Recibido: 14-07-20=
19/
Revisado: 22-07-2019/Aceptado: 15-08-2019/ Publicado: 06-09-2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33262/exp=
loradordigital.v3i3.1.880
The
influence of project-based learning approach in the en=
glish
oral production
The
influence of project-based learning approach in the en=
glish
oral production
Noemi Mercedes
Remache Carrillo.[1],
Gabriela Alejandra Robayo Dávalos.[2],
Viviana Vanessa Yanez Valle. [3]
The objective of this study was to
determine the effect of the application of project-based learning on the
development of oral production (speaking) of the English language in fifty-=
two
students who attend to Unidad Educativa Pelileo in the elementary level A.1.2 according to the
Board of Ecuadorian education. The qualitative-quantitative method was used=
in
the research; qualitative because the performance of students in class and
quantitative was observed because the grades obtained in the pre and post-t=
est
were statistically analyzed. The population for this research was divided i=
nto
two groups: control with twenty-seven students and the experimental group w=
ith
twenty-five students. Furthermore, the research was quasi-experimental,
bibliographic and field, since the experimental group was observed and
submitted to an intervention plan with a project-based learning treatment. =
The
instrument used to evaluate the independent variable was the Key English Te=
st
(KET) (MOCK) test that was applied before and after the intervention plan. =
The
data obtained were tabulated, analyzed, interpreted and subjected to a
T-student test in order to verify the hypothesis and conclude that the null
hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. It mea=
ns that
the treatment with project-based learning contributed to a significant
improvement in oral production performance, reflected in the parameter scor=
es
of: grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, and interactive communication
established in the assessment instrument. Therefore, teachers are suggested=
to
apply project-based learning in the development of oral production.
Keywords: Learning Projects, approach, oral production, performance
Introduction.
According to the English Proficiency Index (EPI) 2017 Ecuador has a l=
ow
English proficiency level. It has been ranked in the 55th place after
Guatemala. Even though Ecuador stands out for an above-average gained since
2007 until 2017, it is still one of the countries with the lowest English
proficiency levels in Latin America. The deficient oral production level co=
uld
be due to the lack of interaction among Ecuadorian students and native Engl=
ish
speakers. Although Ecuador has been mentioned as a tourist country it is not
possible to keep a conversation with native speakers easily. Foreign people=
can
be found just in certain places such as Baños d=
e Agua
Santa, Shell, Tena, Quilotoa and other specific
cities. However, they seem to be reluctant to make friends. For that reason=
, it
is not possible to address them for achieving oral interaction.
The students were assessed the speaking skill and the results showed a
deficient of the English production level on the pre-test. For that reason,=
it
is important to be aware of the importance that oral production has. Oral
production is an essential productive skill which has to be developed taking
many considerations such as what we say, to whom we are talking to, and how=
we
want to convey the message. It is also important to take into account the
already mentioned points because language has to be used appropriately in o=
rder
to communicate with other people effectively.
Furthermore, Project-Based Learning activities could be used to enhan=
ce
oral production. Teachers could use this teaching method to have students
interacting together on assigned tasks. That will allow that they can speak
between them and communicate in a student centered class. Besides, accordin=
g to
Leaver & Stryker (1989) “students who work on projects show increased
motivation and engagement in their studies”. For that reason, project-based
learning activities were implemented on this study to help learners improve
their speaking skill.
The implementation of projects in class could be a good option to have
the students practice the speaking skill in the target language. It will al=
low
interaction, communication and participation in a student centered class wh=
ere
they will be the ones who practically manage the class. Projects will also =
be a
good option to practice oral production because they will have to present t=
he
work product of their projects. This for sure will make them practice the o=
ral
skill more than what they were accustomed, having hopefully an improvement =
on
this skill.
Another factor that may cause low oral production development is the =
use
of traditional methodology. According to Andrew (2012) with traditional
methodology, students have limited opportunities to intervene orally through
projects in a teacher-centered class. This also may affect students’ confid=
ence
which may lead students to fear of speaking in English; if students do not =
want
to speak in the target language, they will not be confident enough to inter=
act
among them, thus they may not want to continue learning English.
In addition, teaching speaking requires activities which go along with
the students’ needs. The use of inappropriate activities to teach this
productive skill demotivates students to practice conversations among them.=
It
is necessary to use innovative activities in order to get the students’
attention (Barker & Westrup, 2000). However=
, it
seems that many if not most EFL teachers are accustomed to teaching-centered
classes where they are the ones who explain what the subject matter is about
while the students keep just sitting and listening to the teacher’s
instructions; hence, they have little or no spoken interaction. This, for s=
ure
causes non-effective spoken communication among students, limiting even more
their oral production in the target language.
This research is relevant because there is not any other research rel=
ated
to this theme developed at Unidad Educativa
This research is important because it permits to understand the influ=
ence
of Project-Based Learning activities in the low English Oral Production lev=
el
applied to 25 ninth graders at Unidad Educativa=
Pelileo, located in Pelileo-Tungurahua,
in the September 2017- June 2018 school year. English oral production is vi=
tal
to communicate with others, thus it is necessary to put special emphasis on
teaching this skill because English is considered lingua franca and there a=
re
thousands of people who speak it all over the world. Besides, Ecuador is
frequently visited by tourists from many parts of the world who communicate
through English. Thus, it is important to achieve a good proficiency level =
on
this skill.
Since speaking is the main way to communicate orally, this work is of
local and national interest because the main goal is to help improve the or=
al
production (speaking) on the students. Besides, the implementation of
Project-based learning approach allowed the students to face real life
situations and they could practice the target language by using appropriate
vocabulary and grammatical structures in context. Also, it can be added that
most teachers are concerned about the importance of oral production on the
students. Thus, it is always helpful to devote all efforts to find appropri=
ate
techniques and strategies to improve oral production.
It is necessary to mention that this research was feasible because it=
was
not difficult to implement Project Based Learning Activities with the stude=
nts
at Unidad Educativa Pelile=
o.
Besides, it was not necessary to spend money because the projects were very
simple to develop. Additionally, the human resource was provided by the
students and the teacher who shared information to develop the projects. For
all those reasons, this research was feasible to achieve, and it could be
implemented not only with elementary students, but also with all levels as
necessary.
This research has appositive impact, because it was possible to obser=
ve
an increment in the post test’s scores in relat=
ion to
the pre test’s grades. Besides, not only the sc=
ores
increased, but also shows an improvement in the pronunciation, grammar and
interactive communication. These factors may help the students feel more
comfortable when they interact in class and outside of it, or when they hav=
e to
use the target language to communicate in real situations.
Finally, it is also important to highlight that the beneficiaries are
absolutely the students at Unidad Educativa
Project-Based learning Approach
Regarding Project-Based learning, Capraro,
Whitfield, Etchells, and Capraro (2016) argue t=
hat
projects permit the students to show their capacity to work in pairs or gro=
ups
in an effective manner. At the same time, they can be able to manifest their
critical thinking as well as their potential to solve the problems that cou=
ld
be found in the project working process. Besides, group work is seen as one=
of
the most vital features in any project development because projects can help
the students enhance teamwork and communication skills. Thus, it is vital to
have successful cooperation and collaboration among the people involved in =
the
project because failure can be experienced in the entire work when these
features are not accomplished.
Furthermore, according to Laur (2013), pr=
ojects
are sometimes simulated practices in the classroom that are graded by the
teacher and then returned to the student with some feedback so that they can
improve their work. It is stated that projects are most of the time almost =
real
activities created and completed for the students. These approach demands t=
hem
not only to put in practice their critical thinking, but also dare them to =
go
from basic memorization of content to active involment and participation.
Working with projects may encourage the studetns to be involved in their own
learning. Thus, teachers should help learners in order to choose an appropr=
iate
project which can certainly help them improve the needed skills.
Additionally, it has been stated that Project-Based Learning approach
could be used by teachers as an action to make the students the main charac=
ters
in the classroom. Besides, working with projects could help teachers work i=
n a
dynamic and interacting class because, according to Blank (as cited in Ayte=
kin,
2011:2) “in project-based learning, students plan, implement, and evaluate
projects that have real-world applications beyond the classroom”. Thus, real
world activities could motivate students to actively participate in class w=
hile
their performance is constantly monitored by the teacher.
Teachers also need to recognize whether the students are getting
knowledge or not. Besides, educators should have a strategy in order to deal
with the students’ needs and interests. When teachers get to know his or her
students, they will be able to guide them throughout the project process by
providing enough support to them. Therefore, educators should not work in
isolation, they should be encouraged to work and get along with their
colleagues so that lesson plans, assessment rubrics, and activities can be
shared and feedback can be provided and received. Thus, a peer-supported
learning environment can be built in order to benefit the students in the
teaching-learning process (Laur, 2013).
Another reason to state that Project-Based Learning approach could he=
lp
in the teaching learning process is because projects can be used in primary=
or
secondary education whenever necessary. Besides, a student-centered environ=
ment
is promoted when projects are used in class. In addition, students work on
their own or in groups to obtain and present the information about the sele=
cted
topic. Something that has to be highlighted about working with projects is =
that
they can be daily life issues which can be solved with a solution through
promoting students’ high-order thinking skills (Tan and Chapman, 2016).
Project-Based learning activities are used in subject matters like
Mathematics, English, Visual Media Analysis and Production, Physics, and Ar=
t.
In Math, students are able to use tools to determine measurements to find
perimeter and area of geometric figures as well as to calculate areas of
polygons and to apply mathematical processes. In English language learning,
students are expected to work in cooperation with others to produce writing=
and
oral outcomes and establish communication. Besides, in Visual Media Analysis
and production students produce visual and media text for creating
communication. In Physics, learners answer laboratory and field research
questions. Finally, in Arts, students communicate their ideas through art w=
ork
by challenging imagination (Capraro et al.,
2016:10-11).
The development of projects consists mostly of a student-centered
environment where learners are the main participants. Nevertheless, teachers
also play an important role during the working process. They are in charge =
of
monitoring constantly throughout the whole development in order to provide
feedback if necessary. Teachers have to be conscious that learners will mak=
e as
many mistakes as they can. However, this is not a good reason to stop their
work, because as mentioned before, project-based learning activities are
carried out in a learning environment where mistakes are allowed and seen as
part of the learning process (Straub et al., 2017).
It is important to mention that the aim of introducing project work i=
n the
classroom is basically to let the students learn in an autonomous way. They=
can
also experience activities that can be faced in real life situations during=
the
project development. All these activities permit the students gain important
skills such as cooperation, collaboration, communication and independent
learning. Thus, they may become more aware of their own learning and may be
prepared for future challenges not only in the educational field, but also =
in
the general situations that could be faced during their life (Tan and Chapm=
an,
2016).
Oral production
Regarding to this topic; oral production is represented by the spoken
form of communication. In this sense, Bailey (2003) claims that speaking ca=
n be
considered to be essential because it is a necessary ability not only to
maintain a real time conversation, but also to achieve language development.
When people have oral interaction, immediate response among the participant=
s is
usually required. Besides, in this interaction, the speaker expresses thoug=
hts
and messages whilst the listener is ready to reply as soon as the speaker s=
tops
talking. For that reason, it is stated that in many if not all foreign lang=
uage
courses; the speaking skill is the most required to be learned.
In today's world, speaking English has become not only a matter of
knowledge, but also a necessity; new generations require people who speak
English. It could happen because English language can be considered as a st=
atus
symbol that is used and understood worldwide. Besides, English is important
because all multinational companies hire people who are able to speak this
language with a good level of fluency and correctness. It is also stated th=
at
the number of English speakers has increased all over the world. Thus, livi=
ng
without English language could not be afforded nowadays (Robert, 2010).
According to Halliday (1989), the chief means of communication is
speaking; it is apparently easily acquired as an innate characteristic of h=
uman
beings. Besides, it has been stated that speaking can be seen as a set of
meanings that are encompassed by a set of expressions. Other skills such as
reading and writing are learned in an educational setting when people enrol=
l to
educative institutions, whilst speaking is an ability people were born with.
Additionally, speaking is important in order to check whether students have
understood certain class topics or not, because it is easier and more effic=
ient
to ask in oral way rather than conducting a set of written questions every
time.
The speaking skill is influenced by a series of circumstances i.e., r=
eal
time performance situations, instantaneous presence of participants, immedi=
ate
interaction, the same setting, and the desire of transmitting the speaker’s
point of view. These features are somehow or other shared in low or high de=
gree
and are used by the speaker though different kinds of registers (formal or
informal) (Biber, 2006). The speaking skill has=
a
very close relation with listening because speaking can be regarded as unwo=
rthy
when there is not an interlocutor to reply or at least listen to somebody
else’s words.
Moreover, an excellent opportunity for learners to become aware of wh=
at
speaking involves is provided when focusing on formal language. In addition,
when speaking is used effectively, it could lead to the development of usef=
ul
planning and delivery strategies. Although formal speaking is affected by t=
he
performance conditions of planning, time pressure, support, and standard of
performance, students should be ready to deal with all those aspects, becau=
se
it helps learners express their ideas in a standardize way so that the mess=
age
can be conveyed in formal setting and context (Nation & Newton, 2010). =
Apart from that, according to Robert (2010), informal language is mos=
tly
used in speaking and it is placed out of conventional or standard language.=
One
example of informal language is the use of contractions. They are used in
everyday spoken language and informal writing.
Slangs are other example of informal language. These expressions that
are not considered within formal context consist both of coined words and
phrases, and of new or extended meanings attached to existing terms. Slangs
commonly either pass into disuse or come to have a more formal status and a=
re
used attempting to find fresh and vigorous, colorful, pungent or humorous e=
xpression.
Besides, these kinds of words try to make the language friendlier and are u=
sed
to simplify the meaning of words in a better manner.
Additionally, another example of informal speaking is when people use
phrasal verbs. Those words are an important part of English language especi=
ally
in spoken and are members of a large group of verbs called 'multi-word verb=
s'
(Robert, 2010). Colloquial words are also included in informal speaking use.
These kinds of words are used especially in casual conversation. Another feature of informal spoken lang=
uage
is reduced speech. It refers to the tendency of joining two words and trans=
form
them into just one utterance i.e., the words “going to” may sound like “
Two alternatives can be suggested. First, learn pronunciation from the
beginning and speak from the beginning. Second, learn without pronunciation,
but do not speak (you will start speaking at a later stage, after learning
pronunciation). If a perfect pronunciation is not accomplished at the begin=
ning
of the course, students should not be worried; their pronunciation should f=
it
between the following parameters: 1 right sounds have to be used- the speak=
ing
version of foreign language learners may get along with English sounds. 2 t=
he
right syllable has to be always stressed (Robert, 2010).
Equally important to mention, learners have to be trained in order to
develop the speaking skill, because they will not become proficient speakers
just by listening and understanding the target language. It is supposed that
speaking should naturally be led by listening, especially at the phonologic=
al
level. For that reason, it is vital to learn to recognize sound patterns as
well as phonological aspects of English language because there is a clear
connection among listening and speaking. For that to be done, some techniqu=
es
for oral production should be taken into account i.e., controlled, guided, =
and
free oral work Brumfit et al., (1986).
First, controlled oral work is considered as a flexible technique for
language interaction in the spoken form. It is suitable for oral presentati=
on
and practice of phonological, lexical and grammatical items. This kind of w=
ork
can be used as controlled or guided oral production with the aim to fulfill
communicative criterion. It is also possible to use controlled oral work fr=
om
the very starting lesson even with elementary level students because simple
introductions could be employed at this stage. Besides, drills could be use=
d;
they could be very structured so that the possibility to make mistakes coul=
d be
reduced when practicing them because the students may have to answer tightly
questions without open answers. That could help learners to achieve fluency=
as
well as confidence at a certain point Brumfit e=
t al.,
(1986).
Second, guided oral work is another form to practice spoken English. =
The
objective of this activity is to assign the students a limited time to prac=
tice
what they have learned in class. The oral practice is allowed; however, some
restrictions are provided when achieving guided work. Some guided oral work=
can
also be given through the use of appropriate questions and answers. At the =
same
time, some freedom is allowed them in order to use their own ideas into the
exercises developed in class. Guided work can also be used in a structured =
way
to check the students’ exercises from controlled guidance to more flexible =
work
Brumfit et al., (1986).
Third, free oral production provides the students the opportunity to
produce in a natural way the language that has been learned. Besides, they =
can
put in practice all their knowledge in several more or less controlled
situations. This process can be developed at all the levels of teaching.
However, it is especially important in the more advanced levels because at =
that
stage is where the students have the instruments needed i.e., knowledge abo=
ut
grammar patterns, lexicon, language usage, etc., to express their messages =
and
thoughts Brumfit et al., (1986).
Not only the activities above mentioned should be developed help the
speaking skill, but also other aspects should be considered because spoken
language has difficult parts to be achieved such as fluency and accuracy. A
good speaker should be both fluent and accurate specially students at advan=
ced
levels. On the one hand, fluency is the ability to use spoken language in a
fluid and confident way in a consistent percentage with the standard of the
pertinent native speaking community (Bailey, 2003).
Methodology
This study was supported by bibliographical, documentary and transver=
sal
investigation. Besides, field research has been applied considering that th=
is
research permitted to study an experimental group in the classroom. It
permitted to obtain real information in order to reach the study’s objectiv=
es.
Additionally, bibliographical research has been developed during all the st=
udy
process so that concepts and thoughts of other authors can be analyzed and
explored because they have made a good contribution to this study.
Moreover, qualitative and quantitative method of research was employe=
d;
this research allowed organizing, analyzing and interpreting the data colle=
cted
from the test applied before and after the implementation of project-based
learning approach with the experimental group. The analysis of the data hel=
ped
to verify and accept the null hypothesis, as well as to draw conclusions and
recommendations about the implementation of Project-Based Learning Activiti=
es
for the oral production development.
The descriptive and applied type of research has been chosen for this
research. Besides, these types of research aim at reporting the results fou=
nd
after the data analysis of the results. Besides, it attempted to find a
solution to the oral production problems found through the implementation of
Project-Based Learning Activities with the students.
Moreover, it is a quasi-experimental design because it attempted to
determine the differences among the control and experimental group after the
implementation of project-based learning approach. Both groups took a prete=
st
and a post-test in order to measure the results of this study. Two variables
were manipulated by the same teachers; the independent variable, which is
project–based learning approach and the dependent variable that is oral
production (the speaking skill) development.
This research was developed at Unidad Educativa<=
/span>
Pelileo that is located in Tungurahua province.=
A
total of 52 students was the population; the control group was comprised of=
27
students, whilst the control group had a total of 25 learners from the alre=
ady
mentioned high school. It is important to mention that working on this samp=
le
or experimental group helped understand how project-based learning affected
English oral production on the students.
Chart 1. Population and sample
|
Population |
Frequency |
% |
|
|
25 |
48 |
|
|
27 |
52 |
|
|
52 |
100 |
Source: Direct investigation
Created
by: =
Robayo, G. (2017)
The elements which were employed for the data collection: a pre-test =
and
a post-test as well as observations. Besides, a notebook was used to write =
down
the most important details during the observations. Pre and Post-tests were
carried out with the students at Unidad Educativa Pelileo.
First of all, the population was divided into two groups, the control
group with 28 students and the experimental group with 25 learners. Second,=
the
instrument used was the speaking section of a Key English Test examination,=
it
was comprised of three parameters that were awarded five points each i.e.,
grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, and interactive communication. Besid=
es,
the speaking section consisted of two parts; in the first part, the students
had to answer some questions about basic personal information in 4 to 5
minutes; second, the students were given some cards that contained informat=
ion
and prompts on it, then they were required to interact among them providing=
and
requesting information related to the clues on the cards in 3 to 4
minutes.
Using the instrument previously mentioned in this section, a pre-test=
was
conducted to the students. After the analysis of the pre-test results, the =
researcher
has developed a class intervention for improving students’ oral production
through Project-Based learning activities during 6 weeks in October and
November 2017. This intervention was applied for 18 academic hours. Finally=
, a
post-test was conducted to the control and experimental group.
First of all, the students were divided into control and experimental
group. Then, a pre-test was conducted to both groups. The test was the spea=
king
part of a mock KET examination, it was comprised of three parameters i.e.,
grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, and interactive communication. After
that, the treatment with project-based learning activities with the
experimental group was executed. Then, a post-test was conducted to the con=
trol
and experimental group. More statistics information was collected in charts=
and
figures that are detailed as follows.
The comparison of averages obtained in the three parameters of test of
the pre-test and the post-test. Figure two shows the students’ individual
scores from the control and experimental group obtained in the Pre-test and
post-test. Comparison of scores according to each parameter obtained by both
groups in the pre-test and post-test. The comparison of scores according to
each parameter (grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation and interactive
communication) obtained by the experimental group in the pre-test and
post-test. The frequencies of the total scores obtained in the pre-test and
post-test by both groups.
All the data was tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted by using Excel
software. The information permitted to test the hypothesis so as to draw
conclusions about the influence of project-based learning approach in the
English speaking skill development.
Results
For this research, the students were divided into two groups, the con=
trol
group with 28 students and the experimental group with 25 students. Both gr=
oups
attended to classes with the difference that the students from the experime=
ntal
group were subjected to a treatment with Project-Based Learning. Besides, t=
he
speaking part of a Key English Test (KET was conducted to the students. It
consisted of three parameters i.e., grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation a=
nd
interactive communication. Each parameter was graded out of 5 points, havin=
g 15
points in total. Once the pre and post-tests’ grades were obtained, the
analysis of results was developed. The projects developed by the students w=
ere
specifically selected according to the students’ level.
It is important to mention that the analysis of the results showed th=
at
the treatment developed with the experimental group showed positive results.
The treatment was effective because better grades were obtained by the stud=
ents
from the experimental group in comparison with the students form the contro=
l group.
The scores from the experimental group were higher in the three parameters
mentioned before. The results of the pre-test and post-test conducted to the
students from the control and experimental group were displayed, analyzed a=
nd
interpreted.
Finally, the findings of the study are shown after having processed t=
he
data. Standard deviation was applied by analyzing statistically the correla=
tion
of the variables. Besides, a T-test was considered in order to verify the
hypothesis. This process allowed presenting the results of the study in the
following charts, graphs, and figures.
Ch=
art 2
Averages from the control and experimental group in
the pre and post-test.
|
TEST/GRUPO |
Grammar and Vocabulary |
Pronunciation |
Interactive Communication |
|
Pre-test control group |
2,500 |
2,000 |
2,500 |
|
Post-test control group |
3,653 |
3,538 |
3,500 |
|
Pre-test experimental group |
2,200 |
2,000 |
2,560 |
|
Post-test experimental group |
4,440 |
3,960 |
4,120 |
Source:
Direct Research
Created
by: Robayo,
G. (2017)
Graph three shows the averages form the control and
experimental group in the pre and post-test. The control group obtained an
average of 2.500 in grammar and vocabulary, 2.00 in pronunciation, and 2.50=
0 in
interactive communication in the pre-test. The same group in the post-test =
had
3.653 in grammar and vocabulary, 3.518 in pronunciation, and 3.518 in
interactive communication. Thus, the averages in the post-test from the con=
trol
group have increased.
Similarly, graph three also shows the averages form the experimental
group. This group has achieved 2.200 in grammar and vocabulary, 2.00 in
pronunciation and 2.560 in interactive communication. Whilst, in the post-t=
est,
the averages were: 4.440 in grammar and vocabulary, 3.960 in pronunciation =
and
4.120 in interactive communication. These results indicate both, higher sco=
res
in the post-test compared with the pre-test scores, and higher scores in the
experimental group’s scores in the post-test compared with the control grou=
p’s
post-test’ results.
Figure 1. Comparison of averages obtained in the parameters of grammar and
vocabulary, pronunciation and interactive communication in the pre-test and=
the
post-test.<=
/span>
Source: Direct Research
Created by: Robayo,
G. (2017)
Furthermore, figure 1 helps to show that both the control and
experimental group have almost similar percentages of scores in the pre-tes=
t.
However, there are some differences in the post-test’s results in both grou=
ps.
The scores from the experimental group are higher in comparison with the gr=
ades
from the control group. The scores have increased in the three parameters.
These first results; begin to provide and idea that the treatment applied to
the experimental group were helpful.
Furthermore, the pre-test results from the control and experimental g=
roup
show that the average scores do not reach 3 points in any parameter.
Nonetheless, the post-test results in all the parameters of the control gro=
up
are higher than 3 points out of five. Nevertheless, the post-test’s scores =
from
the experimental group are higher than 3 points in pronunciation and reach =
the
highest scores in grammar and vocabulary and interactive communication, the=
se
parameters have reached 4 out of 5 points; this represents a better perform=
ance
from the experimental group than the control group. Thus, there is and
increment in the scores in the post-test from the experimental group after =
the
treatment with project-based learning approach.
Figure 2. Students’ individual
scores from the control and experimental group obtained in the Pre-test and
Post-test.
Source: Direct Research
Created by: Robayo,
G. (2017)
Figure 2 shows the grades obtained by the students individually in the
three parameters grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, and interactive
communication. The students from the control group obtained lower grades th=
an
the ones from the experimental group. The lowest grade obtained in the pre-=
test
by the students form the control group was 6 points, while the highest score
was 14 points.
Furthermore, the lowest scores obtained by the students from the
experimental group in the pre-test were similar to the ones obtained by the
students from the control group (6 points). On the other hand, the highest
score obtained in the post-test by the students from the experimental group=
was
14 out of 15 points. Thus, it possible to observe that the students from the
experimental group obtained betters results individually talking, in compar=
ison
with the control group’s individual scores. Besides, the post-test’s grades
from the experimental group are also higher in comparison with the post-tes=
t’s
grades from the control group.
Chart
3. Mean,
variance and standard deviation from the control and experimental group’s
scores in the pre-test and post-test: grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation=
and
interactive communication.
|
Parameters |
Scores |
|||
|
CONTROL GROUP |
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP |
|||
|
Pre-test |
Post-test |
Pre-test |
Post-test |
|
|
|
6,96 |
10,67 |
6,76 |
12,52 |
|
|
0,65 |
0,62 |
0,19 |
0,68 |
|
|
0,81 |
0,78 |
0,44 |
0,82 |
Source:
Direct Research
Created by: Robayo, G. (2017)
In chart 3, the results from the mean, variance, and standard deviati=
on
corresponding to the control and experimental group in the pre and post-test
are showed so that they can be compared. The following data corresponds to =
the
control group’s pre-test’ results: mean 6.96, the variance was 0.65 and the
standard deviation was 0.81. In the post-test, from the same group, the res=
ults
were: mean 10.67, variance 0.62, and standard deviation 0.78. These results
show a small increment in the post –test compared with the pre-test. Moreov=
er,
the experimental group obtained the following results in the pre-test: mean
6.76, variance 0.19, and standard deviation 0.44. Whilst in the post-test t=
he
results were: mean of 12.52, variance 0.68, and Standard Deviation 0.82. By
comparing these results, it can be seen that the experimental group achieve=
d a
significant increment in the post-test’s scores. Thus, the results obtained=
in
the Post-test by the experimental group may be seen as an improvement that
could be awarded to the implementation of activities related to project-bas=
ed
learning.
Figure 3. Comparison of scores according to each parameter
(grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation and interactive communication) obtai=
ned
by the control group in the pre-test and post-test.
Source:
Direct Research
Created by: Robayo, G. (2017)
In Figure 3, it is possible to observe the results from the pre-test =
from
the control group, they are showed as follows: 52% of the students obtained=
2
points and 48% of them got 3 points in the parameter of grammar and vocabul=
ary.
In addition, 100% of the students reached 2 points in the parameter of
pronunciation. Besides, a 52% obtained 2 points and 48% had 3 points in the
parameter of Interactive Communication.
On the other hand, in the parameter of grammar and vocabulary, the
students’ percentages were: 37% with 3 points and 63% with 4 points. Beside=
s,
the students obtained 48% with 3 points and 52% got 4 points in the paramet=
er
of pronunciation. Additionally, 48% obtained 3 points and 52% obtained 4 po=
ints
in the parameter of Interactive Communication. Thus, it can be observed that
the students form the Control Group had a small increment in the scores in =
the
post-test compared with the pre-test’ results.
Fi=
gure
4. Comparison of scores accordin=
g to
each category (grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation and interactive
communication) obtained by the Experimental group in the pre-test and
post-test.
Source:
Direct Research
Created by: Robayo, G. (2017)
Figure 4 shows the pre and post-test’s results from the experimental
group. In the pre-test, it can be seen that 80% of the students got scores =
of 2
points and 20% obtained 3 points, these results belong to the parameter of
grammar and vocabulary. Additionally, 100% of the learners obtained 2 point=
s in
pronunciation. Besides, 44% of the students obtained 2 points and 56% got 3
points in the parameter of interactive communication.
Apart from that, the experimental group has achieved the following
percentages in the post-test. 4% of the students got scores of 3 points, 48%
obtained 4 points, and 48% got 5 points in the parameter of grammar and vocabulary. Be=
sides,
4% of the learners obtained 3 points, and 95% got 4 points in pronunciation=
. In
addition, 88% of the students obtained 4 points and 12% got 5 points in the
parameter of interactive communication. Thus, it could indicate that the us=
e of
project-based learning approach influenced positively and helped the studen=
ts
get higher grades in the post test. Finally, Pronunciation and Interactive
communication were the parameters that had achieved the highest increase am=
ong
all the categories.
Chart 4. Frequ=
encies
from the total scores obtained in the Pre-test and Post-test by the Control=
and
Experimental group.
|
LINKERT SCALE |
CONTROL GROUP |
|
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP |
||||||
|
Pre-test |
Post-test |
|
Pre-test |
Post-test |
|||||
|
FQ |
% |
FQ |
% |
|
FQ |
% |
FQ |
% |
|
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
12 |
|
|
|
0 |
0 |
13 |
48 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
88 |
|
|
|
0 |
0 |
14 |
52 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
18 |
67 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
76 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
9 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
27 |
100 |
27 |
100 |
|
25 |
100 |
25 |
100 |
Source=
: Direct Research
Created by: Robayo, G. (2017)
|
A: Excellent 15-14
Points, B: Good 13-11 Points<= o:p> C: Satisfactory 10-9
Points D: Need Improvement 8=
-7
Points |
E: Unsatisfactory 6-0
Points. FQ: Frequency %: Percentage of
Frequency. |
Figure 5.
Frequencies of the total scores obtained in the pre-test and post-test by t=
he
control and experimental group.
Source:
Direct Research
Created by: Robayo, G. (2017)
Figure 6. Frequencies of the total scor=
es
obtained in the pre-test and post-test by the experimental group.
Source:
Direct Research
Created by: Robayo, G. (2017)
In Figure 6 as well as in figure 5and 6, it can be observed the
frequency of the total grades obtained by the students from the control and
experimental group. In the pre-test, 18 students who represent 67% of the
control group obtained grades from 7-8, this group of students are in the s=
cale
“D” needs improvement. 9 students who represent 33% are in the scale E
unsatisfactory. These percentages varied after the post-test. It can be sta=
ted
because 14 students who represent 52% were in the scale “C” satisfactory an=
d 13
students who represent 48% reached the scale “B” good.
Furthermore, the graphs and figures mentioned in the paragraph above
show the following results from the experimental group. In the pre-test, 6
students who represent 24% obtained grades lower than 6 points, these stude=
nts
were in the scale “E” unsatisfactory, and 19 students that represent 76%
obtained grades from 7-8, they are in the scale “D” needs improvement. Howe=
ver,
in the post-test, 22 students who represent 88% obtained grades from 11-13,
they are in the scale “B” Good. In addition, 3 students who represent 12% g=
ot
grades from 14-15, they are in the scale “A” excellent.
The comparison of these results; clearly show a difference in the sc=
ores
in the pre and post-test as well as an increment in the grades from both
groups. Nevertheless, the experimental group obtained higher grades than the
control group and reached the scale of Excellent. It could suggest that the
treatment with project-based learning approach affected positively on the
students’ scores.
Apart from that, the hypothesis verification had to be developed.
T-test
In order to carry out the T-test for small samples, the post-test fr=
om
the control and experimental group’s scores were used. Besides, in order to
develop the t-test for paired samples, the pre-test and post-test’s results
from the experimental group were used. The results are shown in the graphs =
as
follows.
Chart 5. T-test for two small samples (Control y Experimental Group)
|
Parameters |
Control
group Post-test |
Experimental
group Post-test |
|
|
10,66666667 |
12,52 |
|
|
0,615384615 |
0,676666667 |
|
|
0,784464541 |
0,822597512 |
|
|
27 |
25 |
|
|
0,6448 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
-8,315554937 |
|
|
|
2,71392E-11 |
|
|
|
1,675905025 |
|
|
|
5,42783E-11 |
|
|
|
2,008559112 |
|
Source:
Direct Research
Created by: Robayo, G. (2017)
Chart 5 shows the t-test’s results for small samples. In order to
compare if there is any difference between the means of the control and
experimental group, their results were used. In the post-test, the control
group’s mean was 10.67; whilst the experimental group’s mean was 12.52. The
experimental group’s mean was clearly higher than the control group’s mean.=
It
was observed that the statistics T was -8.31, that means that there is a 95=
% of
reliability for two tailed result which was 5.42. Thus, the null hypothesis=
was
rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted due to the difference
among the means. In the same way, the value of p=3D5.42E-07 is lower than <=
/span>a=3D0,05. For
these reasons, the alternative hypothesis is accepted.
Chart 6. T-test for paired samples (Pre-test y Post-test) in the Experimental
Group.
|
Parameter |
Pre-test |
Post-test |
|
|
6,76 |
12,52 |
|
|
0,19 |
0,676666667 |
|
|
0,435889894 |
0,822597512 |
|
|
25 |
25 |
|
|
0,013944592 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
-31,11619994 |
|
|
|
3,26916E-21 |
|
|
|
1,71088208 |
|
|
|
6,53832E-21 |
|
|
|
2,063898562 |
|
Source:
Direct Research
Created by: Robayo, G. (2017)
The T-test for paired samples showed an increase in the post-test’s
scores in relation to the pre-test’s grades. In the pre-test the means were
(6.76 in the pre-test and 12.52 in the post-test). When contrasted with the
statistics T calculated (-31.11) and the critical value two tailed (2.06). =
It
can be seen that there is a difference in the pre and post-test’s results. =
It
was also observed that the calculated t is in the rejected zone to a 95% of
reliability. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative
hypothesis is accepted.
Moreover, the Pearson correlation coefficient showed a result of 0,01
which indicates that there is a week relation between the pre and post-test=
and
when contrasted with the p value for two tailed with a significance level o=
f 5%
(p=3D p=3D4, 34E-16 < than a=3D0, 05). This suggests th=
at the
treatment based on project-based learning approach helped the students in t=
he oral
production development. Moreover, once the p value was contrasted, the resu=
lts
showed that the null hypothesis is totally rejected; therefore, the alterna=
tive
hypothesis is accepted.
The descriptive statistical analysis permitted to organize and prese=
nt
the students’ results from the pre and post-test in comparative graphs and
figures. It helped to recognize the way in which the treatment with project=
-based
learning approach affected positively to the students’ oral production
development. It was also observed that the experimental group obtained high=
er
scores than the control group as shown in the graphs and figures above.
Besides, the T-test (students’ distribution) analysis showed differences am=
ong
the averages (means), proving that there were significant differences betwe=
en
them i.e., the students form the experimental group obtained higher scores =
in
the post-test.
Higher scores were obtained by the experimental group in comparison =
to
the control’s group’s scores. Concerning the student’s t-test, it helped to
verify that the experimental group obtained higher mean than the control gr=
oup
in the post-test. Additionally, when the test for paired samples was carried
out, the null hypothesis was rejected; it had a 5% of significance level. T=
hus,
there is enough evidence to argue that the use of project-based learning
approach was an effective tool and affected positively in the scores from t=
he experimental
group.
After having developed a rigorous data analysis of the results obtai=
ned
from the pre and post-test throughout this research. It was verified that t=
he
alternative hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, the treatment with project-=
based
learning activities affected positively in the English oral production development, appli=
ed
to 25 ninth graders at Unidad Educativa Pelileo, located in Pelileo-Tungurahua,
in the September 2017 – Jun 2018 school year.
Conclusions
·
Project-Based Learning Activities have not been used for
English Oral Production improvement at Unidad Educativ=
a
Pelileo. Until the present, teachers have been
working without applying these kinds of activities. Teachers are not famili=
ar
with Project-Based Learning activities; because there have been not found
evidences of these activities either in the secretary's office, in the libr=
ary,
in Deputy Head Master's records nor in the teaching planning. Thus, learners
were not given the opportunity to study in a student-centered environment w=
here
they are the principal character in the classroom.
·
It has been proved that
Project-Based Learning activities developed a positive influence in the
students' Oral production development at Unidad Educat=
iva
Pelileo. It was identified that these activities
could be developed through a wide range of actions such as research papers,
multimedia presentations, video documentaries, musical and theatrical
performances. Those kinds of activities were suitable in order to foster a =
student-centered
environment. Besides, developing those tasks, the students improved not only
the speaking skill, but also their initiative, cooperation, critical thinki=
ng
and group working skills
·
The students' English or=
al
production proficiency level was identified. They obtained low scores in the
three parameters according to the rubric which was used for the evaluation =
in
the pre-test (grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation, and interactive
communication). Thus, most of the students from both groups obtained grades
that were in the scale classified as "needs improvement". A possi=
ble
solution to overcome this constraint could be the use of Project-Based Lear=
ning
in class.
·
There is a close
relationship between Project-Based Learning and Oral Production development.
This relation is noticed through the development of a statistics analysis, =
its
results showed differences in the pre and post-test's scores. Therefore, the
null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. F=
or
that reason, the results suggest that the treatment with Project-Based Lear=
ning
Approach affected positively in the students' English oral production
development.
Reference Bibliography
Andrew, P. (2012). The Soc=
ial
Construction of Age: Adult Foreign Language Learners. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Bailey, K. M. (2003). Practical English Language
Teaching: Speaking. (D. Nunan, Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barker, J. (2000). The
English language Teacher's Handbook: How to teach Large Classes with Fe=
w Resources.Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A corpus-ba=
sed
study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Brumfit, C. (1986). The Practice of Communicative Teaching.Capraro, M. M., Whitfield, J. G., Etchells, M. J., &a=
mp;
Capraro, R. M. (2016). A Companion to Interdisciplinary Stem
Project-Based Learning: For Educators by Educators. Texas: Sense
Publishers.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. New
York: Cambridge Univesity Press.
Halliday, M. (1989). Spoken and Written Language.<=
/i>
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lane, J., (2016). The ten most spoken languages in the world. Retrieved =
May
30, 2018 from Babbel Magazine
Leaver, B. L., & Stryker, S. B. (1989, May)=
. Wiley
Online Library., from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb02746.x/f=
ull
Retrieved August 23rd, 2016
Robert, C. (2010). Spoken English: Flourish Your
Language. Chandigarh: Abhishek Publications.
Straub, J., Marsh, R. A., & Whalen, D. J. (2017).=
Small
Spacecraft Development Project-Based Learning: Implementation and
Assessment of an Academic Program. Cham: Springer.
Remache Carrillo, N., Robayo Dávalos, G., & Yanez Valle, V. (2019= ). The influence of project-bas= ed learning approach in the english oral productio= n. Explorador Digital, 3(3.1), 182-203. https://doi.= org/10.33262/exploradordigital.v3i3.1.880
El artículo que se publica es de exclusiva
responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan el pensamiento =
de
la Revista Explorador Digital.
El
articulo queda en propiedad de la revista y, por tanto, su publicación parc=
ial
y/o total en otro medio tiene que ser autorizado por el director o editor d=
e la
Revista Explorador Digital.
[1] Escuela Superior Politécnica=
de
Chimborazo, Centro de Idiomas, Riobamba, Ecuador, noemi.carrillo@espoch.edu.ec
2 Unidad Educativa Pelileo, Pelileo,
Tungurahua, Ecuador, gabita2085@hotmail.com
[3] Escuela Superior Politécnica=
de
Chimborazo, Centro de Idiomas, Riobamba, Ecuador, viviana.yanez@espoch.edu.=
ec