






































Sebuah Kajian Pustaka:


English Language Teaching Educational Journal (ELTEJ) 
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019, pp. 39-49 
E-ISSN: 2621-6485  

  

* This article was presented at the 66th TEFLIN International Conference 

Collaborative Learning Activities through MoE in Engaging EFL 

Learners and Diminishing their Speaking Anxiety* 

 
Sitti Fatimah 

Universitas Negeri Padang 

e-mail: sitti.fatimah@fbs.unp.ac.id 

 
Abstract 

Mantle of the Expert (MoE) is an approach integrating drama in learning. A number of studies have   

proven the approach to be effective in enhancing student’s learning experience and vary teacher’s 

teaching strategy. This article is drawn from the results of a multi-case study that implemented MoE in  

EFL teaching in Indonesia. The study involving three cohorts of Grade 11 Indonesian senior and 

vocational high school students and three English teachers used multiple data collection methods: 

classroom observation, questionnaire and interview. While questionnaire was distributed to the student 

participants, the interview was administered to collect the data from teacher participants. The MoE 

implementation involved a series of drama activities integrated with the lesson topics. During the 

activities the student participants were assigned several tasks to be completed in small groups. This 

required students to collaborate. The findings show that these collaborative learning activities have shown 

positive major impacts, two of them are students’ increased engagement and decreased speaking anxiety.  

 

Keywords: EFL learners, collaborative learning, MoE, student engagement, speaking anxiety  
 

 

How to Cite: Fatimah, S. (2019). Collaborative Learning Activities through MoE in Engaging EFL 

Learners and Diminishing their Speaking Anxiety. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 2 

(1), 39-49.  

  

 

INTRODUCTION 

The lack of student engagement and speaking anxiety are two major problems 

frequently encountered by Indonesian EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners. Many 

English teachers are frustrated by these phenomena, but some of the teachers try to cope 

with them (e.g. Padmadewi, 1998).  These teachers usually try to engage the students by 

creating fun and engaging activities, such as games, role-play, and storytelling. Many 

teachers believe that these activities are able to improve student’s engagement and 

participation during the teaching and learning processes (Akhyak & Indramawan, 2013; 

2011; Zulkifli & Fatimah, 2019). However, there are some other teachers who even make a 

more engaging and challenging endeavour by integrating drama games and activities 

(Cawthon, Dawson, & Ihorn, 2011; Chan, 2009). According to them, involving these drama 

games and activities in teaching and learning processes have proven effective to enhance 

student’s learning experience.  

Related to drama games and activities, there has been a concept of drama education; 

that is the integration of drama in the curriculum or school subjects. In Europe, particularly 

in the United Kingdom the integration of drama in curriculum has been well implemented 

since the 1950s. One kind of it that is still implemented not only in UK but also in 

Australia, Canada and New Zealand is Mantle of the Expert (MoE) that was invented by an 

English drama educator, Dorothy Heathcote. As it became popular among teachers and 

educators, a great number of studies and projects have been conducted to investigate its 

effectiveness and efficiency (see Housum-Steven, 1998;  Taylor, 2002 & 2006; Rouse and 

Wilde, 2010).  

mailto:sitti.fatimah@fbs.unp.ac.id


40    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

The research from which this article is drawn was also the implementation of MoE, 

but to the learners of English where it is used as a foreign language (EFL). Within the 

concept of MoE the EFL learning activities were emphasized on cross-curricular approach, 

inquiry-based learning and collaborative learning. However, the discussion in this article 

only focuses on how collaborative learning activities that were conducted  within classroom 

and imaginary community through small group discussion (work) and role-plays have 

positive impacts on student engagement and their speaking anxiety. The collaborative 

learning is selected  because this aspect gave significant impacts on teaching and learning 

processes. Research on the use of MoE in EFL contexts are very few but those using 

Process Drama are massive (e.g., Yaman Ntelioglou, 2011). To date there is no such  

research on MoE in Indonesian context, particularly in EFL learning.  

 

The Concept of Mantle of the Expert (MoE) and its Elements 

In 1970s Heathcote introduced the concept of MoE as “an experiential learning and 

the empowerment of child when s/he assume MoE; and by 1993 the concept of MoE 

focused on getting children to run a business enterprise” (Hesten, 1994, p. 156). It is this 

latest concept of MoE that has been applied in teaching the curriculum in many countries 

and on which this study of MoE implementation is based.  

Literally, ‘Mantle of the Expert’ is divided into: Mantle and Expert. “Mantle means 

fulfilling a community call and making use of one’s potentiality; and Expert means the 

opportunity to work at knowledge and master the skills” (Heathcote, 2002, p. 2). Thus, 

Heathcote (as cited in Aitken, 2013) explains that the meaning of Mantle is not literally a 

piece of cloth generally known to cover body but it refers to the quality. What she means by 

quality is students’ leadership where it contains “behaviour,  morality, responsibility, ethics 

and the spiritual basis of all action” (p. 35). The main goal of MoE is to “provide a centre 

for all knowledge: it is always experienced by the students in terms of the responsible 

human being” (Heathcote & Bolton, 1995, p. 32). 

MoE elements can be classified into those that are created in an imaginary 

community and those that run the imaginary enterprise created in the classroom community. 

These two groups enable the whole process of MoE implementation. The first group 

consists of enterprise (organization), experts, commission and clients. The elements that 

carry out the enterprise are student-in-role (and out-of-role), teacher-in-role (and out-of-

role), productive tension, and reflection (see Figure 1 below). 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Fatimah 

41 

 

 
          Classroom community 

 

 

                                              Student 

Imaginary community                      (out of role) 

                                                    

 
                             Teacher (in role) 
Productive tension 

                      
                                          

 

 

                                             
                                                                                                     Student  

(in role) 
 

       
                    Reflection       Teacher 

          (out of role) 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Elements of MoE adapted from from Hesten (1994) and Heathcote (2002) 

 

MoE and Collaborative Learning 

Dillenbourg (1999) has attempted to define collaborative learning as “a situation in 

which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together...” (p.1). Two or 

more people means that in the learning activities the students may be asked to conduct pair 

or small group work. A great number of studies related to the use of collaborative learning 

have been conducted whether to hypothesize or to describe the existing phenomena. Most 

studies have demonstrated the benefits and effectiveness of implementing collaborative 

learning. For example, Noh and Yusuf (2018) found that collaborative learning style was 

proven “as one of the most effective learning style for students at a higher education in 

Aceh”.   

One of the fundamental principles of MoE as the drama-based pedagogy is 

collaborative work. The element of enterprise in MoE strongly suggests that there is 

collaborative learning approach applied in MoE implementation. Students are assigned 

tasks in small groups where they become experts of some kinds. The nature of collaboration 

in drama education is stated explicitly in the following quote: 

 

Drama promotes language development. Its collaborative nature 

provides opportunities for pupils to develop key skills of communication, 

negotiation, compromise and self-assertion (Arts Council England, 2003, 

p. 7).  

 

A classroom action research conducted by Belcastro (2003) confirms the use of collaborative 

activities during learning with MoE. She explains that:  

Enterprise            

Commission 

Clients Experts 



42    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

Mantle of the Expert mediates inquiry-based education in the way that it 

creates a practice-oriented classroom. In a practice-oriented classroom 

learning is focused on activities and practices that aid students in the 

exploration of how social worlds are constructed and represented. 

Students and teachers participate as collaborative inquirers, sharing in 

the decisions of classroom practices, engaging in activities of social 

worlds, and reflecting on beliefs and values underlying those worlds. (pp. 

68-69). 
 

MoE and Foreign Language (speaking) Anxiety 

Foreign language anxiety is a state of anxiety experienced by students in a foreign 

language classroom context. According to Horwitz et al. (1986), foreign language anxiety is 

related to students’ “self-perception, beliefs, feelings and behaviours...” (p. 128) that they 

experience during the process of foreign language learning. These mixed perceptions of 

feelings may result from the teaching method and strategies applied by the teacher, 

instructor or lecturer. These perceptions and feelings manifest as communication 

apprehension (Pratolo, 2017), fear of negative evaluation and test anxiety. 

The concept of learning underlying the MoE approach is believed to be able to reduce 

student’s anxiety in foreign language learning, particularly in speaking a foreign language. 

This is because the nature of MoE learning greatly involves collaboration where students 

work in team in order to complete a task. When working in group is favoured by the 

students, there is a big opportunity for students to gradually get rid of their anxiety to speak 

English. 

 

RESEARCH METHOD 

The study used qualitative approach in accordance with the principles of 

constructivism although some small calculation was taken as the source of data for 

qualitative analysis. Constructivism is an approach that sees reality as social construction 

where the role of the researchers is “to understand the multiple social constructions of 

meaning and knowledge… [that]…will allow them to acquire multiple perspectives” 

(Robson, 2002, p. 27). Those multiple perspectives are generated by believing in 

participants’ perceptions about the phenomenon being investigated (Creswell, 2009). As 

constructivism is “the heir of qualitative tradition” (Robson, 2002, p. 26), its major focus is 

on “things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in 

terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 3).  

A multiple-case study was adopted because three schools: Udayana, Atlanta and 

Dharmawangsa (these names are pseudonyms) were involved to obtain the data. Three 

English teachers (Umaira, Rossa and Diana; also pseudonyms) and their classes (89 

students in total) became the participants of the study. These students were sitting at Grade 

11 and were on their second semester when they were invited as the participants.   

The data were collected through 1) classroom observations, 2) semi-structured interview 

with teacher participants and 3) questionnaire distributed to student participants. However, 

the data presented in this article are only obtained from students’ responses of the 

questionnaire that consisted of closed and open-ended questions. While the data resulted 

from closed-ended questions were analysed with percentage, those from the open-ended 

were analyzed using Qualitative Content Analysis approach. Data coding applied the 

qualitative content analysis procedures suggested by both Mayring (2000) and Hsieh and 

Shannon (2005): deductive category application (directed content analysis) and inductive 

category development (conventional or classical content analysis). The process of data 

coding or of naming the categories in deductive category application is carried out. 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Fatimah 

43 

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

The data presented in this section are derived from students’ responses to an open-

ended question asking students about their perception of collaborative work during MoE 

activities and teachers’ perceptions of collaborative learning. This open-ended question also 

allowed the students to provide more than one answer and the teachers (Umaira, Rosa and 

Diana) to give in-depth explanation.  

 
Collaborative Learning and Student Engagement  

According to Kao and O’Neill (1998), while Process Drama usually begins with a 

large group or whole class activity, to sustain Process Drama, teachers usually assign 

students to work in small groups or pairs. This was certainly the case across all three cases. 

Throughout the MoE implementation, combinations of students completed tasks and 

conducted role-plays within these same groupings. Across the three cases, the majority of 

students were positive to the question about their perception of collaborative work. Most 

students enjoyed doing activities in groups and outlined various benefits of collaborative 

work to their learning as mainly voiced by the teacher participants during the semi-

structured interview which is described below.  

 

Gradual increase in student engagement  

Although Atlanta students’ major reasons for their enjoyment of group work were 

different from the other two groups of students, in responding to a question about the 

activity that most encouraged them to speak English, almost half of them chose the activity 

of group work. Their responses are exemplified by three students below: 

 
I think the collaboration greatly helped me develop my learning. 
I think it's so beneficial for me. The activities add my knowledge. 

Collaborative work in MoE activities is the best. 

 

By implication, Atlanta students enjoyed group work because it gave them new 

learning experiences and new knowledge as discussed above, but they also believed that it 

gave them the opportunity speak English. Atlanta students’ explanations suggest that 

although they had done role-play activities in previous English language learning, these 

were different from the role-plays they performed during MoE. In their previous role-plays 

they were required to memorize scripted dialogues and practice them. During the group 

work activities of MoE, they had no script to memorize as the dialogue was spontaneous 

and their teacher, Rossa, took on a role together with them.  

The responses from Rossa about student engagement was similar to the students’  

although at the first semi-structured interview she complained that some students were not 

really engaged with the lesson.  However, by her second semi-structured interview (after 

implementing the first four MoE lessons), Rossa had quite a different sense of the state of 

student engagement:  

 

They have improvement in participation and motivation after third and 

fourth meeting. We can see from the class that they are interested in 

learning English now, for example, in the first and second meeting, half 

of the students are not interested in the classroom. Or I can say that only 

two or three students that are motivated in learning, only two or three 

students in one group. But after the third and fourth meeting, there are 

more students that are interested in learning. It can be five until six 

students, so it means that there is good improvement from the 



44    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

classroom…They are interested in learning through drama (Rossa, Semi-

Structured Interview 2).  

 

Meanwhile, most of the Udayana students who perceived the benefit of collaborative 

work valued it as a technique that increased their interest in English learning. Some others 

reported that group work increased their participation in learning and improved their 

understanding of the lessons and their English speaking ability as quoted below: 

 

I think the collaboration was very interesting for learning process. 

It can help students to master all learning materials well. 

I think it’s very interesting because we can improve our speaking ability and improve 

our confidence too. 

I think it’s good because all students can participate in the designing activities well 

and none of them being idle, at least they did it diligently  

 

The students’ views about their increased participation and improved understanding 

were in line with Umaira’s observations about the benefits of small group activities (both 

in-role and out of role). She preferred to assign students to work collaboratively because she 

understood that peer support can be just as important and efficient as teacher support to 

engage students in their learning. She observed that having a small number of students in 

each group enabled each member to participate in the discussion and to exchange ideas. 

Further, Umaira witnessed that working in groups also helped the students who had less 

understanding of the lesson content “… so because of their friends’ assistance they could 

understand [the lesson/activities]” (Umaira, Semi-Structured Interview 3). 

From her observations, Umaira identified three benefits of students doing activities in 

small group. First, each student was enabled to participate in discussion to share and 

exchange ideas. Second, the students were enabled to prepare their roles for public 

performance role-play: “I think most of them have confidence... If I ask them to present or I 

ask them to perform, most of them can do that (Umaira, Semi-Structured Interview 1). 
Third, through discussion with peers, the students had opportunities to deepen their 

understanding about tasks and lesson content.  

In the case of Dharmawangsa, Diana noted significant changes in students’ 

willingness to speak English after two lessons of learning through MoE although she didn’t 

seem satisfied with the student’s progress. However, Dharmawangsa students valued 

collaborative work in small group discussion because, in their view, it improved their 

English speaking ability, and increased their English speaking confidence, their 

understanding of the lessons and their mastery of vocabulary as the following quotes show. 

 

 

It is easier for me (to understand English) and I don’t feel complicated 

I think it is very good because it makes me understand English more 

It is exciting and useful to understand English vocabulary more 

Very effective, with these activities in MoE approach we can get close to each other  

 

 The importance of group work has been discussed in the research literature and 

investigated through several studies, both as a dimension of Process Drama and as a 

technique in teaching and learning processes within ESL/EFL instruction. Liu (2002) 

presents three functions of drama in a language classroom. One of them is the cognitive 

function that provides opportunities for to work collaboratively and creatively in order to 

develop their language skills. Liu’s collaborative and creative learning outcomes of Process 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Fatimah 

45 

Drama were seen in most activities of MoE in all cases. The students in this study 

conducted many small group activities, either to complete writing tasks or to prepare for 

public performance role-plays. While improvements to students’ English language skills 

were not assessed as a dimension of this study, creative engagement with tasks was, indeed, 

an observable outcome of MoE implementation.  

A study conducted by SæbØ (2011), investigating the relationship between individual 

and collective aspects of learning, found that ‘collective learning’ in small groups during 

Process Drama contributed significantly to promoting individual student learning. She 

concluded that “individual and collective aspects of the learning process are reciprocally 

dependent on each other, but it is the quality of the collective learning process that decides 

the quality of the individual learning process in drama” (p. 26). This finding suggests that 

collaborative learning has the potential to improve individual learning. Although the current 

study did not specifically investigate the influence of collaboration on the quality of student 

learning, high levels of student engagement during group tasks across all three cases 

indicate the positive contribution of group work to student learning.  

A number of other studies focusing on the implementation of small group work and 

collaborative learning showed different results. In their experimental study, van 

Blankenstein, Dolmans, van der Vleuten, and Schmidt (2011) investigated the effects of 

giving explanations and listening during small group discussion on students’ long term 

memories. The findings showed that the activities affected positively their recall of related 

subject-mattered after discussions in small groups. On the other hand, a case study by 

Osman, Duffy, Chang, and Lee (2011) did not offer any particular positive impacts of small 

group discussion on student learning.  

The impact of group work on ESL (English as a Second Language) or EFL (English 

as a Foreign Language) learning has been investigated through a number of studies 

conducted in the last three decades and these confirm the findings in this study. For 

example, Pica and Doughty (1985) found that “group work: 1) provided students with more 

opportunities to practice using the target language, and 2) to engage in direct interaction” 

(p. 247). The first effect of group work found in Pica and Doughty’s study aligned with 

Atlanta students’ perceptions of the benefits of being in-role during group work, as 

previously discussed. Umaira similarly perceived the advantage of group work to encourage 

Udayana students to speak English.  

In addition to Pica and Doughty’s findings about the advantages of group work in 

ESL or EFL learning, Long and Porter (1985) identified four more benefits of group work 

to students’ language acquisition. These are that it: 1) improves the quality of student talk, 

2) helps individualize instruction, 3) promotes a positive affective climate, and 4) motivates 

learners (pp. 208-212). While the first benefit of group work identified by Long and Porter 

was not investigated through this study, the second finding can be seen in this study among 

students’ MoE activities through small group work. Each group of students in Udayana 

SHS and Atlanta SHS came up with different LPK proposals although the task set was 

similar for all. This was because they responded differently to the task. It allowed the 

options for “small groups of students [to] work on different sets of materials suited to their 

needs… group work, then, is a first step toward individualization of instruction” (Long & 

Porter, 1985, pp. 210-211). Long and Porter’s third point that group work positively affects 

the learning climate is evident in this study, particularly in case two where Atlanta students 

were encouraged to speak English in small group role-plays without inhibition. The effect 

on motivation was evident across the cases.  

Richards (2006) suggested that in group work the students “produce a greater amount 

of language than they would use in teacher-fronted activities [classroom activities or 

discussion]” (p. 20). Meanwhile, Long and Porter conclude that “group work motivates 



46    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

learners” (p. 212). Their argument is in accordance with Richards’ (2006) who also believes 

that through group work activities students’ motivation tends to increase. In line with the 

above benefits of group work, Harmer (2007) also identifies some advantages of grouping 

students within English language teaching and learning. According to him, group work 

significantly increases speaking opportunities for students, and creates greater possibility 

for students to voice different opinions. Thus, various contributions of ideas are enabled, 

and cooperation and negotiation skills are enhanced. Findings from these studies are 

apparently in line with student learning experiences in this study. As discussed previously, 

group work increased Dharmawangsa students’ willingness to speak English and provided a 

number of benefits to Udayana students.  

A study by Sutiah (2011) about implementing CLT during group work with 

Indonesian primary students likewise reported positive effects of group work on students’ 

speaking confidence. She highlighted that the students became more confident to give oral 

presentations within group presentations, and in contrast, became anxious in individual 

presentations due to concerns about their lack of proper pronunciation. This finding 

suggests that group activity can increase students’ speaking confidence and, at the same 

time, reduce their language anxiety.  

To conclude, collaborative learning undertaken within the frame of a real or an 

imaginary context was experienced by the students across the cases and was a significant 

factor in their positive engagement with the English language learning process. Their 

heightened engagement created the possibility for students improved learning experiences 

that may lead to improvements in their language learning outcomes.  

 
Collaborative Learning as a Mediator to Reduce Speaking Anxiety  

Despite heightened student engagement while in-role during the enactment of MoE, 

the findings did indicate that some students felt anxious about taking on a role. The number 

of students who felt anxious in being in-role was especially significant, with 56% of Atlanta 

students choosing ‘nervous’ (in the instrument of questionnaire) as one of the descriptors of 

their feelings about taking on a role. This nervousness may be understood as a form of 

‘communication apprehension,’ which Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) explain is a “a 

type of shyness characterized by the fear of or anxiety of communicating with people” (p. 

127) during foreign language instruction.  

Horwitz et al. (1986) suggest that to reduce students’ anxiety the teacher should 

“make the learning context less stressful” (p. 131). One way of achieving this during MoE 

implementation is by engaging students in small-group role-plays, including the teacher-in-

role, as opposed to public performance role-plays. MoE implementation to Atlanta students 

resulted in findings showing that despite their nervousness, all Atlanta students enjoyed 

having their teacher-in-role during small group role plays; 62% of responses indicated 

willingness to speak English during small group role-plays; and 69% of responses described 

enjoyment in small group role-plays. Taken together, these findings suggest the benefits of 

using small group role-plays to combat student apprehension. This supports the findings 

revealed by Effiong (2015) stating that peer collaboration and working in small groups 

reduce feelings of anxiety amongst EFL learners’ pronunciation. This finding suggests that 

group activity can increase students’ speaking confidence and, at the same time, reduce 

their language anxiety.  

The kind of anxiety felt by Atlanta students is, according to existing studies, 

commonly experienced by students learning a foreign language, and must be minimized in 

order to achieve their maximum learning outcomes. The collaborative and small group 

speaking activities of MoE seemed to be a good approach for reducing student anxiety 

about learning and speaking English and may be seen as a stepping-stone to more public 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Fatimah 

47 

presentation and performance tasks. Collaboration proved to be a powerful learning 

platform and it reduced students’ English speaking anxiety.  

 

CONCLUSION 

The findings of the study indicate one major outcome of MoE implementation, that is 

collaborative learning activities conducted through both classroom and imaginary context 

resulted in positive effects. The collaboration between learners that occurred in small 

groups benefited the students because it: 1) improved English speaking ability and 

confidence, 2) increased student interest and participation in learning, 3) increased 

understanding of their lessons, 4) provided students with new knowledge and learning 

experiences, 5) provided students with more opportunities to practice the target language 

being learned, and 6) engaged students in interaction. The findings related to student 

engagement in small group role-play and students’ increased confidence to speak English 

suggest that spoken interaction in small group had reduced students’ anxiety to speak 

English. This occurred because the students found that learning environment was less 

stressful. 

 

REFERENCES  

 

Akhyak, & Indramawan, A. (2013). Improving the students’ English speaking competence 

through storytelling. International Journal of Language and Literature, 1(2), 18-24. 

Retrieved from www.aripd.org/ijll   

 

Aitken, V. (2013). Dorothy Heathcote's mantle of the expert approach to teaching and 

learning: A brief introduction. In D. Fraser, V. Aitken, & B. Whyte (Eds.), 

Connecting Curriculum, Linking Learning (pp. 34-56). Wellington, New Zealand: 

NZCER Press.  

 

Arts Council England. (2003). Drama in schools. 2nd. Retrieved from 

http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/725.pdf  

 

Belcastro, D. A. (2003). An action research study on using drama for learning: 

Implementing Dorothy Heathcote's Mantle of the Expert approach to education. 

(Master's Thesis), The Ohio State University. Retrieved from 

http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1393341342  

 

Cawthon, S. W., Dawson, K., & Ihorn, S. (2011). Activating student engagement through 

Drama-Based Instruction. Journal for Learning Through the Arts, 7(1), 31. Retrieved 

from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312421295?accountid=12528  

 

Chan, Y.-l. P. (2009). In their own words: how do students relate drama pedagogy to their 

learning in curriculum subjects? Research in Drama Education: The Journal of 

Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(2), 191-209. doi:10.1080/13569780902868770  

 

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods 

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, Inc.  

 

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). Qualitative research (4th ed.). Los Angeles: 

Sage Publications, Inc.  

 

http://www.aripd.org/ijll
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/725.pdf


48    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

Dillenbourg, P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) 

Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.1-19). 

Oxford: Elsevier 

 

Effiong, O. (2015). Getting them speaking: Classroom social factors and foreign language 

anxiety. TESOL Journal, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/tesj.194  

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4 ed.). London: Pearson 

Education ESL.  

Heathcote, D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - Four models to forge links between 

schooling and society. The Journal for Drama in Education, 19 (1), 1-14. Retrieved 

from http://pers-www.wlv.ac.uk/~in5127/natdtest/journal%20backcopies.html  

 

Heathcote, D., & Bolton, G. (1995). Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote's Mantle of 

the Expert approach to education (O. N. Cecily Ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.  

 

Hesten, S. (1994). The Dorothy Heathcote archive. (Ph. D. Thesis). Retrieved from 

http://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/community/research/  

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. 

The Modern Language Journal, 70 (2), 125-132. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

4781.1986.tb05256.x  

Housum-Stevens, J. B. (1998). Performance possibilities: Curating a museum. Voices From 

the Middle, 6 (2), 19-26. Retrieved from 

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/eric/docview/213929912/fullte

xtPDF/135D6CCF0F8199231AA/2?accountid=12528  

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. 

Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687  

Liu, J. (2002). Process drama in second and foreign language classrooms. in G. Brauer 

(Ed.), Body and language: Intercultural learning through drama (pp. 51-70). 

Connecticut, London: Ablex Publishing.  

 

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language 

acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228. doi:10.2307/3586827  

 

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 

159-176.  

 

Noh, M. A. C., Yusuf, S. A. M. (2018). Collaborative learning technique within higher 

learning education students. Creative Education, Vol. 9, 2367-2375.  

 

Osman, G., Duffy, T., Chang, J.-y., & Lee, J. (2011). Learning through collaboration: 

student perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12 (4), 547-558. 

doi:10.1007/s12564-011-9156-y  

 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Fatimah 

49 

Padmadewi, N. N. (1998). Students' anxiety in speaking class and ways of minimizing it. 

Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 5 (Supplementary Edition), 60-67.  
 

Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language 

acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (02), 233-248. doi: 

doi:10.1017/S0272263100005398  

Pratolo, B. W. (2017). Exploring Indonesian learners' beliefs about language learning 

strategies through reflection. figshare. Doctoral Thesis. Monash University Australia. 

https://monash.figshare.com/articles/Exploring_Indonesian_learners_beliefs_about_la

nguage_learning_strategies_through_reflection/4711927. 

https://doi.org/10.4225/03/58b7763874bf3 

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambrige 

University Press.  

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.  

Sutiah. (2011). The implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) within 

group-work in an English as foreign language (EFL) elementary classroom in 

Indonesia. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 4 (24), 205-258.  

SæbØ, A. B. (2011). The relationship between the individual and the collective learning 

process in drama. In S. Schonmann (Ed.), Key concepts in Theatre/Drama Education 

(pp. 23-27). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.  

Van Blankenstein, F., Dolmans, D. J. M., Van der Vleuten, C. M., & Schmidt, H. (2011). 

Which cognitive processes support learning during small-group discussion? The role 

of providing explanations and listening to others. Instructional Science, 39 (2), 189-

204. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9124-7  

 

Yaman Ntelioglou, B. (2011). Drama and English language learners. in S. Schonmann 

(Ed.), Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education (pp. 183-188). Rotterdam: Sense 

Publishers.  

 

Zulkifli, A. A. & Fatimah. S. (2018). Using Werewolf game to teach speaking to senior 

high school students. Journal of English Language Teaching, 8 (1), 61-70. 

https://monash.figshare.com/articles/Exploring_Indonesian_learners_beliefs_about_language_learning_strategies_through_reflection/4711927
https://monash.figshare.com/articles/Exploring_Indonesian_learners_beliefs_about_language_learning_strategies_through_reflection/4711927
https://doi.org/10.4225/03/58b7763874bf3

