www.concienciadigital.or=
g
=
=
ISSN: 2600-5859
=
Language
games to enhance the speaking skill on beginner English language learners at
University
Recibido:01-12-2019 / Revisado: 02-01-2020 /Aceptado: 18-01-2020/
Publicado: 07-02-2020
Abstract DOI: https://doi.org/10.33262/concienciadigita=
l.v3i1.1.1157
This rese=
arch
aimed to discover if language games used as a teaching strategy improve the
ability to speak English. The target population was fifty-two first level
students at a university in Ecuador. Twenty-six students were part of the
experimental group and the remaining twenty-six students were part of the
control group. A previous test was applied for both groups to know their le=
vel
of conversation. The results showed that both groups had a very basic level=
of
speech. Consequently, language games were applied to students in the
experimental group as a strategy to improve their ability to speak English.
After this process, the students of both groups took a subsequent test to s=
ee
if the games used during the classes made any difference with respect to the
ability to speak. The findings indicated that students belonging to the
experimental group obtained a higher average in the subsequent test compare=
d to
the average obtained by the control group. Therefore, it is important to
consider that the averages of the experimental group exceeded the averages =
of
the control group. Based on these findings, games as a teaching strategy
improved the ability to speak English in the first level students of the
university.
Keywords:
Resumen
Esta investigación tuvo como objetivo descubrir si=
los
juegos de lenguaje utilizados como estrategia de enseńanza mejoran la habil=
idad
de hablar inglés. La población objetivo era cincuenta y dos estudiantes de =
los
primeros niveles en una universidad en Ecuador. Veintiséis estudiantes fuer=
on
parte del grupo experimental y los
veintiséis estudiantes restantes fueron parte del grupo de control. =
Se
aplicó una prueba previa para ambos grupos para conocer su nivel de
conversación. Los resultados demostraron que ambos grupos tenían un nivel de
habla muy básico. En consecuencia, los juegos de lenguaje se aplicaron a los
estudiantes en el grupo experimental como una estrategia para mejorar su
habilidad de hablar inglés. Después de este proceso, los estudiantes de amb=
os
grupos tomaron una prueba posterior para ver si los juegos utilizados duran=
te
las clases hicieron alguna diferencia con respecto a la habilidad de hablar.
Los hallazgos indicaron que los estudiantes que pertenecían al grupo
experimental obtuvieron un promedio más alto en la prueba posterior en
comparación con el promedio obtenido por el grupo de control. Por lo tanto,=
es
importante considerar que los promedios del grupo experimental superaron a =
los
promedios del grupo de control. En base a estos hallazgos, los juegos como
estrategia de enseńanza mejoraron la habilidad de hablar inglés en los
estudiantes de primer nivel de la universidad.
Palabras claves: Juegos=
de
lenguaje, habilidad de hablar inglés, estrategia de enseńanza.
Introduction
Teaching English as a foreign language in
Ecuador is a challenging job for the only opportunity for learners to pract=
ice
their speaking skill is inside the classroom. This fact encourages teachers=
to
be empowered with the necessary teaching tools to enhance this skill.
Ecuadorian people start learning English since elementary school unt=
il
they go to university. This statement absolutely confirms that learners hav=
e a
long time of exposure to the language. However, they are not able to
communicate in English. An institution uncharged of researching regarding t=
he
English language in Ecuador, claimed that it has a low English level. Educa=
tion
First (2017) declares that Ecuador got the fifty-five place among eighty
countries that were evaluated by the English Proficiency Index. They also a=
dded
that the average Ecuadorian students obtained in this test was forty- nine =
over
one hundred. The low English level Ecuadorians have is a vast concern for t=
he authorities
who are in charge of language policy and planning. As a consequence, they
determined to reinforce the English level teachers and professors have in t=
he
different educational institutions around the country. This can be found in=
the
law according to Acerbo Ministerial N. 41-13 from the Republic del Ecuador,=
Ministry
of Education (2013). Thus, it was mandatory for all Ecuadorian English
educators to get a B2 certificate as established in the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR). Unfortunately, this law has not solved the l=
ow
English level in this country completely.
The problem is still evidenced when most higher education students do
not speak English. This might be happening due to different factors such as
teaching methods, lack of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation or low future
expectations. Firstly, professors play such an important role in this proce=
ss
of learning a language that if they do not look for the right strategies to
make the classes meaningful and entertaining, students lose interest in
learning the language. (Calle, Calle, Argudo, Moscoso, Smith, Cabrera (2012)
cited in Mena (2018) asserted that students have limited use of the English
language because of the lack of effective teaching strategies. This ratifies
that the problem is not only the English proficiency level a professor could
have, it has to do with the way the teaching process is carried out. Theref=
ore,
it is clear that there are problems in the teaching-learning process that m=
ust
be tackled with immediate action. On the other hand, speaking is a producti=
ve
skill which necessarily needs to be practiced in class. Reading and writing
could be sent as homework, but there is no other opportunity for students to
talk that it is inside the class. For that reason, professors should be abl=
e to
apply different strategies to make students talk and be able to communicate=
.
The fact =
that
English professors are not aware of language games to develop the speaking
skill causes boring classes and bored students. If there are not dynamic
activities learners get bored easily and the learning process becomes
exhausting for teachers and students. Due to short attention span, it is
necessary to include a lot of activities for the class to be active and
productive. Most students like to play games in class because they make them
smile and have fun. In addition, some games required students to move aroun=
d,
talk to each other and get involved in their own learning. For all of these
reasons, it is advantageous to have knowledge of games that can be performe=
d at
the beginning of the class, during the class if students are bored and at t=
he
end of the class as a wrap-up.
A
second fact is the belief that games are just games and do not develop any
skill. This reduces the opportunities for students to speak English. Profes=
sors
think games are only applicable to kindergarten or elementary school studen=
ts,
but not for university students. But they are not aware that adults and you=
ng
adults enjoy games as part of the lesson too. In every class, there are shy
students who do not like to speak because they are afraid of making mistake=
s in
front of their classmates. Game strategy takes mistakes as part of the lear=
ning
process, so shy learners do not feel afraid of making mistakes.
Theoretical
Framework
There are differe=
nt
strategies an educator might select to develop listening, speaking, reading=
and
writing. Language games are an alternative for English teachers to have
meaningful and enjoyable lesson plans, also at the same time those give
students the opportunity to use the target language without being aware of
grammar. According to Hadfield (1996) games are planned activities with
instructions, an aim and a component of fun. Also, games are activities in
which learners play and there is interaction among them. Undoubtedly, games=
are
linked to language teaching and learning. Students are relaxed while playing
games and learn different grammar patterns.
Similarly, Gaudart
(1999) cited in Mena (2018) claimed that games are one of the most effective
strategies for professors to apply in their classes. He stated that games
permit students to practice previous, current and new structures of the
language. He pointed out that games provide non-threatening settings. As a
result, games are a great teaching strategy that professors can add to their
lesson plans. This strategy allows students to practice old knowledge as we=
ll
as building new knowledge. The most important fact is that students do not =
feel
anxious when playing games since they are fun and there is not any kind of
punishment because the main purpose of using games in the English language
classroom is encouraging learners to use the target language.
In the same regar=
d,
Mahmoud and Tanni (2014) cited in Mena (2018) expressed that adding games in
the lesson plan could raise interest and strengthen previous knowledge. They
also said that games are an encouraging, communicative and cooperative stra=
tegy
for teaching. Furthermore, games enhance team cooperation and allow student=
s to
participate actively.
Motivation and learning are extremely connected in educational setti=
ngs.
In fact, Urrutia and Vega (2010) stated that games are considered the best
motivation to help students speak in an appropriate atmosphere; which means
that if there is no motivation at all for learning English, students might
fail. Teachers could help students to reinforce both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. The first one will automatically grow by the strategies the
educator uses in class. In this case, language games will definitely make
students like learning English. Students will be motivated to come to the
English class every day. In addition, games avoid boredom since they can be
used at the beginning, during the class but also at the end of the class as=
a
wrap- up. In this regard, Sevy-Bil=
oon
(2017) cited in Mena (2018) pointed out that games can be used to as teachi=
ng
method to reinforce language aspects in the language learning process while
simultaneously fostering language skills.
Likewise, language
games are communicative activities that provide students real context
situations. For instance, a word cannot be learned by itself, it needs a
setting. If this setting is a real-life situation learning occurs
unconsciously. Deesri (2002) argued that learners do not make a lot of effo=
rt
thinking about what to say when using the target language since games provo=
ke
spontaneous and real circumstances. Thereby, English learners can use the
language outside the class. Certainly, that is the aim of learning a foreign
language that students are able to communicate. If educators planned on gam=
es
for teaching, they will definitely provide genuine context for students to
produce English. However, it is difficult for a teacher to find strategies =
that
motivate students and at the same time improve listening, speaking, reading=
and
writing.
Arikan and Yolagelddili (2011) cited in Mena (2018) stated that games
develop and stimulate the four skills. They also claimed that games offer
students the opportunity to use grammatical structures by performing them i=
n a
communicative manner. Furthermore, games can combine two or more skills in =
one
game. For instance, when students play the game called running dictation, t=
hey
put into practice three skills reading, writing and speaking. Then using ga=
mes
in the class will positively affect one or more of the four skills. If teac=
hers
see games as a serious strategy for teaching English and planned on them.
Students will improve their skills without memorization of grammar patterns=
or
tedious grammatical forms. Language games are a good and easy alternative f=
or
teachers and students to enjoy. That is why selecting games as a strategy to
teach English supports and benefits learners.
Everybody likes p=
laying
games because it is fun. Games make people smile as well as make students s=
mile
in the educational field. They keep learners calm and relaxed in order to l=
earn.
When there is a tense environment, there is not learning. Fisher and Schultz (1988) cited in Mena (2018) declared that stress levels are an obstacle for
students to pay attention. Traditional strategies are a waste of time,
stimulate stress and they also diminish motivation. He claimed that when
students play a game, they forget they are in class. In other words, games
reduce stress students face when learning English.
Considering that it is hard for shy students to develop the speaking
skill, educators should always look for strategies to allow them to speak.
Strategies that make them speak without being afraid of making mistakes. Ga=
mes
are al alternative for these students because playing games allow students =
to
make mistakes. So, they feel free to communicate in English. Dewi, Kultsum &
Armandi (2017) cited in Mena (2018) described games as a strategy which all=
ows
students to trust in themselves when speaking. They also report that learni=
ng
with games generates great and pleasant situations. Learners can actively
participate playing games and nurture their self-confidence.
It is also important to point out that almost all people who learn
English want to be able to communicate.
To achieve this desire, it is important to enhance the teaching proc=
ess.
That is why communicative language teaching appears as a good alternative to
help teachers create communicative environments in class. Harmer (2007) cited in Mena (2018) defined Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) a=
s a
group of principles regarding what to teach and how to teach. He claimed
that the first one refers to language functions and the second one refers to
two aspects, language exposure and opportunities to use the language. Final=
ly,
he mentions that the activities suggested by CLT require real communication
where accuracy is not as important as succeed in the communicative task.
The kinds of activities suggested in CLT involve new roles for the
teachers and learners in the classroom. According to Larsen-Freeman (2004) =
cited in Mena (2018) the role of the professors is to provide stude=
nts
with opportunities to use the target language through setting situations th=
at
provoke communication. In other words, to plan on activities that make them
communicate with each other or in groups. The author also said that the chi=
ef
role of the learners is to be communicators and actively participate in
trying to make themselves understood and understand others. The author also
pointed out that students should use the target language even if they are b=
eginners.
Another point the author highlights is the student-centered class where the
students are responsible managers of their own learning. Both roles are
crucial, especially the role of the teacher since he/she guides and leads t=
he
students. Therefore, if the teacher does well his/her role, it will be easi=
er
for students to carry out their role. For example, if teachers bring
communicative activities that are well planned, and they give clear
instructions, students will automatically fulfill their role.
In
this respect, Murphy and Sashi (2017) cited in Mena (2018) explained that communication is possible when the m=
essage
is conveyed suitably. For this reason, these authors talked about modes of
communication which have been examined based on their synchronicity,
speed of transmission, and ability to transmit information. They also menti=
oned
that when a person uses an accurate mode of communication, effective
communication takes place. A table shows three modes of communication.
Framework for the=
communication
modes
|
Interpersonal |
Interpretative |
Presentational |
|
Direct oral communication between individuals who are in personal contact. |
Receptive communication of oral or written messages |
Productive communication using oral or written language Spoken or written communication |
|
Direct written communication between individuals who came into personal contact. |
Meditated communication via print and non-print materials. |
Spoken or written communication for people (an audience) with whom
there is no immediate personal contact. |
|
Productive abilities: speaking, Writing |
Primarily receptive abilities: listening, reading, viewing |
Primarily productive abilities: speaking, writing. |
Source: Murphy,
Sashi (2017)
Developed by: The authors
Language is a com=
plex
phenomenon which goes beyond learning grammar only. Tudor (2001) cited in M=
ena
(2018) explained that language is considered a social action that is why the
communicative language teaching (CLT) pointed out that language learners ne=
ed
to use the language according to the context they are being faced at any ti=
me.
He also added that learners should be able to do something in or with this
language, in other words, to use the language in different contexts. Tudor =
also
pointed out that there is a goal behind a person who is learning English, f=
or
instance, performing professional tasks such as answering the phone or
providing information to customers, traveling abroad, studying abroad or do=
ing
business.
Having a clear id=
ea of
why professors are teaching specific parts of language in a course, makes a
great difference because a professor who is teaching English to someone who
requires it for academic purposes cannot be teaching business vocabulary. S=
o,
the objective of learning English should also be considered by the professo=
r so
he/she matches students needs. Tudor provided an example of this as follow=
s a
business person who needs to improve his/her English needs functions such as
greeting, introducing people, keeping a conversation going, etc. This would be called needs analysis tha=
t goes
along with English for specific purposes.
The demand for an appropriate teaching methodol=
ogy
is as stronger as ever. That is why CLT makes it clear that teaching grammar
and vocabulary is not enough for communication to happen. It is necessary to
empower students skills to communicate through activities that make them h=
ave
the desire to communicate. For example, role plays, games, writing emails, =
etc.
These activities will help students to concentrate on the content rather th=
an
any particular language form. This makes absolute sense for teachers whose =
job
is teaching their students more than a formula to teach grammar.
Concerning one of=
the
productive skills, specifically speaking, Yong (2013) cited in Mena (2018) =
defined
this as follows Speaking is the productive ski=
ll in
the oral mode. It, like the other skills, is more complicated than it seems=
at
first and involves more than just pronouncing words. It involves some other
sub-kills such as pronunciation, fluency, grammar, vocabulary, and
comprehension. Speaking is the skill where learners show the use of langua=
ge
in order to communicate. The author also highlights that the speaking skill
does not stand alone it needs some other sub-skills. Ur (1997) cited=
in
Mena (2018) declared that the definition of pronunciation embraces the so=
unds
of the language (phonology), stress and rhythm and intonation. It also show=
s a
relationship with spelling.
In this sense, Ur (1997) also claimed that the term phonetic is use=
d to
refer to transcripts of the sounds of all human languages which make
distinctions between sounds that may not be distinguished in a given langua=
ge
system.
Table 2
Differences between written and spoken grammar
|
Written grammar |
Spoken grammar |
|
Clauses are often
embedded (subordination) |
Clauses are usually a=
dded
(co-ordination) |
|
Reported speech favor=
ed |
Direct speech favored=
|
|
Precision favored |
Vagueness tolerated |
|
Little ellipsis |
A lot of ellipsis |
|
No question tags |
Many question tags |
|
No performance effect=
s |
Performance effects,
including |
|
hesitations, repeats,
false starts, |
|
|
incompletion, syntactic blends |
=
Source: How to teach speaking-Scott
Thornbury (2009)
Developed by: The authors
Speaking is consi=
dered
one of the most challenging skills in comparison with the other three macro=
skills.
However, it is highly necessary to achieve it in order to have effective
communication. Zaremba (2006) =
cited
in Mena (2018) claimed that the speaking skill plays an important role in
communication, in fact, having a good speaking skill is placed ahead of any
other skill when hiring people for a job. Consequently, practicing speaking=
in
the class should be one of the main priorities for a professor. Providing
students with lots of opportunities to speak English is the best way to enh=
ance
this skill, for students who study English as a foreign language (EFL) the
classroom is the only place where they can practice the language.
It can be said th=
at
language is a system of communication that helps people to express ideas,
feelings and experiences. Language is a wonderful tool living creatures hav=
e in
order to make communication possible.
Methodology
This study was conducted using a
quantitative approach. Firstly, this research formulated a delimitation of =
the
problem. This means the setting was specific and limited at the beginning of
the study. Secondly, the hypothesis was previously established. Thus, this
investigation had a hypothesis before the data collection. Finally, the data
collection was measurable, as well as the results were analyzed through
statistics.
This research was led by the
quasi-experimental design of investigation. It was carried out in two group=
s,
the control and the experimental. Both groups had similar features. One gro=
up
followed the intervention plan and the other one did not. At the end of the
intervention plan, the results were compared and analyzed. This research is
also descriptive because it analyzed each variable independently through the
literature presented in the theoretical framework. In addition, the two
variables were detected by some other researchers so there is data in which
this study was based on. It additionally measured the dependent variable th=
rough
evaluation tools. According to Hernández, Fernández and Baptista (2016) cited in Mena (2018), the purpose of the descriptive level is measuring the t=
wo
variables individually. Another reason why this research started with this
level of research is that the results of the pre and post-tests were compar=
ed
and analyzed. Furthermore, this research is correlational since it determin=
ed
if the independent variable, language games, influences the dependent varia=
ble,
speaking skill. This level of study allowed the researcher to know if there=
is
any relation between the two variables.
Fifty- two (52) students were the population of this study. They were
students of the first levels, classes C and D at a university in
Ecuador. Being class C the exper=
imental
group, and class D the control group. There were twenty-six students (26)=
in
the experimental group as well as twenty-six (26) students in the control
group. Both groups, the experimental group and the control group took the
pre-test and post-test, nonetheless only the experimental group experienced
learning to speak English using language games presented in the intervention
plan. Finally, the researche=
r used
research instruments such as the observation, questionnaires, pre-test and
post-test, speaking rubrics and recording of the participants speaking
performance.
Hernandez et al. (2016) claimed that
descriptive statistics as its name points out describes numbers, scores and=
all
kind of data. Therefore, data was collected by giving students a pre-test
and a post-test, which was classified, organized and codified. This helped =
to
compare the average obtained in the post-tests in both groups. Also, each
criterion from the rubric in the pre-test and post-test was analyzed and
represented through bar graphics. Tables were also used to represent the sc=
ores
gotten. Moreover, a very short questionnaire is applied after taking the
post-test for the learners in the experimental group. This information was
organized and analyzed using tables and pie charts in order to represent
quantities and have a better understanding of the data collected.
Pre-test control group
|
Student |
|
Comprehension |
Fluency |
Grammar |
Vocabulary |
Pronunciation |
Total |
|
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|
2 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
3 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
|
4 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
5 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
6 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
|
7 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
8 |
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
|
9 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
10 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|
11 |
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
|
12 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
12 |
|
13 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
14 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|
15 |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
16 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
|
17 |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
10 |
|
18 |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
9 |
|
19 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
20 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
21 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
13 |
|
22 |
|
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
13 |
|
23 |
|
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
11 |
|
24 |
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
14 |
|
25 |
|
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
11 |
|
26 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
X |
|
2,27 |
1,96 |
1,73 |
1,81 |
1,88 |
9,65 |
Results
Note:
Source: =
Pre-test control group
Developed by: The authors
Table
4
Pretest experimental group
|
Student |
Comprehension |
Fluency |
Grammar |
Vocabulary |
Pronunciation |
Total |
|
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
13 |
|
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
11 |
|
6 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|
7 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
8 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|
9 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
13 |
|
10 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
14 |
|
11 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
11 |
|
12 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
|
13 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
|
14 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
15 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
16 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
|
17 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
18 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
|
19 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|
20 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
12 |
|
21 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
22 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
11 |
|
23 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
24 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
17 |
|
25 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
26 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
X |
2,19 |
2 |
1,85 |
1,65 |
1,92 |
9,62 |
Note: The media or average of the experimental group regarding the pretes=
t is
9,62 over 25.
Source: pre-test experimental group
Developed by: The authors
Table 5
Post-test control group
|
Student |
Comprehension |
Fluency |
Grammar |
Vocabulary |
Pronunciation |
Total |
|
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
|
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
17 |
|
6 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
12 |
|
7 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
8 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
16 |
|
9 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
18 |
|
10 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
|
11 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
17 |
|
12 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
|
13 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
12 |
|
14 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
20 |
|
15 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
12 |
|
16 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|
17 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
13 |
|
18 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
|
19 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
16 |
|
20 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
25 |
|
21 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
22 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
16 |
|
23 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
24 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
|
25 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
14 |
|
26 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
16 |
|
x |
3,12 |
2,9 |
2,73 |
2,8 |
2,8 |
14,3 |
No=
te: The media or average of the control group regarding the post-test is=
14,
3 over 25.
Source: How to teach speaking-Scott Thornbury (2009)
Developed by: The authors
Table 6
Post-test experimental group
|
Student |
Comprehension |
Fluency |
Grammar |
Vocabulary |
Pronunciation |
Total |
|
1 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
|
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
17 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
21 |
|
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
14 |
|
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
20 |
|
6 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
25 |
|
7 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
8 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
22 |
|
9 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
16 |
|
10 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
25 |
|
11 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
20 |
|
12 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
22 |
|
13 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
16 |
|
14 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
25 |
|
15 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
|
16 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
19 |
|
17 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
|
18 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
14 |
|
19 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
24 |
|
20 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
21 |
|
21 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
17 |
|
22 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
13 |
|
23 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
11 |
|
24 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
23 |
|
25 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
17 |
|
26 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
25 |
|
X |
4,08 |
3,85 |
3,38 |
3,58 |
3,62 |
18,5 |
Note: The media or average of the experimental group regarding the post-t=
est
is 18, 50 over 25.
So=
urce:
post- test experime=
ntal
group
De=
veloped
by: The authors
Table 7
Average compar=
ison
among all the tests
|
Average results |
|
|
Pre-test control |
9,65 |
|
Pre-test experimental |
9,62 |
|
Post- test control |
14,3 |
|
Post- test experimental |
18,5 |
Source: speaking
rubrics
Developed by: The authors
Developed
by: The authors
The average comparison figure s=
hows
that the average of the control group in the pre-test is 9.65 and the avera=
ge
of the experimental group in this test is 9.62. Consequently, both groups
started with the same level of English knowledge.
After applying language ga=
mes
as a strategy to promote the speaking skill, the experimental group got an
average of 18,5, this is 4,5 points more than the average of the control gr=
oup,
which is 14,3. This means that both groups had an increase in the post-test=
but
the increase gotten in the experimental group was higher. Therefore, langua=
ges
games enhanced students speaking skill.
Conclusions
ˇ
It=
has
been demonstrated that language games enriched the speaking skill on English
language learners who are beginner students at university. The data analysis
showed that at the beginning of the English course students started with a
basic level of their speaking skill, but after applying language games in
classes their speaking grades improved, therefore, their speaking skill was
empowered.
ˇ
La=
nguage
games as go and stop, party talk, chain game, spelling contest, spelling
survivor, what pic was it, hot chair, exit ticket, find your partner, memory
game, how much you remember, bingo, Chinese whispers, charades, describe and
draw and exit ticket enhanced the speaking skill on the learners who were p=
art
of the experimental group.
ˇ
An=
other
finding is that language games as a strategy to teach speaking is useful.
Language games are not only created for students to have fun but also to le=
arn
and to develop skills.
ˇ
La=
nguage
games help students to have a low level of anxiety, keep them motivated to
learn, make learners laugh and the most important fact is that students use=
the
target language to communicate.
ˇ
La=
nguage
games are an easy way to build students confidence when speaking English for
they find them easy and engaging.
Referencias
bibliográficas
Arikan, A., & Yolagelddili, G. (2011). =
Effectiveness of Using Games in Teaching Grammar to
Young Learners. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 219-229. Retrieved from=
http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol10say1/v10s1m18.pdf
Calle, Calle, Argudo, Moscoso, Smith, Cabrera, A.
(2012). Los profesores=
de inglés
y su práctica docente. Maskana, 1,2. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/27519/1/Mena%20May=
orga%20Jazmina%20Ivonne.pdf
Dewi, Kultsum,
Armandi, R. (2016). Using Games in Improving Students' Speaking Skills. Eng=
lish
Language Teaching, 63,64. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/12345678=
9/27519/1/Mena%20Mayorga%20Jazmina%20Ivonne.pdf
Deesri, A. (20=
02).
Games in the ESL and EFL class. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(9). Retrieved
from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Dees=
ri-Games.html
Fisher, Schult=
z,
A. (1998). Games for all reasons: Interacting in the Language Classroom.
Brownstown: Longman Publishing Group. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/27519/1/Mena%20May=
orga%20Jazmina%20Ivonne.pdf
Gaudart, H.
(1999). Games as Teaching Tools for Teaching English to Speakers of other
languages. Simulation and gaming, 290.
Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/27519/1/Mena%20May=
orga%20Jazmina%20Ivonne.pdf
Hadfield, J.
(1996). Intermediate Communication Games. Harlow: Logman. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/27519/1/Mena%20May=
orga%20Jazmina%20Ivonne.pdf
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English Lang=
uage
Teaching. Cambridge: Longman.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C, & Baptista, P.
(2016). Metodología de=
la
Investigación. México: McGraw Hill Education. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/12345678=
9/27519/1/Mena%20Mayorga%20Jazmina%20Ivonne.pdf
Mahmoud, A., &=
amp;
Tanni, Z. (2014). Using Games to Promote Students´ Motivation towards Learn=
ing
English. Journal for Educational and Psychological Research and studies<=
/i>,
13-33. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/27519/1/Mena%20May=
orga%20Jazmina%20Ivonne.pdf
Murphy, Sashi,=
M.
(2017). Communication, Interactivity, and satisfaction in B2B relationships=
. Elsevier,
2.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). Techniques and Principles in Language
Teaching. New York: Oxford=
Sevy-Biloon, J.
(2017). Different Reasons to play games in an English Language Class. Jo=
urnal
of Education and Training Studies, 89.
Thornbury, S.
(2009). how to teach speaking. Harlow: Logman.
Tudor, I. (200=
1). Learner-centeredness
as Language Education. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. (1997).=
A
Course in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Urrutia León, W., & Vega Cely, E. (2010). Encouraging Teenagers to Improve Speaking Skills
through Games in a Colombian Public School. Profile Issues in Teachers´
Professional Development, 16-17.
Yong, H. (2013,
September 09). SlideShare. Retrieved from SlideShare:
https://es.slideshare.net/HelenYong?utm_campaign=3Dprofiletracking&utm_=
medium=3Dsssite&utm_source=3Dssslideview
Zaremba, A.
(2006). Speaking professionally. Canada: Thompson South West. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/27519/1/Mena%20May=
orga%20Jazmina%20Ivonne.pdf
PARA
CITAR EL ARTÍCULO INDEXADO
Mena
Mayorga, J. I., Moreno Novillo, A. C., Mejía Calle, C. C., & Silva
Valencia, J. C. (2020). Juegos de lenguaje para mejorar la habilidad del ha=
bla
en estudiantes de los primeros niveles del idioma inglés en la universidad.=
ConcienciaDigital,
3(1.1), 408-426. https://doi=
.org/10.33262/concienciadigital.v3i1.1.1157
El artículo qu=
e se
publica es de exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente
reflejan el pensamiento de la Revi=
sta
Conciencia 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 Conciencia Digital.
[1]Escuela Superior Politécnica =
de
Chimborazo, . Riobamba, Ecuador. jazmina.mena@espoch.edu.ec
[2]Escuela
Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Faculty of Mechanics. Riobamba, Ecuador.
angela.moreno@espoch.edu.ec
[3]Escuela Superior Politécnica = de Chimborazo, . Riobamba, Ecuador. cmejia@espoch.edu.ec
[4] Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Language Center. Ambato, Ecuador. jc.silva@uta.edu.ec
www.concienciadigital.or=
g
=
=
ISSN: 2600-5859