How Can Drama Tasks Interact with Second Language Learners’ Willingness to Communicate? A Theoretical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If oral communication in a second language (L2) is considered a skill to be prioritized, it is also particularly anxiety-provoking for L2 learners. This is why their willingness to communicate, predicted in particular by the emotions experienced, has been the focus of recent studies to examine its evolution and factors likely to interact with it. However, little research has focused on how pedagogical tasks could support L2 learners’ willingness to communicate by creating a constructive and positive learning environment. This article focuses on drama as a pedagogical task that could potentially support L2 learners’ willingness to communicate. It thus aims to develop a theoretical framework to demonstrate how drama can help learners overcome barriers to L2 communication by interacting with situated affective factors, motivational propensities, affective and cognitive context, and social and individual context. This demonstration is particularly relevant for making more explicit the potential of experiential tasks in L2 learning to provide more positive and constructive learning experiences. We conclude this paper by emphasizing pedagogical implications to support L2 learners better and promote more research into drama.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".