Enfoque comunicativo de enseńanza del lenguaje para el
desarrollo de la habilidad del habla
Nataly
Giovanna Oviedo Guado. [1] &=
amp;
Jazmina Ivonne Mena Mayorga. 2
Recibido:
09-08-2021 / Revisado: 19-08-2021 /Aceptado: 06-09-2021/ Publicado: 05-10-2=
021
Introduction. Oral
communication is perhaps the most important skill while learning a foreign
language. The conventional English teaching method that is applied at the
different educational levels based on grammar and writing, does not allow t=
he
development of the necessary communication skills. The communicative teachi=
ng
of language has been the subject of this research, in which its effectivene=
ss
has been treated using different resources and skills. Objective. This research aims to apply communicative language
teaching activities to determine its effectiveness in the development of the
speaking skill, in the second-year of Bachelor Educat=
ion in a secondary institution in Riobamba, Ecuador. Methodology. A field, descriptive, prospective, longitudinal,
quasi-experimental and quantitative research was carried out. The universe =
was
made up of 94 students at that level. The sample equivalent to the universe=
was
organized into two groups, one experimental and one control, with 47 studen=
ts
each. A diagnostic examination and a final test were applied for both group=
s,
which during the time between both tests, followed different teaching-learn=
ing
approaches. In the control group the traditional method was applied and in =
the
experimental group, the communicative approach to language teaching. Results. The results showed that
although both groups improved their performance in speaking, in the
experimental group the increase in speaking ability was greater than in the
control group. Conclusion. It =
was
concluded that the application of communicative language teaching activities
was effective in development of the speaking skill.
Resumen.
Introducción.
La comunicación oral es quizás la habilidad más importante al aprender una
lengua extranjera. El método convencional de enseńanza del inglés que se
utiliza en los niveles educacionales, basado en la gramática y la escritura=
no
permite el desarrollo de las habilidades comunicativas necesarias. La enseń=
anza
comunicativa del lenguaje ha sido objeto de investigaciones, en las que se =
ha
tratado su eficacia mediante el uso de diferentes recursos y habilidades. Objetivo. Esta investigación tien=
e como
objetivo aplicar las actividades de la enseńanza comunicativa del lenguaje =
para
determinar su efectividad en el desarrollo de la habilidad del habla en
estudiantes de segundo ańo de bachillerato de la Unidad Educativa Salesiana
Santo Tomás Apóstol, en Riobamba, Ecuador. Metodología. Se realizó una investigación de campo, descriptiva,
prospectiva, longitudinal, cuasi experimental y cuantitativa. El universo
estuvo conformado por los 94 estudiantes de ese nivel. La muestra equivalen=
te
al universo, se organizó en dos grupos, uno experimental y otro de control,=
con
47 estudiantes cada uno. Se apl=
icó
un examen diagnóstico inicial y una prueba final para ambos grupos, que durante el tiempo entre ambos test, siguieron enfo=
ques
de enseńanza aprendizaje diferentes. En el grupo de contr=
ol
se aplicó el método tradicional y en el grupo experimental, el enfoque
comunicativo de enseńanza del lenguaje. Resultados.
Los resultados mostraron que aunque ambos grupos
mejoraron su desempeńo en la expresión oral, en el grupo experimental el
incremento de la habilidad del habla fue mayor que para el grupo de control=
. Conclusión. Se llegó a la conclus=
ión de
que las actividades interactivas aplicadas, como los diálogos, los juegos de
roles y el intercambio de información, fueron efectivas para desarrollar la
destreza en el habla de los estudiantes.
Palabras claves:
enseńanza de la lengua, metodologías activas de enseńanza, evaluación de
habilidades comunicativas, aprendizaje colaborativo, competencia comunicati=
va.
Introduction.
The globalization process has influenced all aspects of society in=
the
world (Chávez et al., 2017). Learning a second language is necessary not only for daily live situations but also=
to
improve professionally (Veloz & Mancero, 2017), (Chávez et al., 2017). English is the universal language, and it is learned by people a=
ll
over the world (Veloz & Mancero, 2017). It is considered lingua franca because it is present in most of
the literature and audiovisual materials in the world (Aristizabal et al., 2020), (Chávez et al., 2017). That is why it is necessary to take advantage of the teaching at=
all
educational levels to achieve the English learning in an integral way. Also,
for the development of the four basic skills: reading, writing, listening a=
nd
speaking (Veloz & Mancero, 2017).
Althou=
gh
the Ministry of Education in Ecuador established by a resolution in 2014 the
study of English from the second grade of Basic General Education to the th=
ird
year of Bachelor Education and the State has allocated resources to improve=
the
way of teaching English through training and educational programs for teach=
ers,
learning does not reach the desired levels (Barrera & Barragán, 2017), (Fabre et al., 2016), (Sánchez & Pérez, 2020). In 2016, the English curriculum was refined considering the
communicative teaching approach as its main aspect (Toro et al., 2019).
The Co=
mmon
European Framework of Reference (CEFR), which emerged in 2002, unified the =
way
of organizing teaching to achieve communication in English for students in =
the
region and it has been adopted as valid in other parts of the world =
(Castro et al., 2016). It established six levels of learning, indicated with the letter=
s A
(elementary level) B (intermediate level) and C (advanced level) and stages=
1
and 2 for each one (Castro et al., 2016).
Howeve=
r,
most of the teachers in Ecuador do not have the necessary language skills
established by the B2 level (Castro et al., 2016), (Barrera & Barragán, 2017). There is no national strategy to teach English (Castro et al., 2016), (Toro et al., 2019). The approach applied is based on the study of grammar, writing a=
nd
reading comprehension, so students do not feel motivated and do not acquire
enough oral and listening skills (Loor et al., 2018),
It is known that human beings are prepared to speak before they le=
arn
to read or write, but oral expression is the most difficult skill to acquir=
e,
once they have passed childhood and the language of origin has been learned=
(Leong & Masoumeh, 2017), (Toro et al., 2019). This is also due to the =
low
levels of development of this skill at schools. Students feel more confident
when reading or writing but speaking is difficult for them, since teachers =
do
not apply strategies to create these skills (Toro et al., 2019). However, if someone is =
not
able to speak, it is considered that they do not have command of the langua=
ge (Farabi et al., 2017).
It is
necessary to modify the approaches and strategies applied in teaching (Castro et al., 2016). Teachers, in addition to training, must use innovative ways that=
put
into practice methods that allow students to understand, interact and achie=
ve
the curriculum standards established in English programs in Ecuador =
(Castro et al., 2016), (Fabre et al., 2016), (Sánchez & Pérez, 2020). The communicative approach, which emerged since the 70s of the l=
ast
century, is the way of teaching the language that has predominated for the =
last
30 years in the world and it is proposed as an effective way for the
development of communication skills in students (Abreus & Haro, 2019), (Castro et al., 2016), (Carrera & Saulo, 2015).
The
Salesian Educational Unit "Santo Tomás Apóstol"
in Riobamba, is not an exception in Ecuador. Although students have received
English as a subject in previous years, most of them do not use English in a
conversation in the class and they prefer to do it in Spanish for several
reasons: inhibition, embarrassment, lack of knowledge or interest in the to=
pic,
insufficient vocabulary, too many students in the class group and comfort to
speak the mother tongue (Leong & Masoumeh, 2017). The teacher must take them into account to work consciously. In =
the
last four years, the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approa=
ch
has been applied in this educational center, using Cambridge materials. This
approach has two objectives, learning the language and acquiring knowledge =
and
culture about the matters that are used to classes support (Reyes et al., 2020)<=
!--[if supportFields]>. CLIL is considered as one of the most effective in the developme=
nt
communicative skills (Pinto, 2019). Although it can be more motivating for the student than the
traditional method, it requires an accurate methodology from the teacher so
that the language serves as a vehicle for content, which is not always achi=
eved
(Halbach, 2019). Consequently, students continue without developing the necessary
communication skills.
But th=
ere
is motivation on the part of some teachers and students to implement differ=
ent
forms of teaching English that promote oral expression. That is why it is necessary to try another approach that takes advan=
tage
of the motivation that exists in learners and teachers for the development =
of
this skill. With the hypothesis that the application of the Communicative
Language Teaching approach can be an effective tool in the development of speech skills in high
school students, a research was carried out.
The rese=
arch
aims to apply the Communicative Language Teaching activities in the
development of the speaking skill in second-year students in Bachelor
Education at the Salesian Educational Unit "Santo Tomás Apóstol." Specif=
ically,
the research aims to define
the Communicative language teaching approach and the speaking skills, to determinate the
effectiveness of Communicative Language Teaching activities in the developm=
ent
of the speaking skills and to
identify if students response towards communicative language teaching
activities is favorable.
Theorical Framework
Commun=
ication
is the process by which ideas are sent and received (Parrales et al., 2018). In the communicative approach, it takes special importance since
communication, together with the activity that emerges from it, is the basi=
s of
the teaching-learning process (Castro-Miranda et al., 2018=
). Communication is language (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Langu=
age
skills are the ways in which the use of language manifests itself and are t=
he
four basic abilities.
Commun=
icative
language teaching (CLT) is the whole of principles and objectives to allow
learning language using the classroom activities that best facilitate the
development of the communicative competence (Richards, 2006)
Commun=
icative
competence is the ability to transmit coherent and organized oral and writt=
en
information (Almanza et al., 2019). Speaking skill is the communicative process of exchanging ideas and feelings in a given context and in such a way
that they are understood (Beltrán, 2018)
Richards
proposes several types of activities that allow the development of sub-skil=
ls (Richards, 2006)
For thes=
e,
students can be organized into two groups, each with a part of the informat=
ion,
so that they have to interact with each other to obtain the information they
need. In information-gathering activities, students conduct interviews, sur=
vey
and search for information. The
opinion-sharing activities, aims to make judges and analysis about a subjec=
t.
Task-completion activities consist on completing information. All these typ=
es
of activities develop the four basic skills and involves an effort from the
student to produce the language in real contexts (Quińonez, 2016).
The
communicative competence must be used to different purposes and functions at
formal and informal situations in a real context (Richards, 2006)
Table 1 shows a compar=
ison between Traditional method and Communicative language teaching
regarding the main learning objectives and other differences.
Table =
1. Tradit=
ional
and Communicative language teaching approaches differences.
Developed by: The
author (based on information obtained from Communicative
Language Teaching Today, by Richards, J.)
Communicative approach, due to its
particularities, results more motivating for the students than Traditional
method, hence the learning is facilitated (Beltrán, 2018)
The ro=
les
of teacher and learner change regarding to the traditional method =
ADDIN
CSL_CITATION
{"citationItems":[{"id":"ITEM-1","itemDa=
ta":{"ISBN":"9780521925129","author":[{&=
quot;dropping-particle":"","family":"Richards=
","given":"J.","non-dropping-particle":&=
quot;","parse-names":false,"suffix":""}]=
,"id":"ITEM-1","issued":{"date-parts&quo=
t;:[["2006"]]},"publisher":"Cambridge
University Press","title":"Communicative language teach=
ing
today","type":"book"},"uris":["http=
://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=3De07fc0fc-05fa-48d2-9730-26c748cbd34f&=
quot;]}],"mendeley":{"formattedCitation":"(Richard=
s,
2006)","plainTextFormattedCitation":"(Richards,
2006)","previouslyFormattedCitation":"(Richards,
2006)"},"properties":{"noteIndex":0},"schema&=
quot;:"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/cs=
l-citation.json"}(Richards, 2006)
Commun=
icative
approach uses several learning methods, among which are cooperative and
task-based (Quińonez, 2016), (Nofuentes, 2019). Some authors call the union of these methods an eclectic approac=
h (Fuertes, 2017). They must be supported =
by
appropriate and well-selected instructional materials (Richards, 2006). Its effective application depends on the practice of three
principles: communication, associated with the development of specific task=
s or
roles, in contexts of interest and with meaning for the learner (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).
Cooper=
ative
learning is an innovative mode that adapts to this approach, since it is ba=
sed
on the creation of collective knowledge, through multidirectional communica=
tive
interaction between students and with the teacher (Loor et al., 2018). This increases the opportunity for each student to put their
communication skills into practice, so the participation of everyone in the
classroom should be encouraged, as the best place to express themselves in =
the
language (Beltrán, 2017), (Escalona et al., 2020). But it also considers independent and individual study as an
important and necessary part of learning (Carrera & Saulo, 2015).
Simila=
rly,
task-based learning is another way to favor exchange and communication, as =
it
involves the student in class discussions, role-playing and others. It aros=
e in
the 80s of the 20th century, as a branch of the communicative approach and =
it
is based on a succession of tasks about a specific topic (Nofuentes, 2019). Tasks are classified as
real-world and pedagogical (Richards, 2006). The real-world tasks are associated with interactive activities =
and
the pedagogical tasks have to do with the ways in which the content learning
mode is produced (Arcila & Velazco, 2016).
=
Methodology=
.
Research, universe and sample.
Betwee=
n September 2020 =
and
March 2021, a field, descriptive, prospective, longitudinal, quasi-experime=
ntal
and quantitative research was developed. That is =
why
the research was carried out over time, with measurements of variables at t=
wo
different moments to determine the effect produced on the development of or=
al
skills, in students after applying the CLT activities (Calderón & Alzamora, 2018). <=
span
lang=3DEN 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;mso-fareast-=
language:
ES-TRAD'>
The
universe was made up of 94 students of that level. The sample, equivalent to
the universe, was organized into two groups, one experimental and one
controlled, with 47 students each.
The co=
urse
had the same objectives according to the teaching level and the same
evaluations were applied to both study groups. Each study group carried out=
the
course following different teaching-learning methods or approaches. Both gr=
oups
had 40 minutes classes two times a week to carry out the planned activities=
of
the course, using the traditional teaching method, based on the analysis of
grammar rules, vocabulary and text comprehension (=
Richards
& Rodgers, 2014)
The sequence of activities within these classes was in general the
following: student´s presentation of the outcome of the independent work or=
iented
in the previous meeting, teacher´s presentation of the lesson´s topic with =
the
support of didactic materials, a presentation by the teacher of the tasks t=
o be
carried out by the students on the basis of the topic, elaboration of tasks=
by
the students in each team, presentation of oral and written results, general
discussion, evaluation of the activity with the students and orientation of
independent team work. This sequence of tasks was proposed by different
authors, except that regard to independent work (Willis & Willis J., 2013), (Richards & Rodgers, 2014), (Fuertes, 2017).=
But
independent work was added as an important complement to cooperative learni=
ng (Carrera & Saulo, 2015).
Instruments and variable=
s.
Evalua=
tion
is the most effective instrument to measure the educational results of
students, that is why it has been used in several researches to measure the
effectiveness of the application of the communicative approach (=
Carrera
& Saulo, 2015)
The
evaluation of the students in each class also constituted a tool for learni=
ng,
by increasing their attention and concentration on the contents (=
Weeden
et al., 2002)
The
variables used in the research were pronunciation, fluency, vocabulary,
interaction with the group and accuracy. These are the sub-skills that
constitute the main factors that influence the speaking skill (=
Beltrán,
2018), (=
Chiroque,
2020), (=
Leong
& Masoumeh, 2017)
The gr=
ades
obtained by the students were counted and expressed in percentages in relat=
ion
to the total and as a rubric average. The results achieved by the students =
in
both tests were compared to determine the effectiveness of the application =
of
the communicative approach in the development of communicative skills.
Materials and Information Communication
Technologies (ICT).
The
classes were developed on line way due to the needs imposed by the Covid-19
pandemic.
Inform=
ation
and communication technologies (ICT) were used to carry out distance meetin=
gs
and contacts, as well as to send the necessary didactic material to student=
s of
both groups and interact with them. Regarding the use of hardware, available
computers and mobile devices were used. The digital platforms Google Classr=
oom
and Cambridge, Messenger and WhatsApp were used as software.
WhatsA=
pp
and Messenger have communication channels such as chat between two people o=
r in
a group, video calls and documents sending (Minist=
ry
de Education of Chile, 2020). It is accessed by mobile phones. The use of digital platforms has
proven to be quite useful to encourage motivation among the students. (Sung et al., 2016), (Kim et al., 2016).
Google
Classroom integrates with other Google tools like Google Docs and Drive and
enables online collaboration. Its access is free (Minist=
ry
of Education of Chile, 2020). It facilitates the work of the teacher and the development of oral=
and
written skills in the production of the language, since it offers a variety=
of
resources for that (Rivera,
2020), (Lorenz=
o,
2019). Teachers can send messages, share videos, documents, web pages,
assignments, follow students in their activities, evaluate them in real tim=
e,
and interact with students and other teachers. Besides, it has a mobile
application, which facilitates online exchange and communication =
ADDIN
CSL_CITATION
{"citationItems":[{"id":"ITEM-1","itemDa=
ta":{"author":[{"dropping-particle":"",&=
quot;family":"Lorenzo","given":"B.",&quo=
t;non-dropping-particle":"","parse-names":false,&q=
uot;suffix":""}],"container-title":"[Tesis
de Maestría, Universidad de la
Laguna]","id":"ITEM-1","issued":{"d=
ate-parts":[["2019"]]},"title":"Google
Classroom como herramienta didáctica para trabajar las destrezas de compren=
sión
lectora y de expresión escrita en
inglés","type":"article-journal"},"uris"=
:["http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=3D0fa0c505-be7c-4b77-8f8e-e=
591be56d835"]}],"mendeley":{"formattedCitation":&q=
uot;(Lorenzo,
2019)","plainTextFormattedCitation":"(Lorenzo,
2019)","previouslyFormattedCitation":"(Lorenzo,
2019)"},"properties":{"noteIndex":0},"schema&=
quot;:"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/cs=
l-citation.json"}(Lorenzo, 2019)
The
classes were supported by teaching materials. Digital text material was used
for both groups. The Cambridge platform, world renowned in the context of
teaching English, was also used (Castro et al., 2016)=
. This
platform offers materials for learning English at all levels and allows
students to prepare themselves for the internationally valid certification
exams (Hilinger & Pérez, 2019). It provides students and teachers, with appropriate books and
interactive and motivating channels. Besides, it facilitates the study of t=
he
language through monitoring and teacher guidance, making it a useful tool f=
or
teaching English in schools at any educational level.
Bibliographic research.<=
/span>
A
bibliographic review of scientific articles, books, papers and thesis was a=
lso
carried out with the support of Google Scholar, to search for criteria and
results of similar research in order to compare different criteria.
The
research was carried out using the keywords and related topics. Documents
published as of 2016 and recognized authors were preferred. Besides, the
incorporation of national bibliography allowed gaining knowledge of the pro=
blem
within the country.
Over 1=
61
documents were reviewed, out of which, 42 were chosen as bibliographic
references based on their contribution to the objectives achievement. The
reference lists of the consulted authors also served to locate updated and
interesting documents.
Mendel=
ey
Desktop was used for the organization and management of bibliography, as we=
ll
as for the analysis of the information.
The
analysis and synthesis of the results allowed verifying a higher level of o=
ral
expression skills inside the experimental group.
Results and discussion.
The resu=
lts
of the pre-test and post-test of the students and grade average by each stu=
dy
group appears on the tables 2 and 3.
In order=
to
simplify the organization of the data, the students who achieved the same s=
core
in each sub-skill and the same total score, were regrouped in the same posi=
tion
within the table.
Table
2. Pre-test res=
ults
for the experimental and control groups.
|
Experimental group |
Control group |
||||||||||||
|
Students
(amount) |
S |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
Students |
S |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
|
(amount) |
|||||||||||||
|
4 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
3 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
3 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
2 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
1 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
Table 2. Pre-test results for the experimental and control
groups. (continuation)
|
Experimental group |
Control group |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Students
(amount) |
S |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
Students
(amount) |
S |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
4 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
10 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
9 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
||||||||
|
1 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
||||||||
|
1 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
||||||||
|
1 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
||||||||
|
1 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
||||||||
|
1 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
||||||||
|
Grade average |
6,4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Grade average |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Note: 1.Pronunciation / 2.Fluency / 3.Vocabulary /
4.Interaction / 5.Accuracy / S: Total score.
Sour=
ce: Pre-test results.
Deve=
loped
by: The author.
Table 3. Post-test results for the experimental and contr=
ol
groups.
|
Experimental group |
Control group |
||||||||||||
|
Students (amount) |
S |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
Students (amount) |
S |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
|
2 |
10 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
5 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
4 |
9 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
4 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Table 3. Post-test results for the experimental and contr=
ol
groups. (continuation)
|
Experimental group |
Control group |
||||||||||||
|
Students (amount) |
S |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
Students (amount) |
S |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
|
4 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
2 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
5 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
3 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
1 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|||||||
|
7 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||||||
|
1 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|||||||
|
1 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|||||||
|
Score average<= o:p> |
7,9 |
1,4 |
1,4 |
1,6 |
2 |
2 |
Score average |
7 |
1,1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1,5 |
Note=
: 1.Pronunciation /
2.Fluency / 3.Vocabulary / 4.Interaction / 5.Accuracy / S: Total score.
Source: Pre-test results.
Deve=
loped
by: The author.
Students=
at
the end of the first-year in
Bachelor Educat=
ion must be classified within the A1 level of English, which means that
they are able to understand and use simple expressions and phrases from soc=
ial
life, with which they satisfy immediate communication needs and interact in=
an
elemental way (Castro et al., 2016)=
, (Quińonez, 2016). However, Figure 1 shows the results of the diagnostic test (pre-te=
st)
that indicated that more than 50% of the students did not reach the minimum
necessary level. In addition, there were no results within the excellent
category. The data shows a similar level in both groups.
Figure
1. Pre-test
results for the experimental and control groups regarding the speaking skil=
l,
expressed in percentages in relation to each group.
Developed b=
y: The author.
Table 4
shows the results of the pre-test regarding the communication sub-skills. <=
/span>
Table
4.
Note: EG: Experimental group / CG: Control group.
Developed b=
y: The author.
Although
there are differences in the data for each group, their abilities are quite
similar, it which can be classified from medium to low. The homogeneity in =
both
groups provides a favorable starting point for making the comparisons at the
end of the post-test.
At the e=
nd
of the school year, students must reach A2 level, which involves, being abl=
e to
understand simple and everyday tasks, such as giving basic personal and fam=
ily
information, explained their background, to shop, talking about places of
interest, occupations and environmental description (Castro et al., 2016)=
, (Quińonez, 2016).
Figure 2
shows the results of the post-test, in which both groups showed that they h=
ad
improved their skills compared to the initial test.
=
Figure
2. Post-test =
results=
for
the experimental and control groups regarding speaking skill, expressed in
percentages in relation to each group.
Developed b=
y: The author.
But the
experimental group performed better than the controlled group. The results =
of
the post-test for the experimental group indicated the fulfillment of these
objectives in 91, 5 % of the students. However, in the control group only 7=
0, 2
% of students achieved the A2 level, and they were not fulfilled in 29, 8 %,
who obtained deficient. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the
communicative approach and its methods for the development of speech skills=
in
students. In the experimental group, the students that were graded as excel=
lent
show a slightly higher percentage than those of the other categories and the
number of students evaluated with deficient decreased notably, like in other
investigations (Marańón et al., 2018). However=
, in
the research carried out by Carrera and Saulo, =
the
students evaluated as excellent did not exceed 10% in both groups ADDIN CSL_CITATION
{"citationItems":[{"id":"ITEM-1","itemDa=
ta":{"author":[{"dropping-particle":"",&=
quot;family":"Carrera","given":"G.",&quo=
t;non-dropping-particle":"","parse-names":false,&q=
uot;suffix":""},{"dropping-particle":"",=
"family":"Saulo","given":"J.","=
;non-dropping-particle":"","parse-names":false,&qu=
ot;suffix":""}],"container-title":"Revista
Electrónica Formación y Calidad
Educativa","id":"ITEM-1","issue":"3=
","issued":{"date-parts":[["2015"]]},&qu=
ot;page":"89-109","title":"Productive
skills development in English language of college
students","type":"article-journal","volume&qu=
ot;:"3"},"uris":["http://www.mendeley.com/document=
s/?uuid=3D05380601-b3f5-4e20-b395-7ea29b30ccad"]}],"mendeley"=
;:{"formattedCitation":"(Carrera
& Saulo, 2015)","manualFormatting":"(Carrera &
Saulo, 2015)","plainTextFormattedCitation":"(Carrera &a=
mp;
Saulo, 2015)","previouslyFormattedCitation":"(Carrera &=
amp;
Saulo,
2015)"},"properties":{"noteIndex":0},"schema&=
quot;:"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/cs=
l-citation.json"}(Carrera & Saulo, 2015). In the =
rest
of the items, the results are similar, especially in regard to the signific=
ant
reduction of students evaluated with deficiency in the experimental group <=
/span>(Carrera & Saulo, 2015), (Marańón et al., 2018).
Table 5
shows the results in the post-test, in relation to the communication sub-sk=
ills
achieved by the students.
Table
5. Post
Developed by: The author.
Table 6
shows the average obtained by each group in the evaluation skills language =
in
both exams.
Table 6. Rubric
average of experimental and control groups, in the pre and post-test.
Developed by: The author.
The resu=
lts
of the experimental group were superior for all abilities. The controlled g=
roup
maintained its initial results of pre-test, in terms of pronunciation, flue=
ncy
and interaction, indicating a lack of training in these aspects.
The
increment in vocabulary was the same in both groups. Increase of g
Figure 3
shows the average obtained by each group in the evaluation of the five
sub-skills in the pre-test and in the post-test.
Figure 3. Trends
of rubric average obtained by experimental and control groups, in pre-test =
and
post-test.
Developed by: The author.
Although
both groups improved their results, the increment in communication skills w=
as
greater for the experimental group. This same trend appears in the results =
of
similar studies (Chávez-Choque, 2016), (Arcila & Velazco, 2016).
If the
results achieved by the students of the experimental group at the beginning
(pre-test) and at the end of the research (post-test) are compared, a radic=
al
change is observed in the trend of the curves that describe each of the tes=
ts.
On Figure 4 it is observed that in the pre-test, the curve becomes zero in =
the
excellent category and is maximized in the deficient category. An opposite
behavior occurred in the post-test, where the curve reaches its maximum val=
ue
in the excellent category and the minimum in the deficient category. The fi=
nal
results were superior in all rubrics for the experimental group, despite the
fact that the meetings for communicative activities were not many or freque=
nt,
due to the limitations of the course.
Figure 4. Comparison of the results =
for
the experimental group in the pre-test and post-test.
Developed b=
y: The author.
Conclusions.
h
The
Communicative Language Teaching and its activities applied were effective to
the development of the speaking skill in the
second-year of Bachelor Education at Salesian Educational Unit Santo Tomás=
Apóstol.
h
Communicative language teaching
approach introduces principles and
objectives that allow the learning process of a language to use classroom
activities that best facilitate the developme=
nt of the communicative competence. The<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:E=
N-US'>
speaking skill is the speakers communicative competence to transmit coherent and organized oral information, using
the sub-skills language to produce a real communication in a real context. =
h
The CLT
activities applied, such as the production of dialogues, role plays and
information-gap activities, based on group work and task work, were effecti=
ve
to develop the speaking skill. That was verified for the good results achie=
ved
in the communication skills by the experimental group.
h
The stude=
nts
response towards communicative language teaching activities=
was
favorable because it increased their motivation and oral expressi=
on
skill.
Bibliographic references.<= o:p>
Abreus, A. & Haro, R. (2019).=
Use
of authentic audiovisual materials for speaking skills development: A case
study in Ecuador. Revista de Educación
Mediática y TIC, 8(1), 23-35.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v8i1.10695
Almanza, E., García, M. & Jiménez, Y. (2019). =
Developing and evaluating univers=
ity
students discursive competence: a training strategy for teachers.
Arcila, K. & Velazco, S. (201=
6). =
Influence
of the task approach in the development of the comprehension and oral
expression capacities of the English language of the students of the first =
year
ŤAť of Secondary=
of
the Educational Institution Manuel González Prada of Chimbote. <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",se=
rif;
mso-bidi-font-style:italic;mso-no-proof:yes'>[Diploma Paper, Universidad
Nacional del Santa].
http://repositorio.uns.edu.pe/handle/UNS/2882
Aristizabal, P., Marín, J. & González, J. (2020). Vivential tasks as didactic strat=
egy
in teaching english. Revista Boletín REDIP=
E, 9(5), 209-220.
https://revista.redipe.org/index.php/1/article/view/989 Barrera, H. & Barragán, T.
(2017). English-spanish linguistic competences in ecuadorian educative syst=
em. Revista Electrónica Formación y Calidad Educativa<=
/i>, 5(2), 33-42. http://refcale.uleam.edu.ec/index.p=
hp/refcale/article/view/1596 Beltrán, M. (2017). English learn=
ing
as a foreing language. Boletín virtual<=
/span>, 6(4), 91-98.
https://revista.redipe.org/index.php/1/article/view/227 Beltrán, M. (2018). Design of a didactic strategy to develop oral
skills at unified general high school. Edit=
orial
3 Ciencias Área de Innovación y Desarrollo, SL. Calderón, J. & Alzamora, L. (2018). Research designs for postgraduate thesis. Revista
Peruana de Psicología y Trabajo Social, 7(2), 71-76.
https://doi.org/10.32544/psicologia.v7i2.660 Carrera, G. & Saulo, J. (2015=
).
Productive skills development in English language of college students. Revista Electrónica Formación y Calidad Educativa<=
/i>, 3(3), 89-109. http://www.refcale.uleam.edu.ec/in=
dex.php/refcale/article/view/431 Castro-Miranda, G., Parra, J. & Calzadilla, G. (2018)=
. The communication is a management competence at
education: a look from the ICT teaching-learning process. RITI Journal, 6(1=
1),
48-54. https://www.riti.es/ojs2018/inicio/index.php/riti/article/view/86/0<=
/span> Castro, Y., Abreus, A. & Hernández, P. (April 11-13,
2016). Perspectives for teaching english=
at
Higher Education Institutes in Ecuador. [Paper] II International Congress of Pedagogic Sciences, Guayaquil,
Ecuador.
https://www.pedagogia.edu.ec/public/docs/Comision_10/perspectivas_para_la_e=
nsenanza_del_ingles.pdf Chávez, M., Saltos, M. & Saltos, C. (2017). Chávez-Choque, L. (2016). Communicative competence =
developing oral expression in English to students of a Higher Education. [Masters Thesis, Universidad =
César Vallejo]. https://repositorio.ucv.edu.pe/handle/20.500.12692/7609=