective tool to create an
understanding for students’ cognitive and affective processes (Piazzoli, 2011). Each
interview was audio-taped and written down in a verbal protocol.

5 Analysis of retrospective texts

The 41 retrospective texts were analysed manually using NVivo by creating nodes. A
thematic IPA analysis of participants’ experiences was conducted (Smith et al., 2009). To
enhance validity and compensate for possible instruction influence on the texts, the
recurrence threshold for theme recurrence was reduced from Smith et al.’s recommenda-
tion of 50% to 33%, i.e. a theme recurring in 14 of 41 texts.
Zondag 2197

6 Analysis of interviews
Each interview was analysed holistically. Following an iterative inductive cycle, notes
were developed into descriptive comments, then into interpretative notes and emergent
themes (Smith et al., 2009). Finally, individual themes were compared, and super-ordi-
nate themes were established.

7 Ethical considerations and limitations

The study aims to contribute to the understanding of this teacher educator’s practice
(Ellis, 2012). The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines from Norwegian
Data Protection Services (NSD). The teacher educator had not met participants before.
They were informed about the purpose of the study and provided their written consent
which was registered after improvisation sessions ended to minimize influencing the
teacher educator’s practice.
The brevity of the study could be regarded as a limitation but was intended to reduce
other influences on findings. Nevertheless, one cannot completely exclude any possibility
that confounding variables influenced participant experiences. Another possible limita-
tion is that the data collection requires self-reporting. This study is based on the premise
that participant reflections are a valuable knowledge base for TEd research.
Qualitative analysis investigated which themes were discussed by participants relat-
ing to their shared experience (Smith et al., 2009). This study holds with Cochran-Smith
and Lytle (2009) who regard practitioners as knowledge facilitators for deeper insights
into practice. A sensitivity to subjective experiences of participants was enabled by being
both teacher educator and researcher. Reluctant speakers were interviewed in Norwegian,
thus lowering the teacher educator’s authority because she was the FL speaker during
interviews. The findings are representative of this teacher educator’s practice, yet gener-
alization is limited to similar practices.

IV Findings
1 Participant perspectives in retrospective texts
Findings for experiences for all participants (n = 41) are presented through the most
recurrent themes per number of retrospective texts, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Most recurrent themes in retrospective texts.

Theme Number of texts (n = 41)

Good spontaneous speech practice 36
Increase in speaking confidence 32
Enjoyment 29
Safety 27
Creativity 25
Initial discomfort 21
Vocabulary 17
2198 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

a Good spontaneous speech practice. Overall (in 88% of the texts) participants agreed
that improvisation activities facilitate spontaneous speech practice. In most texts (61%),
this approach was described as good to very good spontaneous speech practice for the
following reasons:

•• The activities had easy rules with varied degrees of direction.

•• The activities had a good listening and speaking ratio.
•• We talked about many different things in different situations.
•• We increased efforts to vary words and sentences.
•• The activities encouraged us to talk.
•• The activities enabled everybody to participate, regardless of proficiency.

b Increase in speaking confidence. Most participants (78%) reported their speaking con-
fidence clearly increased due to improvisation activities, for example, because ‘it’s been
a long time since I spoke that much English, so to have these informal games boost my
self-confidence and my fluency as well’ (P202). Participants described essential factors
as enjoyment, familiarization with each other in various situations, and production of
extensive spontaneous speech. They emphasized how increased speaking confidence
produced a positive effect on their fluency:

The activities have made me less afraid of making mistakes when I speak English, because
most the activities have been very casual and funny, which has made me relaxed, and I have
therefore gradually gained more confidence in speaking English. (P101)

I would absolutely say that these activities have influenced both my fluency and self-confidence
in spontaneous speech in a good way. I felt much more confident during the last activity
compared to the first activity. (P310)

I also think that you can forget a bit that you are in class, and just be focused on that you are
doing a game or a fun activity with your friends. And by this you may feel freer to talk, you
relax more and also I think you will become a better speaker in general by this. (P411)

Particularly in-service student teachers felt increasingly relaxed throughout sessions:

When I learnt English at school, grammar was very important. You had to read, write and talk
grammatical correct. It was also nothing, or a very small part we had to put away the book and talk
spontaneous. I think it is from that time I am very afraid of saying something wrong and I have to
think for a long time how to say it in the right way. To be a little bit shy is either not an advantage to
do spontaneous speech in the class. Throughout this exercises I have learnt that it isn’t dangerous to
do mistakes. Everybody does mistakes sometimes, and in oral communication you can find some
other words to use or you can use the body language together with the words to be understood. (P208)

Although some participants stated they did not become more competent in oral profi-
ciency, most participants reported that improvisation activities encouraged them to
engage in talking.
Zondag 2199

c Enjoyment. Enjoyment was a common theme (71%) and the word fun was used 94
times. Some mention they were initially quite uncomfortable but became more confident
because they enjoyed themselves. Misunderstandings caused participants to laugh col-
lectively, making them more relaxed again. Another finding was the joy experienced
through playful engagement of making stories together and playing a character, with
enjoyment as reward:

Usually I can get nervous if I am to speak on behalf of myself about something about myself,
but when we were forced to ‘play’ characters we were both forced to speak about another topic,
and once the laughter were out, we pretty much just wanted to keep talking because we wanted
to have another laugh, and it didn’t feel uncomfortable or scary at all once we had started
talking and once we had started to have fun with the activity. (P401)

d Safety. Two-thirds of participants reported safety as an important element of their posi-

tive experience. This atmosphere of safety was due to several features, such as working in
small groups. Participant 415 explained that her favourite exercise was Dice Based Story
because ‘we were in smaller groups which made me more comfortable to talk in front of
students.’
Another benefit of this form of collaborative EFL learning was that all participants
were engaged simultaneously either as speakers or listeners. Hence, when participants
made a mistake, it is ‘only your partner that hears the mistake, not the whole class’
(P208). The teacher educator’s dual competence played a major role in creating the safe
learning environment.

All these improvisations games worked fantastic for me. I felt that I became better in
English after each gathering. Yes, all these exercises was useful for me, but attitude of my
teacher was crucial. She made me feel safe and comfortable. These improvisations games
will be not so effective if we not manage to make our pupils relaxed and feel comfortable.
(P211)

A large proportion of the texts (41%) also mentioned mutual language support as a ben-
efit of collaborative activities because they could give or receive help with FLL. Lastly,
participants described they had reduced their fear of making mistakes, for example, P116
expressing ‘I do not feel like the other students are laughing at me when I’m talking, and
I actually feel a bit mastery in that I participated’.

e Creativity. Participants mentioned creativity in connection with collaborative story-

telling and dramatic creativity. They described how being creative makes room for imag-
ination and fantasy. Participant 310 felt that she had increased her imagination to come
up with a story. Creativity can lead to (re)discovering vocabulary:

I feel like the exercises helped to develop my creative skills as well as my speaking skills. I had
to come up with sentences that would contribute in the context to help the story and/or the game
to move forwards. (P206)
2200 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

Besides narrative creativity, many participants (37%) experienced taking on roles as both
enjoyable and interesting. Embodying a higher or lower status enabled them to realize
how feelings influenced characters’ language:

I like this game (meeting) allot because I could talk freely about the subject that was chosen,
but had a determent role. This game help me use my imagination to be someone else, that didn’t
really talk about thing I usually do. This made it so that I use or say different things that had to
do with the subject, but that the character says rather than me. It challenged my vocabulary
allot, and made me be more comfortable talking about other things that I usually talk about.
(P114)

Being in character engaged them and facilitated conversations:

The Park bench was quite interesting because we got completely lost in character. I figured
out his interest at once, but we kept talking in character. The conversation continued, and we
sat there talking about his suspicion that his wife was cheating on him and so on. It was a
natural flow to the conversation and we talked easily. It was an interesting turn and when we
ended the conversation, we both sat there not completely understanding what happened.
(P310)

Playing characters positively influenced their spontaneous speech, as mentioned

regularly:

Improvising and ‘playing characters’ makes speaking a little less dangerous, because all of the
students has to do it, and all of the students has to participate in an unfamiliar role. This could
for some people sound even scarier, but it seemed to be working well for making the environment
in the classroom less ‘dangerous’. (P401)

f Initial discomfort. Despite overall enjoyable experiences, many participants (51%)

began with some discomfort with in-service participants being overrepresented. Partici-
pants reported various explanations for the discomfort, from excitement of starting a new
course to feeling uncomfortable about improvisation activities:

I can admit to myself that when the class got informed of the things we were going to go
through in TEFL, that I got a little scared. There was allot of talking about improvisation
exercises, and acting. Something that quickly could be childish and become boring. Beside
from that to also know that all these people in the classroom were strangers did not help that
much either. So, before the day came I already didn’t like the idea of these improvisation
exercises. (P114)

Most participants reported that initial nervousness disappeared once activities started,
and improvisation activities helped them feel more relaxed as the same participant
reports:

It didn’t turn out to be that scary after all and it became fun to participate in these exercises. And
because it felt like a safe place to practice, I started to try using different words and different
ways of expressing myself. (P114)
Zondag 2201

Participants also emphasized that the timing (start of the semester) was beneficial to their
speech practice:

That week I was a little nervous, but at the same time it was very funny and I learned that I don’t
have to be afraid to make a fool of myself. I eventually loosened up and I enjoyed myself. We
had around an hour of the day with the activities and it made quite a difference for me. I feel
safer in the classroom, I do not feel like the other students are laughing at me when I’m talking,
and I actually feel a bit mastery in that I participated. I know this sounds a bit odd, but I have
never liked unpredictable activities, as I have previously needed predictability in the classroom.
(P116)

Although participants mostly described the sessions as good experiences, they felt they had
been challenged. Challenges ranged from social issues (self-consciousness) to the chal-
lenges of unpredictability and risk-taking. Around 25% of participants expressed the chal-
lenge of spontaneous speech being to respond immediately after listening attentively:

What I enjoyed most about it was the fact that I was able to do everything that the games asked
for. I didn’t skip anything or not do anything. I’m actually quite surprised by myself at this
point, because I did not fail. I was expecting to fail these exercises. Therefore, I’m quite happy
with myself, and I have learned that I can do things like improvisation like I didn’t think I could
do. (P312)

So we had to respond to things as we were going. This made it impossible to plan ahead what
we were going to say, because we always needed to think of a response as we were talking with
the customer serviceman. (P401)

Participants described how improvisation activities encouraged them to think and react quickly.
Participants mentioned that activities prepare them for speaking in the real world because ‘in
everyday life you have to listen and formulate a response on the spot’. (P113).

g Vocabulary. Improvisation activities challenged participants to apply a large range of

vocabulary. For example, Customer Service extensively challenged participant vocabu-
lary by having to describe the mystery object or problem:

You had to talk around the item, describe it in a maybe unusual way and not even the easiest
one either. I feel that my group was relaxed at this activity; we managed to use words we had
not used before, and to come up with (as a service man/woman) good enough questions to guess
in the end and help the poor customer. (P411)

When we did the ‘man on the street’ and ‘customer service’ activities I felt like I got to explore
and even expand a little on my vocabulary since we were put in scenarios and discussions
where we usually wouldn’t find ourselves in on a regular day. So, we had to pick from a
different vocabulary and use some rarely used words. (P412)

The need for a wide scope could present challenges, because participants had little time
to find words in some activities, such as One Word Story, where they were forced ‘to
come up with a reasonable response with very little time to prepare’ (P305).
2202 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

2 Reluctant speakers’ views on improvisation activities

Some student teacher perspectives did not meet the 33% threshold for the recurrent
themes despite their experiences as reluctant speakers being relevant for spontaneous
speech practice and speaking confidence. This led to adding a research question and
interviewing some participants during the second year of the study to explore reluctant
speakers’ perspectives. The interview findings are presented per perceived degree of
speaking reluctance, starting with very reluctant speakers:

a Very reluctant speakers. Two participants (P406 and P413) reacted very negatively to
initial information about upcoming improvisation activities. They had been highly anx-
ious about public speaking from an early age. Both participants feared being judged
because of previously experiencing heavy criticism for making (foreign) language mis-
takes. Participant 406 visualizes conversations in advance, so she knows exactly what to
say in daily life. Participant 413 described her speaking anxiety as a severe mental block,
which becomes a physical manifestation such as brain freeze and stomach knots. This
occurred when she was informed about improvisation:

And that I have been, every time, like we talked about here too, criticized negatively, that there
is no constructive criticism, just pure disapproval, almost bordering on bullying [yes] um, . . .
in such activities in which you are roasted because you say something wrong – do something
wrong; regardless whether the purpose of the activity is to make a fool of yourself or make
mistakes or whether it is an activity in which you have a roleplay with dialogue [yes] so . . . my
first thought was NO (laughs and breathes out heavily), simply NO! (calls out and laughs again)
(P413)

Participant 413 used a first-person narrative when describing the current learning envi-
ronment but regularly switched to the second person pronoun to describe past
experiences.
Participants expressed that improvisation activities provided a complex, negative
experience. Whilst improvisation activities provided both enjoyable and awkward expe-
riences, they did not suit these very reluctant speakers. They completed some activities
as quickly as possible to end their discomfort or volunteered to film instead of playing,
described as a coping mechanism. Participant 413 expressed that Downton Abbey was
extremely uncomfortable because she played a character who only received negative
reactions. This triggered bad memories that made her feel so uncomfortable she could
not think. Interestingly, playing the authoritative lady herself was also a bad experience
which she could not remember until shown footage. Even though she knew all student
teachers concentrated on their own activities, P413 believed everybody was only watch-
ing her. Sensations of scrutiny are a regular form of discomfort for both participants and
align with the description of social anxiety disorder (American Psychiatric Association,
2008).
The improvisation activities caused some mental and physical stress for these very
reluctant speakers. Participant 406 explained that her nervous laughter in the footage
originated from being unable to express herself spontaneously, resulting in silly awk-
wardness. The laughter worsened the experience through a spiral of noticing discomfort,
Zondag 2203

overthinking, and physically sensing discomfort, which again reinforced mental stress.
In Customer Service, overthinking hindered P406 from expressing her interpretation
through not trusting her own judgment. Having not experienced any mastery or enjoy-
ment when the mystery was finally solved, P406 rather wanted to move on quickly to
relieve stress symptoms. She acknowledged projecting failure and being laughed at. She
realized these expectations are based on earlier experiences and not valid for the present
context.
Both participants expressed a need for control. The dice pictures in Dice Based Story
facilitated acceptance and elaboration:

I: You said it became a bit easier, but then I wonder why?

P406: For example, when I saw a picture of a bee I would think of a bee, then think of what the
last person said and then I can kind of combine it. And while the others were talking, I would
sit and look at the pictures to see which I can take when it is my turn [yes] which can fit into
what has already been said.

This strategy of planning ahead proved challenging when other group members took the
dice she had selected. When unable to continue the story well enough because of sudden
changes (self-judgment), P406 lowered her voice because of dissatisfaction with her
elaboration. She regularly experienced great discomfort, increased by observing her
physical stress reactions. Similarly, P413 experienced great discomfort during Dice
Based Story and One Word Story because the immediacy of storytelling increased their
tension. When turn-taking altered from fixed order to random, P413 picked up two die
consecutively and added two story elements to continue the storyline she imagined. Both
participants preferred random storytelling turns which may be related to control issues.
Improvisation activities helped these very reluctant speakers feel more socially
included, for example by being more daring within their small groups. While P406 stated
that improvisation activities helped her social interactions, similar activities in a new
group would negate these improvements due to a lack of established social safety. She
strives to be liked and approved by others. Consequently, she fears saying something that
may cause people to dislike her; hence, keeping silent is her defence mechanism. She had
never conducted a conversation in English because of a lack of oral practice in and out
of school. Although improvisation activities created some challenges, she concluded
they provided good spontaneous speech practice. In her opinion, the social aspect was a
core condition, because the group safety enabled her to engage in spontaneous speech.
Her passive vocabulary was activated, and she improved her pronunciation skills through
self-correction. Despite wishing to improve her public speaking, she cannot imagine
enjoying spontaneous speech practice because the discomfort of the experience still out-
weighs its learning potential.
Participant 413 found it easier to talk to the other participants because the experience
made her feel accepted. Her rumination was reduced which made it easier to speak. She
believed that improvisation activities helped her because the playful approach enabled
her to laugh at herself when making a mistake, and she then continued conversations
without negative tension. She explained that speaking was still very uncomfortable
2204 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

because it entailed showing her vulnerability. However, she concluded that participation
had been ‘alright’.

b Reluctant speakers. Four participants (301, 302, 312, and 415) described themselves
as inhibited and shy. They had initial negative reactions because they felt improvisation
was beyond their comfort zones. Two of them were also excited because of the teacher
educator’s enthusiasm during the TEFL course introduction. During the first session,
these participants experienced a sense of mastery in an initially uncomfortable situation.
They explained that it was liberating to manage improvisation activities despite tensions,
and mastery encouraged them to continue. Participants ultimately realized there was
nothing to fear. For example, they experienced mastery in Man on the Street (session 2)
because it forced them to speak with everybody in the classroom, a task they had believed
impossible. Their need for preparation gradually decreased as they became increasingly
comfortable with speaking spontaneously.
Overall experiences were described as intense, engaging, playful speech practice that
changed their initial reluctance to speak spontaneously. Improvisation activities pushed
them beyond their comfort zones. Participant P302 abandoned the previous need for pre-
planned sentences before speaking, while P312 described the change as stretching a lan-
guage muscle. Others mentioned taking more risks in language production, while P312
felt that repeated exposure to improvisation was essential for speaking more freely after
sessions as well. This newfound freedom of speaking spontaneously provided more
speaking confidence. In the last session, she experienced a desire to improvise without
any worry, because she was committed to completing the improvisation activities. She
considered this change an adaptation of self-perception, having assumed herself unable
to improvise. However, when encouraged in a safe setting, she managed the activity and
experienced mastery. Another participant described how she felt more able to open up:

Well, I see a little bit of impro, activities like these, with a different perspective. It is like you
almost become a totally different person. [yes] or you become somewhat like another person,
trying to be a little funny, a bit, yeah, you play different roles. So I feel like um . . . how can I
say this . . . you show your funny side, or I don’t know what to say, if you . . . [yes, I understand]
yeah, that they see you as, not being serious all the time, that you are a nice person and you open
a bit up, manage to open yourself up a bit. (P415)

Participants were so intensely engaged and immersed in the fictional world of the activi-
ties they forgot they had practised EFL. The reluctant speakers described the activities as
very enjoyable and emphasized that humour was an important part of their positive
experience.
Furthermore, safety and trust were important premises for these collaborative improv-
isation activities. Taking part in improvisation activities simultaneously in small groups
reduced prior negative associations with spontaneous speech practice. Small groups ena-
bled risk-taking and facilitated joint storytelling because the reluctant speakers felt less
observed and trusted their group members. One group supported each other by choosing
a mystery object with which P301 was familiar, another by passing on their turn to par-
ticipants who had ideas for the ending of the story (P312).
Zondag 2205

These reluctant speakers experienced a sense of flow or being ‘in synch’ (P301) in the
storytelling session. The flow was described as almost telepathic by P312, who illus-
trated how she developed attentive listening skills by projecting the story, acknowledg-
ing the actual offer (acceptance), and then contributing along the same storyline
(elaboration):

Well, when you listen to what she has to say, you understand like, oh okay, so thát is where you
want to go. Then you must facilitate or adapt accordingly . . . maybe play the ball over to them
as well. Then they get what they ask for and then you must say that in a way, enabling . . . that
you have something to say that is related to what they just said. (P312)

When P312 was caught by a surprise contribution, she managed to continue the collabo-
rative story, which again strengthened her speaking confidence. Together with other par-
ticipants, she took responsibility for the content. The reluctant speakers experienced that
an important element of improvisation activities was being forced to speak spontane-
ously without waiting or preparation time:

It is like when there is no space for being shy, because there is none in such activities where you
just have to speak, you have to speak to keep the activity going, and for me that helped me
realize that it perhaps is not so dangerous to talk. (P301)

The time pressure of improvisation activities decreased their speaking reluctance.

Improvisation activities were excellent spontaneous speech practice for diverse everyday
situations. Their speaking skills improved because they tried to search for the right words
and language register when in character, for example in Man on the Street and Downton
Abbey. P312 became more secure in speaking English, daring to speak without rehearsing,
and has become more active in both English and Norwegian unprepared speech. In her
opinion, regular oral speech practice would not have provided the challenges or resulted in
the changed mindset that she experienced. She concluded the approach was more essential
than the content, and the improvisation methodology should be part of the TEd courses:

And I think improvisation should be -maybe not last year- because it would not fit in with tree
diagrams and such, but it should be included in this education (. . .). Because it may happen
that everybody sees the light like I did. And that is a possibility we cannot miss, I think. So it
was very useful for me. And I don’t know if others are of the same opinion but it helped me very
much and it is very good if it can help people to become more confident. (P312)

The overall findings support the concept that in this article is coined as the spontaneous
speech mindset. Although participants were unsure of the long-term effect of the changes
they have experienced, some plan to initiate more spontaneous speech themselves.

V Discussion
First, the findings are discussed in light of Berk and Trieber’s (2009) didactic arguments
before discussing the concept of spontaneous speech mindset and its emergence in the
reluctant speakers’ experiences.
2206 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

1 Didactic arguments revisited

The improvisation activities were relatively learner-centred because participants were
responsible for completing the actual content together. Such an approach suits modern
language teaching methodology with its focus on empowerment of the learner and com-
municative competences. For example, Customer Service and Park Bench contained an
information gap so participants had to paraphrase to close the gap, thereby practising
attentive listening (CIP4) and negotiating meaning (Savignon, 2018) which is important
in communicative competence (Richards, 2006).
The findings confirm improvisation activities are attuned with several intelligences
and related to Gallagher’s point of embodiment (2010). Any interpersonal communica-
tion displays relations and status (CIP3) (Coppens, 2002), which is partly expressed
through paralinguistic cues. Practising FL speaking includes the use of paralinguistic
cues such as facial expressions, gestures, and other forms of nonverbal communication
(Stinson, 2008). In addition, participants were stimulated to apply a variety of language
registers naturally through embodiment of the role, such as polite language required from
servants. Participants described how playing characters provided space for practising
diverse spontaneous speech through creativity (Sawyer, 2003; Winston & Stinson, 2011).
Finally, the findings support the notion of collaborative learning as supported by
acceptance and elaboration (CIP1). One common explanation for decreasing the fear of
making mistakes was enjoyment. Enjoyment appears to reduce psychological risk and
support spontaneity (CIP2). Participants described enjoyment, improved interpersonal
relationships, and copious spontaneous speech as essential factors in improvisation ses-
sions, which contributed to increased speaking confidence.

2 Spontaneous speech mindset

In essence, the overall findings could be described as an enjoyable spontaneous speech
experience that enabled an increase in EFL speaking confidence. The findings confirmed
Stern’s hypothesis (1980) that certain psychological factors were triggered, rendering
participants more flexible and empowered. Improvisation activities created safe environ-
ments for spontaneous speech practice, which has been described as a positive atmos-
phere of openness and trust encouraged by mutual support (Schwenke et al., 2020).
Improvisation activities challenged participants’ oral proficiency in diverse situations.
This resulted in exploration of their linguistic and creative boundaries, hereby coined a
‘spontaneous speech mindset’, as illustrated in Figure 2 below.
Participant experiences can be interpreted as a continuous circular process, with enjoy-
ment as the main facilitating component for reaching the spontaneous speech mindset.
When their language contributions were accepted without judgment (CIP1), participants
relaxed in the safety of the spontaneous speech practice (CIP2). As they became more com-
fortable, their speaking confidence could develop. This led to more risk-taking (CIP2) in
speech, an expression of empowerment. Consequently, their speech became more fluent and
varied. They experienced mastery, increasing their enjoyment of improvisation activities. If
participants failed to communicate spontaneously, most still enjoyed themselves because
improvisation activities were non-judgmental and playful with room for failure. The circle
Zondag 2207

very reluctant
reluctant speakers
speakers

inial anxiety inial discomfort

complex and
forced to speak
stressful experience
mental and physical engaging and joyful
stress experience

sense of discomfort more comfortable

more speaking
confidence

sense of mastery

Figure 1. Interview findings.

would be repeated and every time a speaker experienced enjoyment, their spontaneous
speech mindset could increase, creating a window of opportunity (Kurtz, 2015). The narra-
tive creativity of improvisation activities (CIP1) stimulated participant imagination. This
challenged their language beyond everyday speech and inspired the rediscovery of imagina-
tive response (Johnstone, 1981). Participants explored their creativity (CIP3) when in char-
acter, surprising themselves by applying different language styles in their adapted roles.
They were absorbed by making meaning in collaborative stories (CIP4), with some reaching
a level of ‘flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008), enhancing their unselfconsciousness.
Improvisation activities supported and contextualized their spontaneous speech, as partici-
pants were expected to attempt new behaviour and stretch their competency base (Crossan,
1998). Participants accessed their different sides, coped with unpredictable situations, and
(re)discovered more words and phrases by accessing their playful imagination.

3 Reluctant speaker experiences

Reluctant speaker experiences varied and laughter turned out to express both stress and
enjoyment (Figure 1). Very reluctant speakers experienced a rather vicious circle of stress
due to the unpredictability of improvisation activities. The immediacy of spontaneous sto-
rytelling and its inherent lack of control was experienced as a threat that hindered accept-
ance and elaboration (CIP1). Consequently, very reluctant speakers preferred random
turn-taking in storytelling which provided more creative freedom to contribute immedi-
ately when an idea arose and re-established some control of the storyline. Discomfort was
also expressed by switching pronouns during the interview, possibly indicating a need to
distance herself from emotions. Despite factual knowledge about the present situation
being safe, their anxious thoughts from earlier experiences overpowered them.
Undeniably, the improvisation experiences were influenced by projections of former
judgment. This sense of discomfort may have prevented the enjoyment required for
2208 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

enjoy-
ment

sense of safety and

mastery relaxaon

exploraon
of language more
and comfortable
creavity

increase in more
risk-taking confident to
and speak
spontaneity English

Figure 2. Spontaneous speech mindset.

relaxing into a spontaneous speech mindset. The short time frame of the sessions may
have been a limitation for very reluctant speakers. They might benefit from improvisa-
tion exposure over a longer time (Seppänen et al., 2019) or when provided as part of
professional group therapy (Phillips Sheesley et al., 2016).
Conversely, other reluctant speakers experienced a victorious circle of enjoyment
because they reached the spontaneous speech mindset (Figure 2). Repeated exposure to
the enjoyment of improvisation activities decreased their need for preparation and
increased their spontaneous speech mindset. Being forced to speak unprepared overruled
their discomfort because they wanted to contribute to the content of the improvisation
activities. The increasing difficulty of sessions was beneficial for developing their speak-
ing confidence. Reluctant speakers realized they had mastered something beyond their
learner belief, which strengthened their speaking confidence. They redefined spontane-
ous speech tension as excitement which enabled them to reappraise assumed negative
expectations and reduce their stress response, leading to reduced speaking anxiety
(Piazzoli, 2011; Seppänen et al., 2019).

4 Pedagogical reflections
Creating an atmosphere of safety is vital for improvisation and FLL methodology.
Participants pointed at safety and trust as essential conditions for their positive experi-
ence. Sessions were deliberately held at the beginning of courses, ensuring participants
Zondag 2209

could benefit most from the improvisation activities. Naturally, many participants were
insecure, especially in-service student teachers whose transition from teacher to student
may have created additional insecurity. As in any method, one cannot assume improvisa-
tion activities are enjoyable for all EFL learners. Seppänen et al. (2019) point out that
incorporating improvisation methodology in TEd curricula could enhance student teach-
ers’ social interaction skills. One may wonder whether the level of speaking anxiety from
very reluctant speakers may be so debilitative that it is beyond EFL teachers’ profes-
sional competence and responsibility to manage in a natural classroom setting. The
reluctant speakers indicated, however, that inclusion in playful collaborative activities is
more beneficial than exclusion from social contexts through individual tasks. The reluc-
tant speakers emphasized the importance of regularly leaving their comfort zones in
EFL.
Improvisation activities facilitated excellent spontaneous speech practice in EFL TEd,
enabled by the unpredictable characteristics of authentic speech. Attentive listening
attuned participants to collaborative storylines and enjoyment supported taking risks in
small groups. The improvisation activities attended to the process (spontaneous speech
practice) rather than the end product (linguistic gain). This spontaneous speech mindset
could be regarded as a facilitative mindset for speaking spontaneously (Mercer &
Dörnyei, 2020). TEd should provide student teachers with methodological approaches
for supporting EFL speakers in an inclusive spontaneous speech practice.
Due to the teacher educator’s dual competence as improviser and teacher, improvisa-
tion activities contributed to creating a safe learning environment, facilitating spontane-
ous speech practice. The playful atmosphere enabled participants to further explore their
oral proficiency. Ultimately, the study relied on a combination of professional knowl-
edge as an improvisation instructor and an EFL teacher educator.

VI Conclusions
In this study, application of improvisation activities in TEd was investigated and found
to provide excellent practice for EFL spontaneous speech. Enjoyment through improvi-
sation activities facilitated non-judgmental spontaneous speech, enabling participants to
explore linguistic and creative boundaries, contributing to their speaking confidence.
While FLL research has mainly focused on negative emotions (Dewaele & MacIntyre,
2014), FL speech practice has both shadow (speaking anxiety or reluctance) and light
(speaking confidence) sides. The spontaneous speech mindset can be regarded as a mani-
festation of the light side and enables learners to further develop their spontaneous
speech proficiency. Spontaneity liberates people (Spolin, 1983).
While the study cannot predict how long the effects will last, an interesting finding
was that some reluctant speakers indicated changes in learner belief. They enjoyed
improvisation activities which decreased their need for preparation and increased their
spontaneous speech mindset. The greater the enjoyment, the greater the engagement, and
the easier it was to speak English. They reappraised their sense of discomfort as excite-
ment and achieved mastery. Through improvisation, learners experiment with language
rather than reproduce scripted speech (Galante & Thomson, 2017), which suits FLL risk-
taking encouraged by Dörnyei (1995). Improvisation activities based on central
2210 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

improvisation principles (CIPs) are highly recommended as a suitable method for spon-
taneous speech practice in EFL TEd, provided teacher educators have adequate improvi-
sation competence to create a safe practice.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Anke Zondag https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6772-0457

Note
1. Even though English is taught from the age of six, Norwegian learners do not learn English
in an English-speaking country. To distinguish the participants of the present study from ESL
learners and emphasize the foreignness which may influence their speaking confidence, this
study uses the term English as a foreign language (EFL).

References
Abenoja, Z.M.K.M., & DeCoursey, M. (2019). Using drama activities to teach beginner’s French
to Chinese students at a tertiary institution in Hong Kong: An exploratory case study. Studies
in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 711–736.
Almond, M. (2004). English teaching essentials: Drama. English Teaching Professional, 35, 40–
41.
American Psychiatric Association. (2008). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.
American Psychiatric Association.
Baykal, N., Idil, S., & Zeybek, G. (2019). The views of ELT pre-service teachers on using drama
in Teaching English and on their practices involved in drama course. International Journal of
Contemporary Educational Research, 6, 366–380.
Becker, C., & Roos, J. (2016). An approach to creative speaking activities in the young learners’
classroom. Education Enquiry, 7, 27613.
Berk, R.A., & Trieber, R.H. (2009). Whose classroom is it, anyway? Improvisation as a teaching
tool. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20, 29–60.
Boudreault, C. (2010). The benefits of using drama in the ESL/EFL classroom. The Internet TESL
Journal, 16(1).
Bygate, M. (2001). Speaking. In Carter, R., & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching
English to speakers of other languages (pp. 14–20). Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second lan-
guage teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Celik, B. (2019). The role of drama in Foreign Language Teaching. International Journal of Social
Sciences & Educational Studies, 5, 1–14.
Christie, C. (2016, 2016/01/02). Speaking spontaneously in the modern foreign languages class-
room: Tools for supporting successful target language conversation. The Language Learning
Journal, 44, 74–89.
Clipson-Boyles, S. (2012). Teaching primary English through drama: A practical and creative
approach. 2nd edition. Routledge
Zondag 2211

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. Teachers College Press.
Coppens, H. (2002). Training teachers’ behaviour. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of
Applied Theatre and Performance, 7, 195–206.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches.
3rd edition. Sage.
Crossan, M.M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9, 593–599.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial.
Davies, P. (1990). The use of drama in English language teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 8,
87–99.
Dewaele, J.M. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety and psychoticism,
extraversion, and neuroticism among adult Bi- and multilinguals. Modern Language Journal,
97, 670–684.
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. (2016). Foreign language enjoyment and foreign language anxi-
ety: The right and left feet of the language learner. In MacIntyre, P.D., Gregersen, T., & S.
Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA: Volume 97 (pp. 215–236). Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P.D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the
foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 237–274.
Dewaele, J.-M., Witney, J., Saito, K., & Dewaele, L. (2017). Foreign language enjoyment and anx-
iety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Language Teaching Research, 22, 676–697.
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55–85.
Ellis, R. (2012). Methods for researching the second language classroom. In Ellis, R. (Ed.),
Language teaching research and language pedagogy (pp. 21–49). John Wiley.
Galante, A., & Thomson, R.I. (2017). The effectiveness of drama as an instructional approach
for the development of second language oral fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness.
TESOL Quarterly, 51, 115–142.
Gallagher, K. (2010). Improvisation and education: Learning through? Canadian Theatre Review,
143, 44–46.
Giebert, S. (2014). Drama and theatre in teaching foreign languages for professional purposes
Recherche et Pratiques Pédagogiques en Langues de Spécialité, 33, 138–150.
Heathfield, D. (2007). Drama in language teaching. English Teaching Professional, 48, 8–9.
Holdhus, K., Høisæter, S., Mæland, K., et al. (2016). Improvisation in teaching and education:
Roots and applications. Cogent Education, 3, 1204142.
Horwitz, E.K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
21, 112–126.
Horwitz, E.K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43, 154–167.
Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern
Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Johnstone, K. (1981). Impro: Improvisation and the theatre. Methuen Drama.
Johnstone, K. (1999). Impro for storytellers. Faber and Faber.
Koushki, A.L. (2019). Engaging English learners through literature, fairy tales, and drama.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 8, 138–144.
Kurtz, J. (2015). Fostering and building upon oral creativity in the EFL classroom. In Maley, A., &
N. Peachey (Eds.), Creativity in the English language classroom (pp. 73–83). British Council.
Lantolf, J.P. (2007). Sociocultural theory. In Cummins, J., & C. Davison (Eds.), International
Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 693–700). Springer.
Lee, B.K., Patall, E.A., Cawthon, S.W., & Steingut, R.R. (2015). The effect of drama-based peda-
gogy on pre K–16 outcomes: A meta-analysis of research from 1985 to 2012. Review of
educational research, 85, 3–49.
2212 Language Teaching Research 28(6)

Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language
classroom. System, 32, 21–36.
McKnight, K.S., & Scruggs, M. (2008). The second city guide to improv in the classroom. Using
improvisation to teach skills and boost learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging language learners in contemporary classrooms.
Cambridge University Press.
Miccoli, L. (2003). English through drama for oral skills development. ELT Journal, 57, 122–129.
Phillips Sheesley, A., Pfeffer, M., & Barish, B. (2016). Comedic improv therapy for the treatment
of social anxiety disorder. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 11, 157–169.
Piazzoli, E. (2011). Process drama: The use of affective space to reduce language anxiety in the
additional language learning classroom. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of
Applied Theatre and Performance, 16, 557–573.
Piccoli, M.W. (2018). Improvisation: A creative theatrical technique to engage English language
learners. TESOL Journal, 9, 1–9.
Richards, J.C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Rubio-Alcalá, F.D. (2017). The links between self-esteem and language anxiety and implications
for the classroom. In Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into
language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 198–216). Multilingual
Matters.
Savaşçı, M. (2014). Why are some students reluctant to use L2 in EFL speaking classes? An action
research at tertiary level. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2682–2686.
Savignon, S.J. (2018). Communicative competence. In Liontas, J.I. (Ed.), The TESOL encyclope-
dia of English language teaching. Wiley. Available at:
Sawyer, R.K. (2003). Improvised dialogues: Emergence and creativity in conversation. Ablex.
Sawyer, R.K. (2015). Drama, theatre and performance creativity. In Davis, S., Clemson, H.G.,
Ferholt, B., Marjanovic-Shane, A., & S. Jansson (Eds.), Dramatic interactions in education:
Vygotskyan and sociocultural approaches to drama, education and research (Chapter 14).
Bloomsbury Academic.
Schwenke, D., Dshemuchadse, M., Rasehorn, L., Klarhölter, D., & Scherbaum, S. (2020). Improv
to improve: The impact of improvisational theater on creativity, acceptance, and psychologi-
cal well-being. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 16, 31–48.
Seppänen, S., Tiippana, K., Jääskeläinen, I., Saari, O., & Toivanen, T. (2019). Theater improvisa-
tion promoting interpersonal confidence of student teachers: A controlled intervention study.
The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 24, 2770–2788.
Smith, J.A., Larkin, M., & Flowers, P. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory,
method and research. Sage.
Spolin, V. (1983). Improvisation for the theater: A handbook of teaching and directing techniques.
Updated edition. Northwestern University Press.
Spolin, V. (1986). Theater games for the classroom: A teacher’s handbook. Northwestern
University Press.
Stern, S.L. (1980). Drama in second language learning from a psycholinguistic perspective.
Language Learning, 30, 77–100.
Stinson, M. (2008). Process drama and teaching English to speakers of other languages. In
Anderson, M., Hughes, J., & J. Manuel (Eds.), Drama and English teaching-Imagination,
action and engagement (pp. 193–212). Oxford University Press.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M.M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams.
Organization Science, 16, 203–224.
Winston, J., & Stinson, M. (2011). Drama education and second language learning. Special issue.
Research in Drama Education, 16, 479–644.
Zondag 2213

Appendix 1
Instructions for the retrospective text.
Write a diary text (minimum 1,000 words) in which you reflect on how you have experi-
enced doing improvisation activities in the English classroom. In your opinion, have the
improvisation activities improved your competence as a speaker and a student teacher of
English?

Special focus points

You have participated in improvisation sessions. Here is a list to help you remember
what we have done in the TEFL classroom:

•• Session 1 Storytelling: Zip, Zap, Zop – One Word Story – Three/four sentence
story – Dice Based Story
•• Session 2 Conversations: Man on the Street – Customer service – Noah’s Ark
•• Session 3 Status: Warm up walk – Downtown Abbey – Meeting –Park Bench

Please read your own learning diary texts again, look back and reflect on the improvisa-
tion sessions you have attended. Do you have favourite activities? Please explain why
you liked those activities so much. Have the improvisation activities influenced your
fluency and/or self-confidence in spontaneous speech? If so, please be specific how and
why. If not, please explain why. Have you developed any skills other than speech?
Some of the activities were filmed. How did you feel about being filmed?
Finally: Add any comments about the use of improvisation in the English classroom.
Thank you for allowing me to learn from you!

Appendix 2
Guide for the interviews.
1. Introduction: welcome and information about recording etc.
2. Main question: What was it like for you to do these improvisation activities?
3. Please describe in your own words how you felt about speaking spontaneously
during the activities.
4. Please describe in your own words how you felt about speaking spontaneously in
the weeks after the activities.
5. We are going to watch a small excerpt from the improvisation activities. Please
comment on the video footage whenever you feel like commenting it.
The interviewer will also stop the video and ask for comments upon selected
places.
6. Anything else you want to share?
7. How has the interview been for you?