Organizadores
gráficos para empoderar la enseñanza-aprendizaje de los tiempos gramaticale=
s en
la educación superior
Jazmín Marisol Medina Rea . [1]
Recibido: 07-05-2021 / Revisado: 18-05-2021 /<=
span
class=3DSpellE>Aceptado: 11-06-2021/ Publicado<=
/span>: 05-07-2021
Resumen.
El idioma ing=
lés
es una asignatura obligatoria en la educación primaria, secundaria y superi=
or
en Ecuador. Para llegar a ser competente, se necesita un amplio conocimient=
o de
la gramática porque se considera la columna vertebral de un idioma. Esta
investigación tiene como objetivo implementar organizadores gráficos en el
proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de los tiempos gramaticales. Dicha
investigación se llevó a cabo en una universidad de Riobamba con una poblac=
ión
objetivo de 62 estudiantes de nivel A2. Se realizó una investigación cuasi-experimental, con 31 estudiantes que fueron el =
grupo
experimental y el mismo número de estudiantes como el grupo de control. Se
aplicó una prueba previa a ambos grupos para evaluar sus habilidades
gramaticales. Posteriormente, a ambos grupos se les realizó una prueba
posterior para determinar si los organizadores gráficos implementados mejor=
aron
el desempeño de los estudiantes con respecto a los tiempos gramaticales. Los
resultados de la prueba posterior demostraron que la competencia de los
estudiantes del grupo experimental ha mejorado después de implementar
organizadores gráficos. Además, los estudiantes pudieron aclarar sus ideas y
establecer mejores relaciones entre las demandas gráficas y cognitivas. Por=
lo
tanto, los hallazgos de la investigación mostraron que los organizadores
gráficos contribuirán positivamente a dominar los patrones gramaticales.
Palabras claves: 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 level proficiency, Ecuador has been ranked 81/100
countries with 46.57 and it is located in the 19/19 position in Latin Ameri=
ca.
These findings are supported by the EF EPI (2019) which demonstrated that E=
cuador
has a very low level of language proficiency.
In Ecuador, the
English language has not been 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 level 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 still weaknesses concerning the heart of a foreign l=
anguage.
It is vital to cite Foppoli (2018) and his cruc=
ial
comparison: “without knowledge of grammar, in the same way as a train cannot
move without railways, people won't be able to communicate their ideas with=
out
a good mastery of grammar”.
Universities
consider English as a requirement for students to graduate. Riobamba
universities are characterized by welcoming students from different provinc=
es
and therefore different economic strata. Often, students are fluent when
speaking although they do not show a good level of accuracy and coherence. =
It
might happen due to the lack of grammar knowledge. According to Garrido &am=
p;
Rosado (2012), missformation 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 th=
at
“to establish effective communication, learners need grammar skills”. Gramm=
ar
needs to be seen and taught as the fifth 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 spe=
cial
role in early levels, learners are not conscious of rules and patterns (Rah=
man
& Ali, 2015). Often, students are fluent when speaking however they do =
not
show a good level of accuracy and coherence. Therefore, the problem arises
because of the lack of grammar knowledge they experiment at higher levels. =
In fact,
various causes are addressing the poor performance of it. Traditional teach=
ers
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 make learners produce errors in morpheme and sentence structure
(Garrido & Rosado, 2012). From the learners’ perspective, grammar is se=
en
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, th=
ey
feel overwhelmed and argue that grammar knowledge is not necessary to learn=
in
English since they believe it is bored and not interesting (Mammadova,
2019).
Graphic Organizers
According to
Ciascai (2009) presen=
ts
some functions to spell the efficiency of graphic organizers to teach as we=
ll
as to learn. He states the following: “clarifying knowledge and reasoning”,
“strengthening the learning process”, “integrationing<=
/span>
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
associations
Among several tools to teach grammar, graphic
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
To implement g=
raphic
organizers is a process that requires teachers and students’ effort and col=
laboration.
Hence, to be successful when constructing these visual representations, it =
is
necessary to cite clear guidelines. According to Vargas & Zuñiga (2018), the role of the teacher is guiding lea=
rners by
giving instructions of highlighting the most relevant ideas, the input has =
to
be noticeable through the use of graphic organizers, to establish connectio=
ns
between previous and new knowledge, and to take advantage of the text in or=
der
to make it understandable. Thus, teachers must make comprehensible for lear=
ners
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
“The use of this tool brings excitement and enthus=
iasm
toward learning” Dahbi (2014). Although learners can choose and=
use
many shapes and ways of representing graphic organizers, there are rules to=
consider.
Regarding this assumption,
To sum up, Mercuri (2011) states some clear purposes for teacher=
s and students´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 stud=
ents
to sum up, organize, categorize, and meet meaning from texts. Third, graphic
organizers enhance the comprehension of grammar by assessing students’ prior
knowledge and promoting written and oral participation. Fourth, teachers pl=
ay
an important role to assess ongoing learning and modeling instruction to
encounter students’ needs. In essence, graphic organizers empower the teach=
ing
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 students listen to the word “grammar” or when someone
corrects them a piece of writing or any speech, they feel uncomfortable. Th=
ey
think they are making mistakes, so they feel ashamed. Most of the time stud=
ents
do not participate actively in class when they are asked to because they do=
not
manage even basic grammatical patterns.
Grammar is the=
backbone
of a language, it is a system that contains rules, restrictions, and patter=
ns. Ratnakar
(2017) states that each language has a cycle, it is said; it has evolved
through the years. There is a controversial question regarding this skill, =
is
the learning of grammar necessary to master a language? The answer would
probably be no. Just as children learn a language by making sounds, then th=
ey
produce words and phrases. They do not know the word grammar. However, when
they want to learn 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
challenges 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 foc=
us
on academic writing issues. He states some issues that have to do with the
current 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-Mekhlafi & Naga=
ratnam
(2011) points out grammar as a “linguistic straitjacket” (p. 71). Th=
ey
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 co=
urse
they have acquired different schemata regarding structures, lexical words,
adjectives, adverbs, and so on. However, Chen & Jones (2012) argue that learners need
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 dive=
rse
ideas regarding grammar and its teaching and learning process. According to
what students say, grammar is not motivational. Furthermore, Jean & Sim=
ard
(2011) point out a triangulation among teachers, learners, and grammar
instruction. This shape displays they are working almost on the same rail.
Despite this, students often accept grammar as essential. However, it is
crucial to highlight the idea that grammar instruction does not grab studen=
ts’
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 learning a n=
ew
language. It would be better if this skill is learned into an organized and
precise way. The use of graphic organizers contributes to the learning proc=
ess
of English. The idea to be taken is that grammar is an important skill to learn in a second language faster and effective=
ly (Varade, 2017). Besides, there is a big range of graph=
ic
organizers that could help to support mastering tenses. Therefore, this stu=
dy
explains how the two variables joint together to generate a well-done produ=
ct.
Metodologia.
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 group =
and
those in “B” were assigned to be the experimental group. In the beginning, 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’
performance 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.
Resultados.
Table 1. Pretest, 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:
Source: Pretest control group
Developed by: The author.<=
b>
Table 2. Pretest, experimental group
Note: The pretest average of the experimental group is 13,23 over 20.
Source: Pretest experimental group
Developed by: The author.<=
b>
|
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 |
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 |
Table 3. Postest, 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: The postest average of the control group=
is
13,23 over 20.
Source: Postest control group =
Developed by: The author
Table 4. Postest, 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 author
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> |
0,2242 |
22,42 |
|
|
Standard deviation |
0,4735 |
47,35 |
|
|
Variance<=
/span> coefficient
|
0,4735 |
47,35 |
|
|
Correlati=
on coefficient
– Results |
0,0279 |
2,79 |
Between pre and post-=
test |
|
Correlati=
on coefficient
– Medians |
0,1705 |
17,05 |
Between the medians |
|
Correlati=
on coefficient
– Global |
0,1399 |
13,99 |
Between the post-test=
s |
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 author
This suggests that the correlation coefficient is 2,79 and <=
span
class=3DSpellE>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, <=
span
class=3DSpellE>some statistical denominations were obtained to compare both =
groups. The findings
are presented in&nb=
sp;table 6.
Table 6. Experimental group
findings
|
Denomination |
Value |
% |
Observation |
|
Variance |
0,2090 |
20,90 |
|
|
Standard deviation |
0,4572 |
45,72 |
|
|
Variance coefficient |
0,4572 |
45,72 |
|
|
Correlation coefficient - Re=
sults |
0,0461 |
4,61 |
Between pre and post-=
test |
|
Correlation coefficient - Me=
dians |
0,0491 |
4,91 |
Between the medians |
|
Correlation coefficient - Global |
0,1399 |
13,99 |
Between the post-test=
s |
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 author
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 Averages |
|
|
|
13,11 |
|
|
13,23 |
|
|
13,23 |
|
|
14,07 |
Source: Pretests and postests of the
control and experimental groups.
Developed by: The author.<=
b>
Figure 1. <=
/span>Total Average of both gro=
ups
tests
Developed by: The author
Being the prete=
st and posttest analyzed,
Therefore, it is no=
table that the implementation
of graphic organizers can help students to improve the knowledge
of grammar skills o=
ver 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 G=
raphic
Organizers in Intercultural Education. Acta Didácti=
ca
Napocensia, 2(1), 10-18.
Chen, H.
& Jones, P. (2012). Understanding metalinguistic development in beginning writers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professio=
nal 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
EF EPI<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;line-heigh=
t:115%;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>, 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
Paredes, R., <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Henríquez, E., Zurita, R.=
, Pinos, V., Apolinario, O., & Campoverde,
M. (2018). New Curriculum in Ecuador. Journal
of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 1, p. 75). https://doi.org/1=
0.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
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, <= i>20(4), 131-135. https://doi.= org/10.9790/0837-2041131135
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.=
Vargas, J., &=
; Zúñiga, R. (2018). Graphic organizers as a teaching
strategy for improved comprehension of argumentative texts in English. Actualidades Investigativas =
en
Educación, =
18(2),
1-22. https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v18i2.33028
PARA CITAR EL ARTÍCULO INDEXADO.
Medina
Rea, J. M. (2021). Graphic organizers
to empower the teaching-learning process=
of grammar tenses in higher =
education. ConcienciaDigital,
4(3), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.33262/concienciadigital.v4i3.1764
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 queda en propieda=
d
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 Católica del Ecuador, Maestría en Pedagogía del Inglés, Ambato, Ecuador, email
jazmin.medina@pucesa.edu.ec
=
www.concienciadigital.org
<=
/span> =
Vol. 4, N°3, p. 54-67, julio - septiembre, 20