Estrategias del
enfoque comunicativo para mejorar la producción oral de los estudiantes de
nivel A2
Paula Agustina
Vélez Yanza. [1=
]
& Luis Antonio Paredes Rodríguez. [2]
Recibido:
08-10-2021 / Revisado: 20 -10-2021 /Aceptado: 18-11-2021/ Publicado: 05-12-=
2021
Introduction: communication is the essence of life=
; at
all levels, it cannot be seen only verbally or extra verbally, but in the
process of interaction with the surrounding environment. Objective: his
literature review aimed to analyze the efficiency of the different
communicative language teaching strategies applied in the language classroom
and their improvement in students’ oral production. Method: it accomplished=
a
bibliographical analysis of 51 sources in the communicative approach field
regarding strategies in spoken production of the English language. The
searching emphasized the effectiveness of the different communicative langu=
age
teaching strategies applied in the language classroom and the students’
enhancement in their oral production. This article selected several research
tools such as books, scientific articles from indexed journals, and graduate
theses. A meticulous search was carried out in databases such as Dialnet, Scielo, Eric, Go=
ogle
scholar, Semantics Scholar, Research Gate, and university digital repositor=
ies.
Results: the most common and effective communicative approach strategies for
oral production in the English language were identified; for example, debat=
e,
class presentations, problem-solving, modeling, comprehension questions, di=
alogs,
pair and group work, role play, peer teaching, project-based, jigsaw, games,
songs, use of realia, and authentic materials. Conclusion: the efficiency of the communicative lan=
guage
teaching strategies was widely proved; for that reason, their employment is
highly recommended to contribute to the students’ oral production enhanceme=
nt.
Keywords:
communication,
competence, strategy, oral production, language skills
Resumen
Introducción: la esencia de la vida está en la
habilidad de comunicarse a todo nivel, no se puede ver solo de forma verbal=
o extraverbal,
sino en el proceso de interacción con en medio que nos rodea. Objetivo: esta
revisión literaria tuvo como objetivo analizar la efectividad de las difere=
ntes
estrategias comunicativas de enseñanza del lenguaje aplicadas en el aula de
idiomas y su mejora en la producción oral del alumno. Método: se realizó un
análisis bibliográfico de 51 fuentes en el campo de las estrategias del enf=
oque
comunicativo en la producción oral del idioma inglés. En la búsqueda se
enfatizó en la efectividad de las diferentes estrategias de enseñanza
comunicativa aplicadas en el aula y la mejora de los estudiantes en su
producción oral. Se seleccionaron varias herramientas de investigación como
libros, artículos científicos de revistas indexadas y tesis de posgrado. Se
llevó a cabo una búsqueda meticulosa en los navegadores de búsqueda, a sabe=
r:
Dialnet, Scielo, Eric Google Scholar, Semantics Scholar,
Research Gate y
repositorios digitales universitarios. Resultados: se identificaron las
estrategias del enfoque comunicativo más comunes y efectivas para la produc=
ción
oral en el idioma inglés tales como debate, presentaciones en clase, resolu=
ción
de problemas, modelado, preguntas de comprensión, diálogos, trabajo en pare=
jas
y en grupo, juego de roles, enseñanza entre pares, basado en proyectos,
rompecabezas, juegos, canciones, uso de material real y auténtico. Conclusi=
ón:
se concluye que la efectividad de las estrategias comunicativas fue ampliam=
ente
probada; por ello, su uso es muy recomendable para contribuir a la mejora d=
e la
producción oral de los estudiantes.
Palabras
claves: comunicación,
competencia, estrategia, producción oral, destrezas del lenguaje.
Introduction
Since ancient times, the human being has needed to
communicate to survive and evolve. This communication is not a simple proce=
ss
because several elements must converge so that the message is clear, and the
sender understands it satisfactorily. However, this achievement is not alwa=
ys
quick and easy. From the hieroglyphs and cave paintings, man has taken
advantage of everything to transmit any message beyond his limits to transc=
end
his borders. Throughout history, humanity has evolved in each field. Nowada=
ys,
communication is developed in a global context and carried out through
sophisticated technological tools, namely emails, instant messages, video
calls, among others, in seconds (Cristal, 2003).
A salient part of communication is the message. That message needs to be understood, and for this to happen, langu= age is a key and indispensable piece (Yule, 2010). At present, English is the 'universal' language; hence, the need to learn has become a primary objecti= ve in education. From the educational standpoint, this need means that from the first years, the students are provided with means and resources so that they acquire and develop a communicative competence that enables them to express themselves, to communicate with their peers, and to understand the informat= ion in different situations (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). Theref= ore, communication plays a vital role in the teaching-learning process of Englis= h as a foreign language since the objective of learning a language is to use it = in an authentic context with communication and interaction purposes (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001).
In the teaching of English, communicat= ive interaction tasks and activities are produced where information exchanges t= ake place where the protagonists (teacher and student) interact in different contexts and situations. According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), these sp= aces encourage the growth of oral interaction skills and the student's communica= tive competence. However, communication issues might occur during the interactive process, so the teacher and the student use communication strategies to sol= ve those difficulties. Following the emergence of the communicative approach a= s a methodology, communication strategies have become the most significant subj= ect of study in research on teaching a second language (Harmer, 2007). Therefor= e, oral communication strategies are also a key objective in this research as tools to solve problems and limitations in communication.
The present study focused on establish= ing the level of incidence that the communicative language teaching (CLT) appro= ach has in the development of oral production. Therefore, two variables were se= t. Along with it, this approach foments the use of English in a more fluent an= d accurate form in A2 level students. Communicative language teaching is a set of principles employed in the acquisition of a second language to enhance oral production in English learners. CLT emerged around the 1970s as an effective response to scholars and linguistics who were unsatisfied with the grammar-translation, direct method, the audio-lingual, and the situational language method employed in the L2 instruction (Richards, 2006).
The first variable (CLT) features some principles from cognitive, psychology, and humanistic psychology perspectiv= e. They are the basis of many of the pedagogical and methodological conditions= of this approach. First, the learning process must be meaningful for the student, who is willing to relate the new task to what he already knows and how this retention occurs in the long ter= m (Ausubel, 1973). Second, the best way to learn to communicate is "learning by doing"; that is, by actively participating in communication activities that are promoted inside and outs= ide the classroom (Ausubel, 1973; Beltran, 2017).
The second variable is the development= of the English language in oral production. It is part of the productive skill= s of the language called speaking (Harmer, 2007). According to the Common Europe= an Framework of References for Languages ([CEFR], 2001), speaking focuses on t= he production of oral texts, which are assimilated by the audience who is listening. Furthermore, oral production speeches, providing information, and instructions involve reading texts aloud to address lectures in public. Additionally, speaking includes the speaker’s abilities, from the productio= n of simple isolated phrases related to people and places in the lowest level of performance to clear and well-designed speeches in the C2 proficiency.
Besides Savignon<= /span> (2002), stated that CLT focuses on the performance of communicative functio= ns rather than structures. The basic concept in CLT is communicative competenc= e, that is, the main goal now of acquiring a new language. Furthermore, Richkeit and Hans (2008), claimed that the term linguistic competence was coined by Chomsky in the 1960s. He contrasted competence (th= at is ideal speaker-listener) and performance (that is perfect linguistic know= ledge). For his part, Dell Hymes in the 1970s argued Chomsky’s vision suggesting that his view omitted language aspects. The term communicative competence was intended by Hymes = who proposed this competence not only as a theoretical need but also in a pract= ical form (p. 17).
Moreover, the objective of this resear= ch resides in analyzing the effects of the different communicative strategies applied in the language classroom and their improvement in student’s oral production. Even though EFL teachers apply the CLT method in their classes, some of them do not understand how to implement this method with their pupi= ls effectively. It occurs because of the lack of teachers’ professional development and training, innovative methodologies, infrastructure, and a w= ell-structured English curriculum (Dos Santos, 2016; 2017). Despite the governments having designed curricular formats to teach English for communication and producti= on purposes (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016), there are some strugg= les at the macro, meso, and micro levels.
Globally, English is the spoken langua= ge of millions of people. However, not all countries have the same level of oral production performance. Recently, Education Fir= st English Proficiency Index, reported that English language students’ performance has improved in some places in the world. That is the case of t= he Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland, where people have the highest level of English proficiency. This private institution stated that in countries where the English level is the highest is because of educators. They focus on communicative abilities, listening and speaking practice daily, and the Eng= lish curriculum is oriented to the student's major. On the contrary, in Tajikist= an, people have the lowest level of English proficiency. Education F= irst (2021) stated that this low level is due to teachers’ grammar and translation focu= s in their teaching practices rather than communicative and meaningful activitie= s in the classroom.
The interest in = learning the language continues to thrive throughout Latin America. However, test results indicate that English proficiency is impoverished. The educational system is not generating students with the necessary levels of English proficiency since it does not point to the use of an appropriate method to boost students' oral production, and Ecuador is not an exception. According= to the Education First (2021), English Proficiency Index Ecuador is the country with the lowest English level in the Latin American ranking. Not only at the level of the country but also at the level of the city of Cuenca, the same thing happens, the lack of pragmatic knowledge of the CLT. Calle et al. (20= 12) focused on the public schools in Cuenca to verify the reasons for the poor knowledge and low performance in English students, and it was related to the absence of effective strategies used by the English language teachers.
Furthermore, this study involves
bibliographical research by means of primary and secondary sources through
which data regarding empirical and non-empirical studies was gathered. The =
data
was compared to support the defended idea suggested. By means of research
synthesis, it is established that CLT developed and fostered oral productio=
n in
A2 ESL-EFL students due to real context activities and strategies implement=
ed
during class time to improve communicative competence through information
exchange, meaning negotiation, and interaction. In addition, in communicati=
ve
language teaching, the classes are learner-centered, so students participate
actively; they are the main actors of the teaching and learning process.
The communicative method aims at communication and interaction. It allows students to achieve the four competencies, oral, written, comprehension, and production in real situatio= ns. Hence, it consents students to communicate and interact in authentic settin= gs spontaneously using the foreign language without the necessity of rememberi= ng grammatical structures. For this reason, the teacher should select activiti= es based on the communicative method (Molina, 2018, p. 9).
It is imperative to implement communic= ative language teaching (CLT) approach to master students speaking skills, one of= the most complex ones to acquire. Moreover, this research is of evident interest for EFL English teachers, and everyone implicated in the teaching field bec= ause it has analyzed the strategies and activities used in CLT to enhance oral production in A2 students. Therefore, it is likely to assist those professionals interested in boosting their teaching practice. The importanc= e of this research dwells in the fact that it provides communicative strategies = and activities reported in the pertinent literature to aid learners in the acquisition of the second language.
Besides,
starting from the point of English as a global language, this research is
topical. Since, in Ecuador, English is taught as a foreign language. In the
current professional experience, it has been noted that grammar and vocabul=
ary
are the main focuses in the class. Consequently, it is necessary to devote =
time
to comprehension and productive skills. Most of the time, the results obtai=
ned
support how a theoretical exam was answered. However, the accurate test of
mastering a language must be producing the oral language correctly and
maintaining a conversation. That is why oral production was the main topic =
that
this research project focused attention on.
This research was also pertinent to the research field because students demonstrate poor oral production (ability to speak and communicate at conventional speed). It was evident in the Educati= on First diagnostic test in the English language. Likewise, schools do not hav= e a project in the English area that actively engages teachers to develop oral expression in students. The educational institutions do not adequately apply methodological strategies that foster the spoken production of the English language. Even though the Ministry of Education of Ecuador has designed a curricular document as a guide for teachers, it is not completely implement= ed in the classroom. Sporadically planned activities in the teaching-learning process negatively affect the development of students’ oral production.
Finally, it must be said that this res= earch was widely justified due to its interest, importance, topicality, and its p= ertinence. Firstly, this study possesses interest for the reasons regarding the impoverished English language proficiency in Ecuador. For that reason, it is essential to contribute with research to understand the problem and offer solutions. Therefore, with this analysis, outstanding information was gathe= red. Secondly, it is important that students and teachers, while developing the teaching-learning process of English as a foreign language, do not concentr= ate on grammatical structures or vocabulary lists rather than being able to use= the target language to communicate. Thus, in the English classroom, it is neces= sary to contribute with an investigation related to the implementation of communication strategies that allow achieving a more successful interaction= .
Methodology
A research synthesis was held to carry out this
project that analyzed the different communicative language teaching strateg=
ies
applied in the language classroom and their improvement in student’s oral
production. Research synthesis is a set of operations aimed at representing=
a
document and its content in a different form. It is an exploratory and
descriptive bibliographic revision in nature (Norris & Ortega, 2000).
Therefore, synthesis is an orderly process that requires a rigorous reading=
of
different research sources on a specific topic. In other words, the researc=
her
analyzes and synthesizes bibliographic documents, and the author creates a =
new
scientific product for its dissemination and publication based on their
information.
The information obtained in this research was
subjected to different cognitive processes such as selection, synthesis,
analysis, comparison, among others. It allowed the researcher to build a
scientific base that supports the development of the research. At the begin=
ning
of this study, to collect the initial body of literature, some keywords were
combined in the databases Dialnet, Scielo, Eric, Google scholar, Semantics Scholar, Rese=
arch
Gate, and university digital repositories, using the following search
equations: [communicative language teaching] + [oral production],
[communicative approach] and [speaking skills], [communicative tasks] +
[communicative strategies] + [spoken production]. In the same way, some
official pages such as Ministry of Education and Education First were exami=
ned.
After the initial search, 75 studies were located =
even
though 24 were not relevant to the objective of this review; they were
excluded. Finally, Dialnet 2, Scielo
4, Eric 9, Research gate 10, thesis from university repositories 9, Semanti=
cs
Scholar 6, Google Scholar 11 were reviewed. To proceed with the corpus
selection, the topic, the objectives, the abstracts, the research methodolo=
gy,
the results, and if necessary, the full articles were examined to decide wh=
ether
the information they contained was related to the synthesis objective.
To be included in the synthesis, the studies report
had to meet all the following criteria: publications in the English languag=
e,
scientific articles from indexed journals in the educational area. All these
documents should have an information standard that contains statistical dat=
a,
definitions, pedagogical interventions, proposals, and literature reviews. =
They
were comprised from 2016 to 2021, which means that the documents dating from
five years ago were considered.
Table 1
Table of
sources
|
Sources |
Fr. |
Percent |
|
Dialnet |
2 |
4% |
|
Scielo |
=
4 |
=
8% |
|
Eric |
9 |
18% |
|
Research Gat=
e |
=
10 |
=
20% |
|
Thesis from
university repositories |
9 |
18% |
|
Semantics
Scholar |
=
6 |
=
12% |
|
Google Schol=
ar |
11 |
22% |
|
Total |
=
51 |
=
100% |
Created by: V=
elez
(2021)
The exclusion criteria considered for this review =
were
articles not related to pedagogical interventions in students of A2 English
level of performance. Moreover, the aforementioned documents published befo=
re
2016 were discarded. Likewise, those that did not have a year of publication
and author; similarly, the articles did not belong to any journal of impact=
and
relevance in the teaching-learning process. The chosen files for the
development of the bibliographic review were essential because they were
mentioned and cited in various investigations; generally, each document was
cited with a minimum of 10 citations. The study of various parameters of the
work was fulfilled employing the discussion.
It conveyed the perspective of the different works cited. Besides, it
considered students’ problems, causes in the lack of students’ attention,
diagnoses, teaching-learning activities, and pedagogical interventions.
Communicative Language Teaching is an approach whe=
re
the emphasis is placed on helping students employ the language in a wide
variety of contexts prioritizing learning the language functions (Blair,
1982). Its main objective is to he=
lp
students create meaningful sentences (rather than to help them build perfec=
tly
correct grammatical structures or achieve perfect pronunciation). This means
that learning a foreign language is evaluated considering how the student
develops his communicative competence, which could be defined as the learne=
rs’
ability to use knowledge and thus communicate appropriately.
According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), this
approach provides relevance to the interactive communicative process between
teachers, participants, and peers. Here the teacher facilitates the
communication process between all the participants; he acts as an independe=
nt
participant within the teaching-learning group; the student, on the other h=
and,
contributes his ideas of how teaching-learning should be. The teacher
investigates, analyzes the student’s linguistic needs, advises, and manages=
the
learning process in the group. The Communicative Language Teaching approach
aims to reduce students’ anxiety, who at some point may show problems in
language production. Therefore, the teacher creates a friendly environment =
of
guidance and resolution of linguistic conflicts, giving the student greater
security and confidence to display improvement in his skills.
Students’ and teachers’ roles in the CLT approach:
teachers and students constitute the main elements of the CLT approach with
different roles. The teachers are facilitators who promote communication the
whole time among students. They are also advisors who monitor the classroom
activities and the students’ performance to scaffold them. Furthermore, the
teachers are co-communicators in charge of the students’ participation and
engagement (Harmer, 2007). On the other hand, the students play a crucial r=
ole
in becoming independent learners who are also communicators. They oversee
meaning negotiating to produce self-understanding and following their peers=
(Barberán, 2017).
Oral production is one of the so-called skills or
language abilities; it is one of the ways where the language is used togeth=
er
with written production, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension.
Oral production, expression, and interaction reflect a process where
psycholinguistics, linguistics, the ethnography of communication, and didac=
tics
intervene. Therefore, the better some fundamental elements of these discipl=
ines
are understood, that is, comprehending how it is, how it is employed, and h=
ow
to learn the orality of a second language, the better the oral production w=
ill
be mastered (Vaca & Gómez, 2017).
According to the Common European Framework of
References for Languages ([CEFR], 2001), oral production refers to the oral
text produced by language users. That spoken message is listened to by the
audience. Some oral production involves giving information and instructions=
in
public, participating as a lecturer in conferences, meetings, and or
presentations; role-playing; singing; and talking spontaneously, in general.
Oral production deals with some elements such as vocabulary, grammar, fluen=
cy,
and suprasegmental elements, specifically stress, rhythm, intonation, and
pronunciation.
Fluency: it deals with the learner’s confidence and
comfortability while speaking (Harmer, 2007). As well =
Dewi
et al. (2017) implemented a study where the communicative approach was the =
focus
of their research. The results revealed that students’ fluency was enhanced
through games in the classroom. Thus, students could speak with a certain l=
evel
of confidence, making connections among points that they learned with
gamification. That was a clear indicator of a good accomplishment of fluenc=
y.
Grammar: it is not only important in writing but a=
lso
in speaking because it helps the speaker’s understanding of tenses and corr=
ect
structures of sentences. Rambe (2017) implement=
ed a
study with the CLT approach, which used some communicative classroom activi=
ties
combined with teaching grammar in a context to improve speaking skills.
Therefore, students use grammar to convey meaning for the listeners to
understand.
Vocabulary: it is of paramount importance to impro=
ve
oral production with some classroom activities such as realia, visual aids,
cooperation, other strategies; for example, dramatization, questions, debat=
es
are suitable to improve vocabulary (Levina, 201=
7; Fitri, 2020). The
results are the improvement in the student's understanding and uttering of
words.
Suprasegmental Elements (stress, rhythm, intonatio=
n,
pronunciation): oral production deals with the pronunciation of the sound of
the language as a complex area. Moreover, it has other issues, such as stre=
ss,
rhythm, and intonation (Darcy, 2018). To cope with this important part of
speaking, teachers must emphasize communicative activities to make students
learn from real-life situations in the classroom.
Level of competency A2 refers to the elementary
knowledge that the language user must communicate. This level is based on t=
he
precepts from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. It
specifically includes the learner’s ability to understand and communicate by
using simple and frequently used expressions. Those expressions encompass
everyday personal and family information such as familiar, personal, and
professional places. That way of communication requires simple and direct
information belonging to nearby requirements.
Results
In this section, the most relevant data and
perspectives concerning the communicative approach strategies to enhance or=
al
production on A2 level students are presented. In this regard, the outstand=
ing
results were divided into subsections, specifically the use of communicative
language teaching in the classroom, perceptions on the use of communicative
language teaching, and teaching strategies of communicative language teachi=
ng.
Regarding communicative language teaching in the E=
FL
classroom, Sheeba and Karthikeyan (2020), state=
d that
CLT assisted in knowing and mastering how human beings utilize the target
language to communicate with every different verbal exchange inside and out=
side
the classroom in authentic contexts. The selected studies to achieve this
research were the ones that included the CLT effects on speaking as well as=
the
strategies used. Furthermore Toro et al. (2019) supported the usage of CLT =
in
the EFL classroom to boost speaking skills. As stated by Lai-Mei and Seyedeh (2017), it could benefit students due to the =
real
communicative contexts and the language exposure to opportunities to produce
and use the language in any situation. Similarly, AL-Garni and Almuhammadi (2019), Guado=
(2021),
Phoeun and Sengsri =
(2021)
and Toro et al. (2019) claimed the implementation of communicative language
teaching in the classroom by using appropriate activities to improve and de=
al
with students’ deficiencies in the second language (L2).
Besides Rabab’ah (2016)
inspected the effects of communication strategy instruction on EFL students’
oral production in Jordan. The participants of this study were 80 learners
divided into two groups (control and experimental ones). The researcher
employed the participants' pre- and post-IELTS speaking test scores,
transcription data from the speaking IELTS test, and 'Click On' Exit Test
scores to gather the information. Similarly, authors G=
uado
(2021), AL-Garni & Almuhammadi (2019) and <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Rabab’ah (2016), recommend implementing CLT in the
classroom. It is because the authentic language contexts provide students w=
ith
the opportunities to increase motivation for learning a language, train the
student to use that second language in an authentic communicative environme=
nt,
practice and use English independently, among other characteristics. Theref=
ore,
students could benefit from CLT due to the assistance they gained from the
effectiveness of the communicative strategies. Besides, it is suggested that
teachers must be flexible while performing CLT in their classrooms, playing=
the
role of facilitators of the teaching and learning process (Sekiziyivu
& Mugimu, 2017).
Nonetheless, this approach is not always efficient=
due
to teachers’ misunderstandings concerning its application (Denkci-Akkas
& Coker, 2016). Therefore, foreign language teaching presents some
challenges and problems to the teacher; for that reason, teachers must apply
this approach in different settings (Naranjo & Naranjo, 2017). In Ecuad=
or,
there are a lot of challenges in the classroom, not only due to many classes
but also because of outer noise, shortage of technology, lack of students’
motivation and participation, and differences in proficiency level. Thus, t=
he
latter reason results from the different students’ socio-economic backgroun=
ds.
Those students who can afford private English courses are the ones who most=
ly
participate in the classroom and sometimes are worried or bored due to their
partner’s lack of participation. In this regard, teachers must implement
different perspectives in their pedagogical practice to support students in
their language communication competence.
This research analyzed the different teachers’
perspectives on the use CLT in the EFL or ESL teaching process. Tootkaboni (2019) ascertained that the concept of inc=
luding
CLT in classroom practices is not unfamiliar for teachers. However, they are
still struggling and unconfident regarding CLT incorporation in their teach=
ing
practices. In the educational field, perceptions expressed and applied by
educators play an essential role in enacting any new approach. Moreover
In the same vein Yanti
(2017) and Hou et al. (2021) analyze teachers’ perceptions regarding CLT
principles and the challenges in implementing this approach. To obtain the
information, the authors utilized data collection tools such as observations
and questionnaires. The questionnaire was a Likert scale to inspect teacher=
s’
perceptions towards CLT, while the classroom observation checklist was to
verify the relation of theoretical perceptions and authentic practice. Thus,
the results suggested that it was noticeable that most of the teachers have=
a
clear understanding of what CLT is theoretically; however, it was not evide=
nt
in their teaching practices.
Similarly, Tootkaboni =
(2019)
confirmed that teachers possess significant perception levels regarding CLT;
nonetheless, there is an inconsistency between teachers’ theoretical
understanding and their practical application. The researcher worked with 1=
54
Iranian English teachers in two phases (questionnaire and classroom
observation) to recognize teachers’ beliefs.
The questionnaire provided the educator with 28 statements with the
six-point Likert technique of scale construction, and the design of the
classroom observation included six CLT features. It was observed that the
teacher expressed a high knowledge regarding CLT principles such as the
importance of the learners’ role, group work activities, teaching in context
meaningfully, among other characteristics. However, the findings suggested =
that
during the class observation, teachers did the opposite of what they mentio=
ned
in the questionnaire generating incompatibility with what they expressed.
A communicative strategy is a series of programmed=
and
planned actions that are implemented based on certain interests and needs, =
in
the space of human interaction, in a great variety of times. A strategy car=
ries
a principle of order, selection, of intervention on an established situatio=
n (Sekiziyivu & Mugimu, =
2017).
In this regard, there are some findings related to=
the
most practiced and named effective communicative strategies in the teaching=
-learning
English process.
Table 2
Effective
communicative language teaching strategies
|
Strategies |
||
|
Cognitive |
Metacognitive |
Socio-affective |
|
Practicing |
Planning |
Cooperation |
|
Debates Class
presentation Problem solv=
ing Modeling |
Problem base=
d Class
presentation Comprehensio=
n Questions |
Pair/ Group =
work Dialogue Information =
gap Role play Peer teachin=
g Project base=
d Jigsaw Songs Games Realia Authentic
material |
Created by: Velez (2021)
Authors like Rubin (1981), Smith (1996), Devia et al. (2017) and Ounis
(2016), have researched the most effective communicative approach strategie=
s.
These strategies are divided into three main groups cognitive, metacognitiv=
e,
and socio affective. The first one is related to the use of language such as
roleplays, class presentations, debates, problem-solving, among others (
In the most recent
publications that have been the subject of this literary review which focus=
ed
on the strategies of the communicative approach to improving the students’ =
oral
production in English as a foreign language, several findings have been mad=
e. The
first, that there are some concerns about the application of learning
strategies. At the same time, significant research documents were found on =
the
subject, even though it is a field where there are many remains to be done.
Sometimes, learning strategies are exclusively called communication strateg=
ies
forgetting that the latter is part of the former. On the other hand,
communicative strategies have greater prominence than learning strategies
considering that the goal of learning is communication without considering
cognitive, affective, social, and cultural factors into communicative
competence. Besides, other strategies apart from the communicative ones are
necessary to be developed.
The concept of the lear=
ning
strategy applied to the teaching field of foreign languages is closely rela=
ted
to the methodological revolution that began in the 1970s. The communicative
approach contemplates other areas of science, such as humanistic psychology,
cognitive psychology, and studies on the theory of learning and language
acquisition up to that time excluded. These new contributions influence a n=
ew
conception of both the language learner and the role of the teacher. Hence,
affective factors are considered in education because it starts to increase
motivation and confidence in learners and reduce their anxiety. This compon=
ent
plays a fundamental role since it is related to the importance of learning =
in a
relaxed environment while having fun. Cognitive factors are also examined in
the learning process; thereby, individual variables, different learning sty=
les,
and strategies developed by the learner to overcome barriers or difficultie=
s in
the new language studied.
Regarding learning a
language, a strategy is conceptualized by carrying out a communicative task,
whether learning a language is learning to communicate with it. The methods=
for
learning a new language will be based on understanding, expressing, or
interacting. Thus, it does not mean that only communication strategies are
activated; as Ausubel (1973) states, learners n=
eed
both general and common strategies (cognitive or affective) and other speci=
fic
ones as communicative.
Furthermore, the Common
European Framework of Reference for languages (2001), despite talking about=
the
ability to learn and reflecting the idea of the autonomy of learning, as we=
ll
as self-evaluation for conscious learning, does not offer a definition of a
learning strategy but rather reference exclusively to communication strateg=
ies.
It is understood that the strategies must be linked to the performance of
communicative tasks; therefore:
“Communicative strategies which are most efficient=
for
accomplishing the particular task. The user or learner naturally adapts,
adjusts and filters task inputs, goals, conditions and constraints to fit h=
is
or her own resources, purposes and (in a language learning context) particu=
lar
learning style” (Common European Framework of Reference for languages, 2001,
Although, from this
concept, there are other beneficial strategies applied for learning. As it =
was
mentioned previously, during the learning process, learners plan, assess
objectives or evaluate themselves to control and be aware of and responsible
for their learning. Moreover, this requires the use of metacognitive,
affective, or social strategies. However, the CEFR does not indicate any
classification of this type of strategy.
On the other hand, the =
use
of language is conceived as a phenomenon that occurs in a social and cultur=
al
context, which responds to an intention and is identified under certain
circumstances that determine it. Therefore, to achieve communicative
competence, other sub-competencies that are part of it must be accomplished,
such as linguistics (mastery of the linguistic code: grammatical rules,
vocabulary, pronunciation, etc.), discursive (ability to construct and
interpret a text coherently and cohesively), sociocultural (ability to know=
the
sociocultural context in which communication occurs and make appropriate us=
e of
language) and strategic (ability to fill deficiencies and balance resources=
to
communicate with success).
It is perceived that th=
is
research focuses on communicative ones. Nevertheless, it should also be not=
ed
that to achieve linguistic, discursive, and sociocultural competence are al=
so
utilized strategies, which are qualified as learning. For example, in
linguistic competence, it is necessary to apply some games, realia, authent=
ic
material, and information gap strategies to learn vocabulary. In the cognit=
ive
strategy, it could be utilized problem-solving, modeling, questioning, and
comprehension questions to deduce grammar rules.
As reviewed so far, the=
re
are some reasons to include the teaching of the strategies in the language
learning curriculum. Consequently, learning strategies deserve attention du=
e to
several aspects. For instance, the contribution to the main objective (whic=
h is
communicative competence while favoring the sub-competencies), the process =
on
the development of capacities or abilities rather than on the acquisition of
knowledge, students’ independence, supporting of learning and helping solve
problems, the flexibility, and some factors (affective, cognitive, and soci=
al).
After the whole process, which is enriching,
conclusions came up:
· &nb=
sp;
The efficacy of the different communicative strate=
gies
applied in the language classroom and their improvement in students’ oral
production was widely analyzed. Communicative strategies such as debate, cl=
ass
presentations, problem-solving, modeling, comprehension questions, dialogs,
pair and group work, role play, peer teaching, project-based, jigsaw, games,
songs, use of realia and authentic materials, among others, were found as t=
he
most effective and commonly applied in the teaching-learning process of Eng=
lish
as a foreign language.
· &nb=
sp;
The effectiveness of teaching a language depends on
the teachers’ ability to understand the methodology used and the effects it=
can
have on students and their needs. If, on the one hand, the primary student’s
need is to communicate orally, then opportunities must be provided to devel=
op
this ability focusing on language as a means of communication to provide the
student with enough tools to communicate. On the other hand, the student mu=
st
be guided to seek their growth as a language learner and their opportunitie=
s to
be aware of their responsibility in this instructional process and develop
autonomy. Since they will be the ones who receive the benefits of their
learning.
Alamri, W. (2018). Communicative Language Teachi=
ng:
Possible Alternative Approaches to CLT and Teaching Contexts. English
Language Teaching; Vol. 11, No. 10, 132-138.
AL-Garn=
i,
A. S., & Almuhammadi, A. (2019). The Effect of Using Communicative
Language Teaching Activities on EFL Students’ Speaking Skills at the
University of Jeddah. English Language Teaching; Vol.=
12,
No. 6, 72-86.
Ausubel, D. (1973). La educación y la estructura del conocimiento. <=
i>Investigaciones
sobre el proceso de aprendizaje y la naturaleza de las disciplinas que
integran el currículum., 211-239.
Barberán, J. (2017, December 9). Enfoque comunicativo formal (PCA) en la producci=
ón
oral del idioma inglés en la. Retrieved from Universidad Central del Ecuador - Repositorio Digi=
tal:
http://www.dspace.uce.edu.ec/bitstream/25000/13857/1/T-UCE-0010-ISIP014-2=
017.pdf
Beltran=
, M.
(2017). El aprendizaje del idioma inglés como Lengua Extranjera. Dialn=
et,
91-98.
Benítez, O. (2007). Las tareas comunicativas en el aprendizaje de las
lenguas extranjeras: una alternativa para el desarrollo de habilidades
comunicativas. Revista
Iberoamericana de Educación,
42-64.
Blair, =
R.
(1982). Innovative approaches to language teaching. Rowley: Newbury
house.
Bushra
Qamar, M. (2016). The Impact of Learner’s Autonomy on Teaching Oral Skills
(Speaking Skills) in an EFL classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, March 2016, 293-298.
Calle, =
A.
M., Calle, S., Argudo, J., Moscoso, E., Smith, A., & Cabrera, P. (201=
2). Los profesores de inglés y su práctica docente: =
Un
estudio de caso de los colegios fiscales de la ciudad de Cuenca, Ecuador.=
MASKANA, 3 (2), 1-17. http://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/handle/123456789/5405&=
nbsp;
Carvaja=
l,
D. (2020). The Communicative Approach and Its Effectiveness to Get B2
Level in English Conversation Skill in Adult Learners. Retrieved
from Universidad
Nacional Abierta y a Distancia UNAD:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/344724068.pdf
Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages. (2001). Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.
https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1bf
Cristal=
, D.
(2003). English as a Global Language. New York: Cambridge Universi=
ty
Press.
Darcy, =
I.
(2018). Powerful and Effective Pronunciation Instruction: How Can We Achi=
eve
It? The CATESOL journal, 1-33.
Denkci-=
Akkas,
F., & Coker, B. (2016). The Use of Communicative Approach in 9th Grade
EFL classes. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Issue 65,
71-90.
Devia
Grisales, M. S., & García Cruz, A. S. (2017). Oral Skills Development
Through the Use of Language Learning Strategies, Podcasting and Collabora=
tive
Work1. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal. ISSN 1692-5777. V=
ol.
14, 32-48.
Dewi, R.
S., Kultsum, U., & Armadi, A. (2017). Using Communicative Games in
Improving Students' Speaking Skills. English Language Teaching, v10 n1=
,
63-71.
Dos San=
tos,
L. (2016). Foreign language teachers' professional development through pe=
er
observation programmed. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 39-46. <=
/span>https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p39
Dos San=
tos,
L. (2017). How do teachers make sense of peer observation professional
development in an Urban School. International Education Studies,
10(1), 255-265. =
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n1p255
Educati=
on
First. (2021). Index del EF English Proficiency.
https://www.ef.com.ec/epi/regions/latin-america/ecuador/
Espinoz=
a,
k., & Cortez, V. (2019, August 16). Estrategia Metodológica para el Desarrollo del
Proceso de Enseñanza Aprendizaje de la Lengua y Literatura desde un Enfoq=
ue
Comunicativo.http://=
repositorio.unae.edu.ec/bitstream/56000/1118/1/El%20enfoque%20comunicativo.=
pdf
Fitri, =
A.
(2020). The approach strategy of communicative language teaching.
Retrieved from Academia:
https://www.academia.edu/37026594/THE_APPROACH_STRATEGY_OF_COMMUNICATIVE_=
LANGUAGE_TEACHING_FOR_LEARNERS
Guado, N. (2021). Communicative
language teaching approach in the development of speaking skill.
Explorador Digital, 5(3), 17-37. http://doi.org/10.33262/explora=
dordigital.v5i3.1750
Harmer,=
J.
(2007). The Practice of Language Teaching. United Kingdom: Longman
Publishers.
Hou, Y., Hou, Y., & Chen, L.
(2021). A Study of Communicative Language Teaching for EFL at Junior Coll=
ege
in Taiwan. The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 28
(2), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7=
963/CGP/v28i02/51-63
Hyuning=
si,
S. (2019). Using Communicative Language Teaching Approach to Improve
Students’ Speaking Ability. Retrieved from Muhammadiyah University of=
Makassar:
https://digilibadmin.unismuh.ac.id/upload/7100-Full_Text.pdf
Kholsti=
nina,
T., Vekovishcheva, S., & Kochetova, A. (2021). A modern approach to communicative language teac=
hing
in English classes in high school. E3S Web of Conferences 284, 08005,<=
/i>
1-9.
Lai-Mei,
L., & Seyedeh Masoumeh, A. (2017). An Analysis of Factors Influencing
Learners’ English-Speaking Skill. International Journal of Research in
English Education, 34-41.
Levina,=
P.
(2017). Communicative Approach Strategies to English Language Teaching=
in
Tanzanian Secondary Schools: Are They Really Working? http://scholar.=
mzumbe.ac.tz/bitstream/handle/11192/2208/MA-ED_Levina-Paschal_2017.pdf?sequ=
ence=3D1
Lobacho=
va,
I. (2019). The Communicative Approach as a Strategy of Developing Fore=
ign
Language Speaking Competence.
http://profped.ddpu.edu.ua/article/view/174540/174516
Maulana,
A., Musthafa, I., & =
Hayati,
T. (2020). The Efficien=
cy
of Teaching Listening and Speaking Skills to Develop Students' Communicat=
ive
Competences. Universal Journal of Educational
Research 8(3), 802-808.
Ministe=
rio
de Educación del Ecuador. (2016). English as a Foreign Language for
Subnivel Bachillerato. Quito:
Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador.
Molina, E. (2018). El Método Comunicativo en el desarrollo de la
Producción Oral del francés nivel B1 de los estudiantes de Sexto Semestre=
de
la carrera Plurilingüe de la Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de =
la
Educación de la Universidad Central del Ecuador durante el período académico
2018-2018.
[Bachelor 's thesis, Universidad Central del Ecuador]. Quito: UCE. =
http://www.dspace.uce.edu.ec/ha=
ndle/25000/22821
Mwelwa, W., & Mwanza, D. S. (202=
0). Analyzing teaching strategies teachers use to
develop communicative competence in secondary school English language
learners. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and
Education (IJHSSE). Volume 7, Issue 3, 43-54.
Naranjo,
X., & Naranjo, M. (2017). Effective pedagogical practices to develop
communicative competences in large EFL classrooms. Revista Publicando,=
4
No 12. (1). ISSN 1390-9304, 269-283.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3),
417-528.
Ochoa, C., Cabrera, P., Quiñónez, A.,
Castillo, L., & González, P. (2016). The Effect of Communicative Activities on EFL Le=
arners
‘Motivation: A Case of Students in the Amazon Region of Ecuador. Colom=
bian
Applied Linguistics Journal, 1-10.
Ounis, =
T.
(2016). Exploring the Use of Oral Communication Strategies by High and Low
Proficiency learners of English: Tunisian EFL students as a case study. <=
i>International
Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies ISSN 2356-5926. Vol. 3,
1077-1098.
Phoeun, M., & Sengsri, S.
(2021). The Effect of a Flipped Classroom with Communicative Language
Teaching Approach on Undergraduate Students’ English-Speaking Ability.
Rabab’ah, G. (2016). The effect=
of
communication strategy training on the development of EFL learners’ strat=
egic
competence and oral communicative ability. Journal of psycholinguistic
research, 45(3), 625-651.doi:10.1007/s10936-015-9365-3
Radosavlevikj, N. (2021). Teach=
ers’
and students’ perceptions and challenges in communicative language teachi=
ng. Journal
of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 307-317.
https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2003307R
Rambe, =
S.
(2017). Communicative Language Teaching. English Education. Vol. 5. N.=
2.,
54-66.
Richard=
s,
J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teach=
ing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard=
s,
J. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge Univer=
sity
Press.
Richkei=
t,
G. & Hans, S. (2008). Handbook of Communicative Competence. Be=
rlin,
New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199000
Rubin, =
J.
(1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Appl=
ied
Linguistics, 11, 117- 131.
Savigno=
n,
S. (2002). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: contexts and
concerns in teacher education. Yale University Press.
Sekiziy=
ivu,
S., & Mugimu, C. (2017). Communicative Language Teaching Strategies f=
or
German as a Foreign Language in Uganda. Journal of Language Teaching a=
nd
Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 8-15.
Sheeba,=
W.
& Karthikeyan, J. (2020). Humanizing English speaking skill using CLT
among students from rural background. International Journal of Advanced
Science and Technology, 29(7s), 1419 - 1423.
Smith, =
K.
(1996). Cooperative learning: Making “groupwork” work. San Francis=
co:
Josey Bass.
Tootkaboni, A. (2019). Teachers'
beliefs and practices towards communicative language teaching in the
expanding circle. Revista signos: estudios de lingüística, 52(100),
265-289. doi: 10.4067/S0718-09342019000200265=
Toro, V., Camacho-Minuche,
G., Pinza-Tapia, E., & Paredes, F. (2019). The Use of the Communicative Language Teaching
Approach to Improve Students’ Oral Skills. English Language Teaching; =
Vol.
12, No. 1, 110-118.
Vaca, A=
.,
& Gómez, F. (2017). Increasing EFL Learners' Oral Production at a Pub=
lic
School Through Project-Based Learning. Profile Issues in Teachers`
Professional Development. Print version ISSN 1657-0790, 1-10.
Yanti, G. (2017). Communicative
Language Teaching: The Perceptions of English Teachers in Mempawah Hilir.=
Jurnal Ilmiah Spectral,
3=
(1),
019-025. https://doi.org/10.47255/spectr=
al.v3i1.14
Yule, D.
(2010). The Study of Language. New York: Cambridge University Pres=
s.
Zyoud, M. (2016). Theoretical Perspective on How to Develop Speaking Skill among University Students. Pune Research Scholar Vol. 2. Issue 1, 1-10.<= o:p>
PARA CITAR EL ARTÍCULO INDEXADO.=
Vélez Yanza, P. A., &am=
p;
Paredes Rodríguez, L. A. (2021). Communicative
approach strategies to enhance oral production on A2 level students
. ConcienciaDigit=
al, 4(4.2), 22-41. https://doi=
.org/10.33262/concienciadigital.v4i4.2.1935
<= o:p>
El artículo que se publica es de exclusiva responsabilidad de los
autores y no necesariamente reflejan el pensamiento de la Revista Conciencia Digital.
El artículo queda en propiedad d=
e 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] Pon=
tificia
Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación,
Maestría en Pedagogía del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera, Ambato, Ecuador. ORCID:
0000-0002-9564-5711, paula.a.velez.y@pucesa.edu.ec
[2] Universidad Central del Ecuado=
r, Facultad
de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación, Carrera de Pedagogía de lo=
s Idiomas
Nacionales y Extranjeros, Quito, Ecuador. ORCID: 0000-0001-8226-3071, laparedesr@uce.edu=
.ec
www.concienciadigita=
l.org
=
Vol. 4,
N°4.2, p. 22-41, diciembre, 20