Pixton=
como una herramienta de enseńanza para fomentar=
la
habilidad de escritura
Ximena
Gabriela Ortiz Orellana. [1] <=
span
class=3DGramE>& Jazmina
Ivonne Mena Mayorga. 2
Recibido:
03-05-2021 / Revisado: 11-05-2021 /Aceptado: 04-06-2021/ Publicado: 05-07-2=
021
Introduction.
The use of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education has increased d=
ue
to the technological era we are living nowadays. Teaching English also dema=
nds
to be informed of the new teaching trends that technology offers. As a resu=
lt,
teachers must be aware of the important role that technology plays in the
teaching-learning of English. Obje=
ctive.
To analyze if Pixton, a digital storytelling tool, improves the writing
skill on English foreign language learners in higher education. Methodology. The research was car=
ried
out in an educational Institution in Ecuador with a target population of
forty-eight students who were in an A2 level. A quasi-experimental research=
was
conducted where twenty-four participants were the experimental group and the
other twenty-four participants were the control group. A pre-test was pract=
iced
for both groups to determine their writing skills. Consequently, students in
both groups took a post-test to define if Pixton (the digital storytelling
tool) used during classes made any difference on the writing skill performa=
nce.
Results. The findings indicate=
d that
the students who were part of the experimental group had a higher average in
the writing post-test in comparison with the average of the control group.
Therefore, learners from the experimental group outperformed learners in the
control group. Conclusion. Due=
to
this fact, the use of Pixton as a digital storytelling tool had enhance the
writing skill on A2 level learners in the institute.
Resumen.
Introducción.
El uso de las
Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TIC) en la educación ha
aumentado debido a la era tecnológica en la que vivimos hoy en día. La
enseńanza del inglés también exige estar informado de las nuevas tendencias
docentes que ofrece la tecnología. Como resultado, los profesores deben ser
conscientes del papel importante que desempeńa la tecnología en la
enseńanza-aprendizaje del inglés. =
Objetivo.
Analizar si Pixton, una herramienta de narración digital, mejora la habilid=
ad
de escritura en los estudiantes de inglés en la educación superior. Metodología. Se llevó a cabo en un
Instituto educativo en Ecuador con una población objetivo de cuarenta y ocho
estudiantes de un nivel A2. Se realizó una investigación cuasi-experimental
donde veinte cuatro participantes fueron el grupo experimental y los otros
veinte cuatro fueron el grupo control. Se empleó una prueba previa para amb=
os
grupos para evaluar sus habilidades de escritura. Después de eso, los
estudiantes de ambos grupos tomaron una prueba posterior para conocer si Pi=
xton
(la narración digital) utilizado durante las clases causó alguna diferencia=
en
el rendimiento de las habilidades de escritura. Resultados. Los resultados indicaron que los estudiantes que
formaron parte del grupo experimental tuvieron un promedio más alto en la
prueba posterior de escritura en comparación con el promedio del grupo cont=
rol.
Por lo tanto, los estudiantes del grupo experimental superaron a los
estudiantes del grupo control. Con=
clusión.
Debido a este hecho, se concluyó que el uso de Pixton como una herramie=
nta
digital de narración de cuentos facilita la habilidad de escritura en los
estudiantes de nivel A2 en el instituto.
P=
alabras
claves: T=
ecnología,
Pixton, Narración, Habilidades de escritura.
Introduction.
English language has become an important tool in
several fields such as business, associations, sports, and education. It is
known that a language involves different skills like reading, listening,
speaking and writing. Education First (EF) English Proficiency Index (2020)
claims that Ecuador is located as number ninety-three of one hundred countr=
ies
which study English as a foreign language. Ecuador presents an extremely low
proficiency in the English language due to the lack of interest on learning=
the
foreign language as well as the lack of professional development to be info=
rmed
of the new teaching trends that technology offers. Therefore, tea=
chers
must use different methodological alternatives to reach an effective goal in
the learning process. Nonetheless, students as English Foreign Learners (EF=
L)
have found some difficulties in acquiring knowledge. Students do not find
interest on learning English as they think it is not necessary for their li=
ves.
In addition, students do not feel motivated and comfortable learning in a
traditional way. For this reason, Kee and Samsudin
(2014) mention that, ICT turns to be an essential tool within the education=
al
process to provide the teacher and students with the opportunity to be aware
and explore all the aspects that deal with their own education (as cited by=
Nariyati, 2020, par. 1). Consequently, education and
technology are facing together a huge impact on students learning process t=
hanks
to the new era. Therefore, teachers need to understand and focus on differe=
nt
alternatives that might help them to achieve interactive input by the hand =
of
technology.
According to the Ecuadorian in-service English Tea=
cher
Standards - The English Language Learning Standards (2012) given by the
Ministry of Education states that:
Given the fact that Ecuador is a multicultural
country, a certain number of Ecuadorian students who are learning English m=
ay
descend from indigenous cultures where Spanish is their second language; a=
nd
English their third[
] Therefore, Ecuadorian English teachers need to have
knowledge of other cultures and know how culture may affect their learning =
of
English in Ecuador. (p. 2)
It is known that Chimborazo province is a
multicultural place since the thirty eight percent of the population belong=
to
an indigenous community (INEC, 2010). Nevertheless, teachers might find
difficulties while teaching English to students with different kind of
backgrounds. Students need to be part of their learning process by having an
interactive and active input that help them learn from each other. Also,
teachers who work for public institutions must follow a book given by the
Ministry of Education. These books concentrate more on grammar structures
making teachers forget about the other skills that are important for the
English language. On the other hand, some public Institutes do not have to
follow a specific guidebook, making teachers gathering more attention to the
grammar point while developing and teaching the English language. According=
to Mart
(2013), getting the knowledge of grammar and vocabulary is considered a
significant element when teaching and learning English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) so that teachers pay attention to this specific part of the learning
process rather than other skills like writing. Teachers are required to ref=
lect
on an effective strategy in order to develop and mix different skills in the
students´ learning process.
Riobamba, the capital of the province has around f=
ive
institutes where English is taught as part of their curricula (SENESCYT, 20=
19).
Teachers that are considered to be part of the old schools follow a traditi=
onal
path in which students repeat and learn grammar structures. Another reason =
that
put English teachers against the situation is the lack of time that the
Institutes give for the English subject. If students do not have a reasonab=
le
number of hours during the week they are not goi=
ng to
have a correct input when learning a new language.
Riobamba Institute is one of the biggest institute=
s in
the city with eleven English teachers and almost two thousand students
according to SENESCYT (2019). The lack of interest and practice on the writ=
ing
skill has led students to have a low interaction with this skill in English=
. As
said by Asrobi and Prasety=
aningrum
(2017), Writing is the least popular language skill and most students cons=
ider
writing is the least useful or unnecessary for them to be mastered (p.1).
Teachers and students do not give this skill the importance that it should
have. Also, teachers do not include optical evaluations in their teaching
lessons, so it turns to be a negative factor in the learning process. This
situation has made students depend on the use of dictionaries or translator=
s.
Therefore, EFL learners agree to claim that writing is the most difficult s=
kill
to be learnt (Jodaie, 2011). EFL students belie=
ve
that English needs to be translated word by word. This a terrible mistake t=
hat
has been carried out since students are in high school. For all these reaso=
ns,
it is necessary for teachers to be informed about the new technology tools =
to
enhance the teaching and learning process of English in the institution.
Theorical Framework
As days go by the traditional writing such us
presentations, creating tables and writing by hand has been forgotten.
Therefore, computers and technology are the new tools for this era to learn=
the
writing skill. A necessary aspect to take into consideration when it is tim=
e to
write, must be
the way of how the ideas come together in order to create and develop a
well-structured writing. Students will be able to improve this skill by the
support of different tools that make them feel comfortable and not to be af=
raid
of making mistakes when writing.
For the last ten years, researchers defined techno=
logy
as leadership with the aim of making actions that facilitate effectiveness
within the use of technology in schools (Anderson & Dexter, 2000). That=
is
to say, technology has become the key of success in education. Students fin=
d it
easy to understand and develop their input through the new era they are liv=
ing in.
However, for teachers of different generations in which technology was not =
the
main source to educate, it is hard to comprehend and develop a well-known
understanding of this tool (Raman & Thannimalai,
2019). Nowadays, teachers have inspired themselves to learn through the use=
of
technology that has turned to be a main tool in teaching. For a learner, wh=
ose English
is their second language, motivation and a correct input is crucial in orde=
r to
make them realize and be aware of how the language works. Based on the four
skills in English, writing seems to be the hardest and stressful skill to l=
earn
and acquire. Consequently, technology offers a lot of tools to enhance and =
help
students develop this skill. Different instruments can be found and develop
through the interaction of technology. Some of them may be free to all the
users and some others may not. In order to provide a useful input on studen=
ts a
variety of instruments might appear to enhance the skills through the use of
English. One of these utensils is called Pixton, it is an attractive platfo=
rm
design for students and users to create comic strips online. This tool is
considered as an authentic resource for teacher to use in their lessons in
order to create and motivate students to practice and evolve their input ba=
sed
on writing skills.
Pixton is a comic improvement website that can be =
used
to improve the learning process to create a positive attitude and increase =
motivation
(Kilickaya & Krajka,
2012). On the other hand, Pixton is considered as a creative tool due to the
fact that engage teachers and students in the world of comics. In addition,=
students
have the opportunity to express, create, comment and develop their critical
thinking skill (Cabrera et al., 2018). They have the possibility to convey =
an
idea into a real and original context where they tell the story in a logical
sequence, collaborating with others and developing language skills in a
multimodal setting (Lee, 2013). However, Pixton as a free tool has different
aspects to take into consideration, such as the limitation of backgrounds
within the slides that a participant may want to use in order to create a
comic. Most of them are locked giving with it a low interaction on the
platform. However, the teacher and students make the difference making the
platform useful and interactive. Students find their way in order to create=
and
illustrate their thoughts and imagination through the tool.
This story telling tool involves a huge amount of
imagination where children, teenagers and even adults will have the chance =
to
cooperate within Pixton storytelling tool. Furthermore, quality and advanta=
ge
in the use of Pixton is that besides practicing the writing skill, it also
increases and develops the students vocabulary and grammar structure of the
language. Pixton is also considered as a language art due to the fact that
since the language skills are difficult to master, this tool can transform =
bad
experiences with the English language into a great satisfaction on acquiring
the language. As said by O'Shea (2011), Pixton is well-known as a secret we=
apon
for teachers. (par. 3). This is why Pixton is an interactive tool in which
students are part of an independent learning and the teacher acts as a
facilitator of it. Also, students have the opportunity to feel free with th=
eir
thoughts and to capture them through the use of Pixton=
.
Pixton can turn a boring learning into a comic and
interactive way of learning. Teachers and students learn through the journe=
y of
acquiring new knowledge thanks to pixton platform. Students are the ones who
feel free to write and develop their own understanding of the language by t=
he
guide of the teacher. Also, students are allowed to use their own words or
ideas with the purpose of taking away the tension and frustration when
developing the writing skill. Pixton has become a well-known strategy and
equipment for teachers due to the fact that it can be a path for students to
grow and evolve with the use of the language (Joneyd
& Deris, 2019). Consequently, teachers and
students will find a new way of acquiring a language which sometimes can ca=
use
fear when using something that can be completely new for teaching and study=
ing
a second language.
Critical thinking also change<=
/span>
when using Pixton. Students are in charge to construct, create and progress
their own understanding of the language by illustrating them into a comic a=
nd
interact tool. In order to demonstrate and improve their understanding indo=
ors
this writing storytelling tool also becomes an important and essential inst=
rument
to be discovered and analyzed. Based on the four skills of the English lang=
uage,
writing gives the impression to be the most difficult part to learn. Writin=
g as
Dahlström (2018) mentions
.is important because its used extensively in
higher education and in the workplace. If students dont know how to express
themselves in writing, they wont be able to communicate well with professo=
rs,
employers, peers, or just about anyone else (p. 3). For this reason, writi=
ng
is also part of this jigsaw of acquiring the language. It has to be taken i=
nto
account in order to make students be part and transform the way of thinking
about writing.
Once students find a new way of acquiring a langua=
ge
and also making them part of it as a whole, they are interested on learning=
and
interact with a second language. That makes teachers find it easier to have=
a
motivation and input among the learning process. Additionally, the teacher =
only
acts as a guide or facilitator during this process where students find
themselves as a true learner of the language. In the English language, the
writing skill has been considered as a frustrating skill to learn and devel=
op for
many years (Eryaman, 2008). Most of the student=
s are
afraid to write because they feel ashamed to give or provide their ideas to
people they may not know. In other words, students construct a barrier betw=
een
them and the reader since they are afraid of knowing that their writing wor=
k is
not good enough for them. What they do not know is that writing is importan=
t in
every situation they might be involved; that is to say on writing reports,
articles, letters, short messages, among others. For this reason, writing i=
s a
narrative skill obtained by a formal education which at the same time is
connected with the reading, listening and speaking skill of the English
language (Graham & Perin, 2007). Moreover,
composing a writing document is part of putting ideas and thoughts together=
in
order to obtain the result expected (Yıldır&=
#305;m,
Demir & Kutlu, 2020).
Another aspect to take into consideration about
writing as Simin and Tavan=
gar
(2009) mention is that Writing is an important communication skill and has=
an
essential role in second language learning process (as cited by Javadi-Safa, 2018, p. 1). Thus, writing have a positi=
ve
impact on a student learning process, they have to be aware of the greatest
opportunities this brings to their own understanding and development of the
English language.
On the other hand, if students are aware of the be=
nefits
that writing could bring to their lives, everything might be much easier and
they focus on this skill as an opportunity to develop and interact with peo=
ple
all around the globe. Writing in English help students and writers to conve=
rt
messages or ideas into real communication being this language as their firs=
t or
second language (Sumarsih & Sanjaya, 2013).=
The
impact that writing has all over the world is huge. Writers can communicate=
and
interact with each other by the use of this skill in a way of practice and =
keeping
the language developing in a satisfactory way (Brown, 2007). Writing is par=
t of
the daily life of a person, it is necessary to have that in mind, so teache=
rs and
students interact and create a worth and entertain communication.
There are several reasons to find weaknesses in the
writing skill when EFL learners perform a writing task. According to Tan (2=
011)
one of them has to deal with the lack of an effective approach to teach wri=
ting,
due to the fact that this skill requires the integration of other skills, s=
uch
as reading or listening. So teachers should pay
attention to the importance of how it is necessary for students to develop
their own way of thinking based on any topic. Second, it would be the fear =
that
students have when they write a short paragraph giving information about th=
emselves.
Teachers need to pay more attention to the process and not only to the prod=
uct
or result while students are learning. Third the unproductive lesson that m=
ost
students need to carry out when learning this skill. Most of the students m=
ight
feel frustrated when something is not clear during class, so students must =
not
be scared to ask in order to have a better understanding of any topic menti=
oned
in class. Forth, the large amount of writing classes that can cause boredom=
to
students. Having their brains active all the time help them have a positive
input. Finally, the disintegration of radios, songs, video games, multimedi=
a,
computers, and movies when teaching; in other words
instruments with different purpose while teaching must be applied (p. 21).<=
/span> There are many
reasons why students do not feel comfortable when learning the writing skil=
l.
Due to this fact, new ways of teaching and making the class interactive is =
by
the use of tools provided by technology. Students and teachers are the ones=
who
provide and learn new techniques that make a better interaction when learni=
ng a
language. Furthermore, teachers must be conscious that everything depends on
the right use of tools in which students feel relaxed and motivated acquiri=
ng
the English language.
=
Methodology=
.
The quantitative approach was applied in order to
analyze the results in this study. Thus, a problem was formulated to know a=
nd
consider the settings of delimitations that can be presented during the stu=
dy. The
data collection was measurable and the results were analyzed over and worked
with statistics.
On the other hand, the research handled a descript=
ive
analysis due to the fact that each variable was analyzed through the litera=
ture
review presented above named as the theorical framework. Additionally, the =
two
variables were identified and presented on a data collection. According to =
Thompson
(2009), a descriptive analysis helps the researcher to measure and compare
results based on a given sample. This analysis helps to compare and determi=
ne how
one sample might vary from a different one with the intention to see
effectiveness in the case study. The researcher had a clear and well-known =
idea
of how the two variables worked along the case study and to identify if the=
re
is any relation between the two variables.
An important and relevant aspect to take into consideration was the
quasi-experimental investigation that was headed by this study. Two groups =
were
conducted and both worked in the same rhythm, with the only difference that=
one
was the control group and the other one the experimental group with the hel=
p of
an intervention plan. At the end of the mediation the results were compared=
and
examined.
The questions on pre-test and post-test used in th=
is
inquiry were taken from the PET Cambridge test a scientific reference to en=
sure
the validity and reliability of these tools. The rubric and the questions w=
ere
modified, reviewed, and approved by the tutor of this investigation.
Forty-eight students were the population of the st=
udy.
They were students from an A2 level from an institute in Ecuador, classes =
F
and J. Being class F the experimental group and class J the control
group. There were twenty-four participants from class F and twenty-four p=
articipants
from class J, both of the groups took the pre-test and post-test, and the
experimental group experienced Pixton, the storytelling tool, using comics =
and
reactions about it. In order to se=
e how
the participants responded to the new tool applied and the effectiveness of=
it,
instruments such as tests (pre and post), writing rubrics and creating comi=
cs are
used. Students were given a pre-test once the case study started. While the
process began with both of the groups different materials such as handouts =
were
applied in order to make students use the platform. Pixton platform was used
twice a week with the experimental group, but for the control group only
handouts and elaborated sheets were given. Students from the experimental g=
roup
reacted in a positive way due to the fact that they liked the use and
interaction of this instrument thanks to the colorful, fun and creative
website. At the end of the process the post-test was applied based on diffe=
rent
aspects considered in the rubric (used in both tests pre and post) to see t=
he
effectiveness of the tool and handouts given.
Based on the importance of the results and taken i=
nto
consideration that it is a significant aspect during and after the research=
Hernández,
Fernández and Baptista (2016) mentioned that a descriptive statistic aims to
describe numbers, results and every single data collected while and during a
case study. Consequently, the pre and post-tests helped to see the average =
of
the results while the process of the study was taken. The results will be
presented through the use of tables which will help the reader understand a=
nd
comprehend in a better way how the impact of the digital tool had among the
students.
Finally, a quantitative research is taken into
consideration due to the fact that it involves a better analysis of the stu=
dy.
Fraenkel, Wallen and Hyun mentions that a quantitative researcher quantita=
tive
data deal primarily with numbers, [
] established widely agreedon general
formulations of steps that guide researchers in their work (p.7). For this
reason, a quantitative research have a tendency =
to be
pre-established dealing with characteristics such as the experimental group=
and
control group. The experimental group emphasizes that the group receives a
treatment such as a new textbook or a different method of teaching, while t=
he
control group receives no treatment or a different treatment (p. 266).
Results.
Table
1.
|
Student |
Ideas |
Organization |
Expression |
Conventions |
Legibility |
Total |
|
A |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
12 |
|
B |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
15 |
|
C |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
D |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
E |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
16 |
|
F |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
G |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
H |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
16 |
|
I |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
13 |
|
J |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
K |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
16 |
|
L |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
M |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
11 |
|
N |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
15 |
|
O |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
14 |
|
P |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
16 |
|
Q |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
9 |
|
R |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
13 |
|
S |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
10 |
|
T |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
U |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
V |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
19 |
|
W |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
12 |
|
X |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
10 |
|
Ⴟ |
3,13 |
2,75 |
2,54 |
2,50 |
3,46 |
14,38 |
Note:
Source: Pre-test control group
Developed by: The author
Table 2. Pre-test experimental group
|
Student |
Ideas |
Organizat=
ion |
Expressio=
n |
Conventio=
ns |
Legibilit=
y |
Total |
|
A |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
15 |
|
B |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
14 |
|
C |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
14 |
|
D |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
13 |
|
E |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
15 |
|
F |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
13 |
|
G |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
13 |
|
H |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
14 |
|
I |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
13 |
|
J |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
K |
4 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
15 |
|
L |
4 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
18 |
|
M |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
15 |
|
N |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
13 |
|
O |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
14 |
|
P |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
Q |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
16 |
|
R |
4 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
16 |
|
S |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
14 |
|
T |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
U |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
9 |
|
V |
4 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
16 |
|
W |
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
17 |
|
X |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
&=
#4287; |
3,08 |
2,92 |
2,50 |
2,63 |
3,79 |
14,92 |
Note:
Source: Pre-test experimental group
Developed by: The author
Table 3. Post-test control group
|
Student |
Ideas |
Organization |
Expression |
Conventions |
Legibility |
Total |
|
A |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
17 |
|
B |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
15 |
|
C |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
D |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
13 |
|
E |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
F |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
G |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
H |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
12 |
|
I |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
16 |
|
J |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
K |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
18 |
|
L |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
M |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
16 |
|
N |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
O |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
P |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
18 |
|
Q |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
16 |
|
R |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
S |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
|
T |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
19 |
|
U |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
18 |
|
V |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
17 |
|
W |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
X |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
Ⴟ |
3,58 |
3,17 |
2,92 |
3,21 |
3,71 |
16,58 |
Note:
Source: Post-test control group
Developed by: The author
Table 4. Post-test experimental group
|
Student |
Ideas |
Organization |
Expression |
Conventions |
Legibility |
Total |
|
A |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
B |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
C |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
D |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
E |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
F |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
G |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
H |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
17 |
|
I |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
20 |
|
J |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
K |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
18 |
|
L |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
20 |
|
M |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
N |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
O |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
P |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
19 |
|
Q |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
R |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
20 |
|
S |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
T |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
20 |
|
U |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
14 |
|
V |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
18 |
|
W |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
X |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
20 |
|
Ⴟ |
3,79 |
3,67 |
3,42 |
3,54 |
3,92 |
18,33 |
Note:
Source: Post-test experimental group
Developed by: The author
The writings exposed by =
the
students of the control group were analyzed thanks to the handouts and
activities given in class in order to see the effectiveness of their work s=
hown
in Table 5.
Table 5. Control Group Results
|
Denomination |
Value |
% |
Observation |
|
Variance |
0,4884 |
48,85% |
|
|
Standard deviation |
0,6989 |
69,89% |
|
|
Variance coefficient |
0,2329 |
23,30% |
|
|
Correlation coefficient - Results |
0,3680 |
36,81% |
Between pre and post-=
test |
|
Correlation coefficient - Medians |
0,9232 |
92,32% |
Between the medians |
|
Correlation coefficient - Global |
0,1877 |
18,78% |
Between the post-test=
s |
Note: The correlation coefficient of the control group between the pre and
post-test is 36, 81% over 100.
Source: Writing rubrics
Developed by: The author
Evidently, the average between the pre and
post-test show a low percent of performance among students who did not use
Pixton as a main tool to interact in class. As a result, the students have a
little progress on their writing skill.
On the other hand, the writings given by t=
he
students of the experimental group show a huge difference thanks to the use=
of
Pixton´s platform as how it is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Experiment=
al Group Results
|
Denomination |
Value |
% |
Observation |
|
Variance |
0,2408 |
24,09% |
|
|
Standard deviation |
0,4908 |
49,08% |
|
|
Variance coefficient |
0,1227 |
12,27% |
|
|
Correlation coefficient - Results=
|
0,7443 |
74,43% |
Between pre and post-=
test |
|
Correlation coefficient - Medians=
|
0,9506 |
95,07% |
Between the medians |
|
Correlation coefficient - Global<=
b> |
0,1877 |
18,78% |
Between the post-test=
s |
Note: The correlation coefficient of the experimental group between the pre
and post-test is 74, 43% over 100.
Source: Writing rubrics
Developed by: The author
Visibly, the average between the pre and
post-test show a higher percent of performance between the students who used
Pixton as a way to practice their writing skill. This tool have
given the change to indicate a huge difference concerning the control group=
.
Table 7. Average comparison between the tests
|
Average results=
|
|
|
Pre-test (control group) |
14,38 |
|
Pre-test (experimental =
group) |
14,92 |
|
Post- test (control group) |
16,58 |
|
Post- test experimental group) |
18,33 |
Source: Writing rubrics=
Developed by: The author
Figure 1. Comparison before and after the tests taken in both groups
Developed by: <=
/span>The author
Once all the results were analyzed from the pre and
post-tests, an average results were taken into
consideration in order to observe how students were able to accomplish the
writing skills throughout different strategies were used among the study. F=
or
instance, the pre-test taken by group F and J showed a similarity level=
of
knowledge in the English language based on the writing skill.
During and after applying Pixton as digital tool
students from both of the groups got a higher average on their results. But=
the
experimental group was the one who had a better enhance of the writing skill
through the use of Pixton. Therefore, Pixton improve students writing skil=
ls.
Conclusions.
ˇ
Students do not feel pressure at =
the
moment of acquiring the language due to the fact that they feel free and
comfortable by using the Pixton platform. Since the platform is eye-catching
for users, students feel relaxed creating stories. Also, teachers have the
opportunity to implement a collaborative work among students.
ˇ
Pixton as a digital storytelling =
tool
can be effective as teaching in a traditional way thanks to the globalizati=
on
and the net. Most children, teenagers and even adults have the ability to
develop, focus and practice in a modern society in which education can be t=
he
first to follow in order to acquire a second language using digital tools.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
ˇ
Being in a well-organized atmosph=
ere gives
teachers the chance to have a positive input among students with the aim to=
persuade
their learning process through the use of Pixton as a digital tool.
References.
Anderson, R., &a=
mp; Dexter,
S. (2000). School Technology Leadership: Incidence and Impact. UC Irvine: Center for Research on
Information Technology and Organizations. https://bit.ly/3p4fYZQ
Asrobi, M., & Prasetyaningrum,
A. (2017). Trait Based Assessment on Teaching Writing Skill for EFL Learner=
s. Canadian Center of Science and Educati=
on, 10(11),
199-203. doi: 10.5539/elt.v=
10n11p199
Brown, D. (2007)=
. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive
Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York, United States: Pears=
on
Education.
Cabrera,
P. et al. (2018). The Impact of Using Pixton for Teaching Grammar and
Vocabulary in the EFL Ecuadorian Context.
The Journal of Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 53-76. h=
ttp://www.tewtjournal.org
Dahl=
ström, H. (2018). Digital writing tools=
from
the student perspective. Access, affordances, and agency. Education and Information Technologies, 24(n.n.), 1563-1581. https://doi.org/10.100=
7/s10639-018-9844-x
Educ=
ation First.
(2020). EF English Proficiency. EF
English Proficiency Index (EF EPI). https://www.ef.com.ec/epi/
Eryaman,
M. (2008). Writing, Method and Hermeneutics: Towards an Existential Pedagog=
y. Elementary Education Online, 7(1),=
2-14.
http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr
Frae=
nkel,
J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2012). How
to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York, United States: =
McGrawHill.
Grah=
am, S.,
& Perin, D. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of Writ=
ing
Instruction for Adolescent Students. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
Hern=
ández,
R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2016). Research Methodology. México: McGraw Hill Education.
Javadi-Safa,
A. (2018). A Brief Overview of Key Issues in Second Language Writing Teachi=
ng
and Research. International Journal=
of
Education & Literacy Studies, 6(2), 15-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.757=
5/aiac.ijels.v.6n.2p.15
Jodaie,
M. (2011). A Comparative Study of EFL Teachers and Intermediate High Schoo=
l Students
Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Errors. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 3=
56-48.
doi:10.5539/elt.v4n4p36
Joneyd, N., & Deris,
F. (2019). Using Student-Generated Web Comics on Pixton as a Tool for Learn=
ing
Shakespearean Drama. International
Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(n.=
n.), 800-803. doi:10.35940/ijrte.B1166.0982S919
Kee,=
C.,
& Samsudin, Z. (2014). Mobile Devices: Toys=
or
Learning Tools for the 21st Century Teenagers. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(3),
107-122. https://bit.ly/3p8YtHV
Kilickaya,
F., & Krajka, J. (2012). Can the Use ff
Web‐Based Comic Strip Creation Tool Facilitate EFL Learners' Grammar =
and
Sentence Writing? British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(6), 161-165. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01298.x
Lee, V. (2013). =
Using Pixton as a Tool in the Classroo=
m. ETEC
510. https://bit.ly/37DN7EH
Mart=
, Ç.
(2013). Teaching Grammar in Context: Why and How? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 124-129. doi:10.=
4304/tpls.3.1.124-129
Mini=
stry of
Education. (2012). Ecuadorian in-se=
rvice
English Teacher Standards-The English Language Learning Standards. http=
s://bit.ly/2WAJ3Qm
Mini=
stry of
Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation-SENESCYT. (2019). Academic Offer of Higher Education
Institutions. https://bit.ly/2J5o6Ke
Nariyati,
N., Sudirman, D., & Pratiwi, N. (2020). EFL
Pre-Service Teachers Perception Toward the use of Mobile Assisted Language
Learning in Teaching English. Inter=
national
Journal of language Education, 4(1), 38-47. doi:
10.26858/ijole.v4i2.10052
Nati=
onal
Institute of Statistics and Census-INEC. (2010). Provincial
Fascicle Chimborazo. https://bit.ly/3rq1e9Q=
O'Sh=
ea, K.
(2011). Pixton. Atlassian Confl=
uence.
https://bit.ly/2WANdaW
Rama=
n, A.,
& Thannimalai, R. (2019). Importance of
Technology Leadership for Technology Integration: Gender and Professional
Development Perspective. SAGE Open,=
1-13.
doi: 10.1177/2158244019893707
Simin,
S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse
Knowledge and Use in Iranian EFL Writing. The
Asian EFL Journal, 11(1), 230-255. https://bit.ly/2KMw8bi
Sumarsih,
M., & Sanjaya, D. (2013). TPS as an Effective Technique to Enhance the
Students Achievement on Writing Descriptive Text. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 106-113. doi:
10.5539/elt.v6n12p106
Tan,=
B.
(2011). Innovating Writing Centers and Online Writing Labs outside North
America. Asian EFL Journal, 13(=
2),
391-418. https://bit.ly/2KLgahD
Thom=
pson, C.
(2009). Descriptive Data Analysis. =
Air
Medical Journal, 28(2), 56-59. doi:
10.1016/j.amj.2008.12.001
Yıldırım, O., Bilican, S., & Kutlu,
O. (2020). Testing the Bidirectional Relationship between Reading and Writi=
ng
Skills. International Journal of
Progressive Education, 16 (3), 253-269. doi:
https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.19
PARA
CITAR EL ARTÍCULO INDEXADO.
Ortiz Orellana , X. G., & Mena Mayorga , J. I. (2021). <=
/span>Pixton<=
/span> as a digital teaching tool to encourage the writi=
ng
skill. Ciencia
Digital, 5(3), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v5i3.1621
El artículo que se publica es de
exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan el
pensamiento de la Revista Ciencia
Digital.
El artículo qu=
eda
en propiedad de la revista y, por tanto, su publicación parcial y/o total en
otro medio tiene que ser autorizado por el director de la Revista Ciencia Digital.
[1] Pontificia Universidad Catól=
ica
del Ecuador Sede Ambato, Maestría en Pedagogía del Inglés como Lengua
Extranjera, Tungurahua, ximena.g.ortiz.o@pucesa.edu.ec, https://orcid.org/0=
000-0002-5384-0746
<=
span
class=3DMsoHyperlink>2 <=
/span>Pontifici=
a Universidad Católica del Ecu=
ador
Sede Ambato, Maestría en Pedagogía del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera,
Tungurahua, jazmin_menamayorga@hotmial.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5073=
-5967
www.cienciadigital.org
Vol. 5, N°3, p. 20-35, julio-septiembr=
e, 20