Organizadores
gráficos para empoderar la enseñanza-aprendizaje de los tiempos gramaticale=
s en
la educación superior
Jazmín Marisol Medina.[1] &=
amp;
Jazmina Ivonne Mena Mayorga.[2]
Recibido:
02-05-2021 / Revisado: 10-05-2021 /Aceptado: 03-06-2021/ Publicado: 05-07-2=
021
Introduction.
Keywords: Keywords: Graphic organiz<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";border:none;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>ers, teaching, learnin=
g,
grammar<=
/span>.
Resumen.
=
Introducción=
. El idioma inglés es una =
asignatura obligatoria en=
la educación primaria, secun=
daria y
superior en Ecuador. Para llegar a ser competente, se necesita u=
n amplio
conocimiento de la gramáti=
ca
porque se considera la columna vertebral de un
idioma. Objet=
ivo. Esta inves=
tigación
tiene como objetivo
implementar organizadores =
gráficos
en el proceso de enseñanza=
-aprendizaje
de los tiempos gramaticale=
s.
Metodología.
Esta investigación se llev=
ó
a cabo en una universidad de Riobamba
con una población objetivo=
de 62 estudiantes de nivel A2. Se realizó
una investigación cuasiexp=
erimental,
con 31 alumnos que formaba=
n
el grupo experimental y el mismo
número de alumnos que el g=
rupo
control. Se aplicó una pru=
eba
previa a ambos grupos para evaluar sus habilidades
gramaticales. Posteriormen=
te,
a ambos grupos se les real=
izó
una prueba posterior para determinar si los
=
Palabras=
clave:=
Organizadores gráficos, <=
span
class=3DSpellE>enseñanza, aprendizaje, <=
span
class=3DSpellE>gramática.
<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times =
New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-farea=
st-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:SI-LK'>Introducción.
According to a recent study on English lev=
el
proficiency, Ecuador has been ranked 81/100 countries with 46.57 and it is
located in the 19/19 position in Latin America. These findings are supporte=
d by
the EF EPI (2019) which demonstrated that Ecuador has a very low level of
language proficiency.
In Ecuador, the English language has not b=
een
seen as a priority because we are a Spanish-speaking country, nonetheless, =
the
advancement of the technological world has required to introduce a new
curriculum in which new policies have been implemented regarding the
teaching-learning process of English. Teachers are required to have a B2 le=
vel
of proficiency to be able to teach in all educational institutions as well =
as
in higher education. Despite all the new policies implemented, there are st=
ill
weaknesses concerning the heart of a foreign language. It is vital to cite =
Foppoli (2018) and his crucial comparison: “without
knowledge of grammar, in the same way as a train cannot move without railwa=
ys,
people won't be able to communicate their ideas without a good mastery of
grammar”.
Universities consider English as a require=
ment
for students to graduate. Riobamba universities are characterized by welcom=
ing
students from different provinces and therefore different economic strata.
Often, students are fluent when speaking although they do not show a good l=
evel
of accuracy and coherence. It might happen due to the lack of grammar
knowledge. According to Garrido & Rosado (2012), m=
issformation
is the use of the wrong form or morpheme or structure. Thus, grammar is
considered essential in any skill domain to avoid misunderstandings. In
addition, Mart (2013) claims that “to establish effective communication,
learners need grammar skills”. Grammar needs to be seen and taught as the f=
ifth
skill of a language for students to master any language.
The majority of higher education students
struggle in master tenses (Ali, 2015).
Even though grammar has been given a special role in early levels,
learners are not conscious of rules and patterns (Rahman & Ali, 2015).
Often, students are fluent when speaking however they do not show a good le=
vel
of accuracy and coherence. Therefore, the problem arises because of the lac=
k of
grammar knowledge they experiment at higher levels. In fact, various causes=
are
addressing the poor performance of it. Traditional teachers supply difficult
rules and constraints with several amounts of information that is hard to
concise, process, and understand (Dahbi, 2014).
Moreover, the grammatical misunderstandings and the wrong use of patterns m=
ake
learners produce errors in morpheme and sentence structure (Garrido &
Rosado, 2012). From the learners’ perspective, grammar is seen as a monster
that constantly presses them to follow each rule and pattern carefully, if =
it
is not so, they will be punished with low scores. Thus, they feel overwhelm=
ed
and argue that grammar knowledge is not necessary to learn in English since
they believe it is bored and not interesting (Mammadov=
a,
2019).
Graphic Organizers
According to (Ellis & Howard, 2005)
graphic organizers are pictorial devices that illustrate information in
different ways of representations. Often, those representations include a s=
et
of shapes, lines, and boxes to generate images with structured information.
Similarly, Drapeau (1999) as cited in Dahbi (20=
14)
adds “a graphic organizer is a visual and graphic display that depicts the
relationships between facts, terms, and or ideas within a learning task.” (=
p.
37). Therefore, the use of graphic organizers helps students consolidate a =
vast
amount of information into comprehensible language within minimum time (
Ciascai
(2009) presents some functions to spell the efficiency of graphic organizer=
s to
teach as well as to learn. He states the following: “clarifying knowledge a=
nd
reasoning”, “strengthening the learning process”, “int=
egrationing
the new knowledge in the prior knowledge system”, and “identificating
the conceptual errors (and missconceptions [sic=
])”
(par. 1). As we can see, visual maps can empower and promote students'
reasoning and innovative teaching strategies.
Graphic organizers as a teaching-learning =
tool
helps students to express knowledge, concepts, thoughts, and their associat=
ions
(Ghanizadeh, Al-Hoorie,
& Jahedizadeh, 2020). Most of the time, stu=
dents
are given too much semantic information to process and understand. One reas=
on
may be that teachers provide disorganized information which is demanding to
comprehend. Based on that assumption, learners argue that grammar is uninte=
rested
and not necessary to learn in English. For that reason, Ratnakar (2017)
highlights the importance of graphic organizers because students can “conve=
rt
and compress a lot of seemingly disjointed information into a structured,
simple-to-read, graphic display. The resulting visual display conveys compl=
ex
information in a simple-to-understand manner.” (p. 4531) Among several tools to teach grammar, grap=
hic
organizers are flexible and differ from traditional grammar teaching. They =
are
used for different purposes because they can be adapted for any activity
teachers or students require to be used. Undoubtedly, students will be able=
to
keep information organized, recognize relationships regarding concepts, ide=
as,
and examples (Vargas & Zuñiga, 2018). Just =
as (Krasnic, 2011) cited in (Kans=
05;zoğlu,
2017) assumes the brain represents all that difficult information into
graphical organization devices, so they can comprehend, find solutions, make
decisions, and meet the expected results. To implement graphic organizers is a proce=
ss
that requires teachers and students’ effort and collaboration. Hence, to be
successful when constructing these visual representations, it is necessary =
to
cite clear guidelines. According to Vargas & Zuñig=
a
(2018), the role of the teacher is guiding learners by giving instructions =
of
highlighting the most relevant ideas, the input has to be noticeable through
the use of graphic organizers, to establish connections between previous and
new knowledge, and to take advantage of the text in order to make it
understandable. Thus, teachers must make comprehensible for learners on how=
to
build effective graphic maps in order to represent lots of information into
core ideas. Learners can encounter many benefits when
using graphic organizers also known as visual maps. Thinking and creativity=
are
joined together to create meaningful representations of vast amounts of tex=
t (Kansızoğlu, 2017). Additionally, (Delrose, 2011) emphasizes that information is present=
ed in
a fluid simple way which helps to overcome cognitive load by categorizing a=
ll
information sources in just one place. In effect, Dahb=
i
(2014) in his study reports that graphic organizers help students to learn
longer and more efficiently. Therefore, students can remember more main ide=
as
when they are represented visually than in a simple text (Salazar &
“The use of this tool brings excitement and
enthusiasm toward learning” Dahbi (2014). Altho=
ugh
learners can choose and use many shapes and ways of representing graphic
organizers, there are rules to consider. Regarding this assumption, (Delrose, 2011) suggests some important aspects to be
considered when creating these tools. Firstly, students have to be conscious
about coherence. Secondly, the lack of familiarity with the format of
organizers resulting in student’s frustration.
Finally, incoherent sets of graphic organizers could cause confusion=
and
disorganization (Baxendell, 2003; Ellis & H=
oward,
2005) cited in (Delrose, 2011). Thus, a systema=
tic
implementation of these pictorial devices must be considered inside and out=
side
the classroom.
To sum up, Mercuri
(2011) states some clear purposes for teachers and stu=
dents´implementation
of graphic organizers. First, graphic organizers support the teaching and
learning of grammar because they are powerful and manageable tools. Second,
graphic organizers help the students to sum up, organize, categorize, and m=
eet
meaning from texts. Third, graphic organizers enhance the comprehension of
grammar by assessing students’ prior knowledge and promoting written and or=
al
participation. Fourth, teachers play an important role to assess ongoing
learning and modeling instruction to encounter students’ needs. In essence,
graphic organizers empower the teaching learning process of grammar tenses.=
Grammar Component
“A legendary monger scares learners of
English”. This is how (Baron, 1982, p. 226) cited in (Al-Mekhlafi
& Nagaratnam, 2011) calls grammar. When stu=
dents
listen to the word “grammar” or when someone corrects them a piece of writi=
ng
or any speech, they feel uncomfortable. They think they are making mistakes=
, so
they feel ashamed. Most of the time students do not participate actively in
class when they are asked to because they do not manage even basic grammati=
cal
patterns.
Grammar is the backbone of a language, it =
is a
system that contains rules, restrictions, and patterns. Ratnakar (2017) sta=
tes
that each language has a cycle, it is said; it has evolved through the year=
s.
There is a controversial question regarding this skill, is the learning of
grammar necessary to master a language? The answer would probably be no. Ju=
st
as children learn a language by making sounds, then they produce words and
phrases. They do not know the word grammar. However, when they want to lear=
n a
second language, the answer is yes because they need to know grammatical
patterns to be fluent and accurate.
It is important to emphasize some challeng=
es
teachers and learners of English have to encompass in higher education.
Mastering a language is not easy without the knowledge of grammar. In his
study, Kelly (2018) presents some mastering lexical aspects and the focus on
academic writing issues. He states some issues that have to do with the cur=
rent
situation in Ecuador. He argues that teachers are balky to implement some
strategies on teaching grammar; the traditional teaching is comfortable for
teachers and learners as well.
In addition, Al-Mekhl=
afi
& Nagaratnam (2011) points out grammar as a
“linguistic straitjacket” (p. 71). They assume that this skill must give
students freedom and motivation to be able to communicate their ideas
accurately. Most students have had different teachers and of course they ha=
ve
acquired different schemata regarding structures, lexical words, adjectives,
adverbs, and so on. However, Chen & Jones (2012) argue that learners ne=
ed
enough exposure to the grammar otherwise, they will not be able to learn
effectively. Thus, it must be seen as a skill that let learners discover ra=
ther
than keep the knowledge down.
There are diverse ideas regarding grammar =
and
its teaching and learning process. According to what students say, grammar =
is not
motivational. Furthermore, Jean & Simard (2011) point out a triangulati=
on
among teachers, learners, and grammar instruction. This shape displays they=
are
working almost on the same rail. Despite this, students often accept gramma=
r as
essential. However, it is crucial to highlight the idea that grammar
instruction does not grab students’ attention because it is considered not
funny. If learning is fun, students attempt to practice it and they remember
the grammatical patterns.
Grammar instruction is necessary when lear=
ning
a new language. It would be better if this skill is learned into an organiz=
ed
and precise way. The use of graphic organizers contributes to the learning
process of English. The idea to be taken is that grammar is an important sk=
ill
to learn in a second language faster and effectively (=
Varade,
2017). Besides, there is a big range of graphic organizers that could help =
to
support mastering tenses. Therefore, this study explains how the two variab=
les
joint together to generate a well-done product.
Metodologi=
a.
The study foll=
owed
a quasi-experimental design which is well recognized by researchers around =
the
world due to its adaptability for every methodological field. According to
Thyer (2012), the objective of this design is to compare the results of the
group of study (the one that receives a treatment) to one or more groups th=
at
are given or not an alternative treatment. Similarly, in this research, two
groups were chosen to be evaluated and compared; the one called “the
experimental group” received a treatment to improve its manageability of the
grammatical patterns, and the control group was given a conventional grammar
teaching.
In addition, t=
his
study is considered descriptive because the dependent and independent varia=
bles
were depicted in the theoretical framework. Nassaji
2015 argues “The goal of descriptive research is to describe a phenomenon a=
nd
its characteristics” (p. 129). Because of that, the variables stated a clear
view of the factors that influenced this study. The author concludes that t=
his
kind of research focuses essentially on what the phenomenon is rather than =
on
some other factors such as why or how. It means that the definitions help t=
he
readers to have a deep knowledge of the study direction.
This inquiry t=
ook
place at a university with a target population of 62 A2 level students of
different provinces because this university welcomes them from all around t=
he
country. The participants were males and females distributed in two levels =
of
31 students by the university administration. Level “K” was the control gro=
up
and those in “B” were assigned to be the experimental group. In the beginni=
ng,
a pre-test containing 20 questions about different grammatical patterns was
applied to both groups to evaluate their grammar skills.
Once the treat=
ment
started, the experimental group was taught some grammatical patterns through
the use of a series of graphic organizers. Consequently, they learned how to
build them and also established relationships between their cognition and t=
he
graphical representations they had over texts. Thus, the students reacted
positively to the pictorial devices shown with the grammar subjected to the=
ir
study. On the other hand, the control group didn’t receive treatment because
they were given explanations complemented with examples and worksheets, too.
Both processes were carried out two days a week for two months. After apply=
ing
the intervention plan, the groups were given a post-test to state if the
graphic organizers implemented made any improvement on the students’ perfor=
mance
regarding grammar tenses.
The quantitati=
ve
method was finally used to analyze the numerical data by applying statistic=
al
procedures to get the results. According to Apuke
(2017), the data to be considered quantitative must be based on accurate
information of responses, interviews, participants, and so on. Those data a=
re
validated through the data collection instruments such as surveys to test t=
he
hypothesis of the research study.
Re=
sultados.
Table 1. Prete=
st,
control group
|
Students |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
P11 |
P12 |
P13 |
P14 |
P15 |
P16 |
P17 |
P18 |
P19 |
P20 |
Average |
|
S 1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
|
S 5 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
|
S 6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
18 |
|
S 7 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
S 8 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
S 9 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
|
S 10 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
S 11 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
|
S 12 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 13 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
|
S 14 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 15 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
S 16 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
17 |
|
S 17 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
17 |
|
S 18 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
12 |
|
S 19 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
S 20 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 21 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
|
S 22 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 23 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
|
S 24 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
13 |
|
S 25 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
13 |
|
S 26 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 27 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 28 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
18 |
|
S 29 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
19 |
|
S 30 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
x̄ |
0,57 |
0,80 |
0,76 |
0,37 |
0,72 |
0,77 |
0,90 |
0,87 |
0,87 |
0,77 |
0,43 |
0,67 |
0,77 |
0,50 |
0,57 |
0,83 |
0,47 |
0,57 |
0,67 |
0,27 |
13,11 |
Note: The pretest average of the control group is 13, 11 over 20.
Source: Pretest control group
Developed by: The invest=
igation
group
Table 2. Pretest, experimental group
|
Students<=
/span> |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
P11 |
P12 |
P13 |
P14 |
P15 |
P16 |
P17 |
P18 |
P19 |
P20 |
Average |
|
S 1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
|
S 2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
18 |
|
S 3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
S 4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
|
S 5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
11 |
|
S 6 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
18 |
|
S 8 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 9 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
|
S 10 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 11 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
12 |
|
S 12 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
13 |
|
S 13 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
14 |
|
S 14 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 15 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
16 |
|
S 16 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 17 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
14 |
|
S 18 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 19 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
16 |
|
S 20 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
19 |
|
S 21 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
S 22 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
|
S 23 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
18 |
|
S 24 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
12 |
|
S 25 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
|
S 26 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
9 |
|
S 27 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
11 |
|
S 28 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 29 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
|
S 30 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
|
x̄ |
0,63 |
0,90 |
0,87 |
0,20 |
0,80 |
0,57 |
0,80 |
0,97 |
0,80 |
0,77 |
0,43 |
0,60 |
0,90 |
0,50 |
0,50 |
0,80 |
0,47 |
0,73 |
0,73 |
0,27 |
13,23 |
Note:
Source: Pretest experimental group
Developed by: The investig=
ation
group
Table 3. P=
ostest,
control group
|
Students |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
P11 |
P12 |
P13 |
P14 |
P15 |
P16 |
P17 |
P18 |
P19 |
P20 |
Average |
|
S 1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
|
S 2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
S 3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
S 4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
19 |
|
S 5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
S 6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
18 |
|
S 7 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
|
S 8 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
11 |
|
S 9 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
|
S 10 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
|
S 11 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 12 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
11 |
|
S 13 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
|
S 14 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
17 |
|
S 15 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
|
S 16 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
|
S 17 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
17 |
|
S 18 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
14 |
|
S 19 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 20 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
11 |
|
S 21 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
12 |
|
S 22 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
13 |
|
S 23 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
18 |
|
S 24 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
|
S 25 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
15 |
|
S 26 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
|
S 27 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
|
S 28 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
15 |
|
S 29 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
11 |
|
S 30 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
|
x̄ |
0,57 |
0,77 |
0,57 |
0,80 |
0,67 |
0,73 |
0,50 |
0,77 |
0,73 |
0,80 |
0,70 |
0,63 |
0,47 |
0,70 |
0,60 |
0,90 |
0,33 |
0,80 |
0,60 |
0,60 |
13,23 |
Note:
Source: Postest control group =
Developed by: The investig=
ation
group
Table 4. P=
ostest,
experimental group
|
Students |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
P11 |
P12 |
P13 |
P14 |
P15 |
P16 |
P17 |
P18 |
P19 |
P20 |
Average |
|
S 1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
16 |
|
S 2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
|
S 3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
|
S 4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
14 |
|
S 5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
12 |
|
S 6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
|
S 7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
|
S 8 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
|
S 9 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
|
S 10 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
|
S 11 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 12 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
S 13 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 14 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
S 15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
9 |
|
S 16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
S 17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
S 18 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
18 |
|
S 19 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
16 |
|
S 20 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
S 21 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
14 |
|
S 22 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
18 |
|
S 23 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
|
S 24 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
18 |
|
S 25 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
12 |
|
S 26 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
S 27 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
|
S 28 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
|
S 29 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
14 |
|
S 30 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
19 |
|
x̄ |
0,50 |
0,77 |
0,5 |
0,73 |
0,70 |
0,73 |
0,63 |
0,60 |
0,87 |
0,83 |
0,67 |
0,67 |
0,70 |
0,90 |
0,73 |
0,90 |
0,67 |
0,73 |
0,63 |
0,57 |
14,07 |
Note:
Source: Postest experimental group
Developed by: The investig=
ation
group
With regard to the control
group test, the data obtained were analyzed through statistical methods to =
get
some denominations. The results are presented in =
table 5.
Table 5. Control group findings
|
Denomination |
Value |
% |
Observation |
|
Variance<=
/span> |
0,224=
2 |
22,42=
|
|
|
Standard deviation |
0,473=
5 |
47,35=
|
|
|
Variance<=
/span> coefficient
|
0,473=
5 |
47,35=
|
|
|
Correlati=
on coefficient
– Results |
0,027=
9 |
2,79<=
/span> |
Between pre and post-=
test |
|
Correlati=
on coefficient
– Medians |
0,170=
5 |
17,05=
|
Between the medians |
|
Correlati=
on coefficient
– Global |
0,139=
9 |
13,99=
|
Between the post-tests |
Note: The correlation coefficient of the control group between the pre and=
the
post-test is 2,79 over 100.
Source: Postest control group
Developed =
by: The investigation group
This suggests that the corr=
elation
coefficient is 2,79 and thus the range of mastery of grammar tenses shows a=
low
performance among the pre and post tests. The
students didn’t progress as much as required.
After examining the postest results of the experimental group, some stati=
stical
denominations were obtained to compare both groups. The findings are presen=
ted
in table 6.
Table 6. Experimental group findings
|
Denominat=
ion |
Value |
% |
Observati=
on |
|
Variance |
0,209=
0 |
20,90=
|
|
|
Standard deviation |
0,457=
2 |
45,72=
|
|
|
Variance coefficient |
0,457=
2 |
45,72=
|
|
|
Correlation coefficient - Re=
sults |
0,046=
1 |
4,61<=
/span> |
Between pre and post-=
test |
|
Correlation coefficient - Me=
dians |
0,049=
1 |
4,91<=
/span> |
Between the medians |
|
Correlation coefficient - Global |
0,139=
9 |
13,99=
|
Between the post-tests |
Note: The correlation coefficient of the experimental group between the pre
and the post-test is 4,61 over 100.
Source: Postest experimental group
Developed by: The investig=
ation
group
Evidently, the
range of the correlation coefficient goes up, being this 4,61. Consequently,
the students who were given the treatment enhanced their mastery of grammar
tenses obtaining a %1.82 of improving over the control group.
Table 7. Pretests and postests total averages
|
Total |
|
|
Pre test con=
trol
group |
13,11 |
|
Pre test
experimental group |
13,23 |
|
|
13,23 |
|
|
14,07 |
Source: Pretests and postests of the
control and experimental groups.
Developed by: The investig=
ation
group
<= o:p>
Figure 1. <=
/span>Total Average of both gro=
ups
tests
Developed by: The investigation group
Being
the pretest and posttest analyzed, the results were placed into a total
averages table. In the final analysis, making a comparison, it is establish=
ed
that the control and experimental group started with a similar average of t=
he
test results. On the other hand, there is an improvement in both groups aft=
er
implementing the treatment with the experimental group. However, it is
important to highlight that the posttest average of the experimental group =
had
increased in a range of 0,84 over the postest o=
f the
control group.
Therefore,
it is notable that the implementation of graphic organizers can help studen=
ts
to improve the knowledge of grammar skills over grammatical teaching with
excessive amounts of texts.
Conclusiones.
·
The post-test findings demonstrat=
ed
that the competence of the experimental group had enhanced after implementi=
ng
graphic organizers. With these tools implemented, the level of the acquisit=
ion
was higher than using isolated texts or bits of information.
·
Students were able to structure
different types of graphic organizers that helped them to clear up their id=
eas
and to establish better relationships between graphical and cognitive deman=
ds.
· Graphic organizers are effective tools in the process of organizing and constructing knowledge. They reduced= the anxiety and pressure students felt when processing vast amounts of informat= ion. Besides, the grammatical information represented visually could help studen= ts to remember all the patterns, rules, and restrictions easily. To sum up, graphic organizers will contribute positively to master grammar patterns. <= o:p>
Referencias bibliográficas.
Apuke, O. (2017). Quantitative Re=
search
Methods: A Synopsis Approach. Arabi=
an
Journal of Business and Management Review, 6(11), 40-47.
https://doi.org/10.12816/0040336
Ciascai, L. (2009). Using Graphic
Organizers in Intercultural Education. Acta Didácti=
ca
Napocensia, 2(1), 10-18.
Chen, H. & J=
ones, P.
(2012). Understanding metalinguistic development in beginning writers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and
Professional Practice, 9 (1), 81-104.
Dahbi, M. (2014). Implementing Graphic Organisers
to Teach Grammar to Moroccan Second Year Baccalaureate Students: an Action Research Project. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education, 4(5=
),
37-42. https://bit.ly/3cFrsyB
Delrose, L. (2011). Investigating=
the
use of graphic organizers for writing. LSU Master's Thesis=
.
2537. https://bit.ly/37CKxyS
EF EPI. (2019).
Índice EF de nivel de inglés Una clasificación de 100 países y regiones en
función de su nivel de inglés. EF.
https://bit.ly/30MyT1b
Ellis, E., & Howard, P. (2005). Graphic organizers: Power tools =
for teach-ing students with learning disabilities. Graphic Organizers and Learning Disabil=
ities
1, 1-5.
Foppoli, J. (2018). Is Grammar Really Important for a Sec=
ond
Language Learner? - Eslbase.com.
Garrido, C., &=
amp;
Rosado, C. (2012). Errors in the use of English tenses. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y
cultura, 17(3), 285-296=
.
Jean, G., & =
Simard, D. (2011). Grammar Teaching and Learning in L2: Nece=
ssary,
but Boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01143.x
Kansızoğlu, H. (2017). The Effect=
of
Graphic Organizers on Language Teaching and Learning Areas: A Meta-Analysis
Study. TED EĞİTİM VE BİLİM, 42(191),
139-164. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2017.6777
Kelly, Andrew.
(2018). A place for teaching grammar? Analysing
challenges in developing grammatical knowledge for ESL and non-traditional
students at university. Journal of
Language Teaching and Learning. 8. 71-85.
Mammadova, T. (2019). Teaching Grammar to a Grammar-Free
Generation (Cambridge Scholar Publi=
shing
ed.).
Mart, Ç. T.
(2013). Teaching grammar in context: Why and how? Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 3(1), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.124-129
Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative a=
nd
descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching
Research, 19(2), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
Rahman, M., &=
; Ali,
M. (2015b). Problems in Mastering English Tense and Aspect and the Role of =
the
Practitioners. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And
Social Science, 20(4), 131-135. <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN=
-US;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2041=
131135
Thyer=
, B.
(2012). Quasi-Experimental Research Designs. Oxford Scholarship, 1-2=
16.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387384.001.0001
Varade, G. (2017). Make grammar fu=
n using
graphic organizers. Scholarly Research Journal, 4, 4530-4533.=
PARA
CITAR EL ARTÍCULO INDEXADO.
Medina, J. M.,
& Mena Mayorga, J. I. (2021). Graphic organizers to empower the teaching-learning process of gramm=
ar
tenses in higher education . Ciencia
Digital, 5(3), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v5i3.1730}
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, Ambato, Ecuador, email =
jazmin.medina@pucesa.edu.ec, https://orcid.org/0000-0002=
-2434-0806
[2] Pontificia Universidad Catól=
ica
del Ecuador – Sede Ambato, Maestría en Pedagogía del Inglés como Lengua
Extranjera, Tungurahua, jazmin_menam=
ayorga@hotmial.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5073-5967
www.cienciadigital.org
=
Vol. 5, N°3, p. 6-19, julio-septiembre, 20