The Use of Game-Based Teaching and Assessment Activities

THE USE OF GAME-BASED TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES 1

Universidad Austral de Chile Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades

Pedagogía en Comunicación en Lengua Inglesa

Lead Advisor: MS. Andrea Lizasoain C.

The Use of Game-Based Teaching and Assessment Activities for Young Learners in Four

Schools in Valdivia

Seminario de Tesis para optar al Título de Profesor en Comunicación en Lengua Inglesa y

al Grado de Licenciado en Educación

Yenifer Ahumada Asencio

Francisco Levicán Baeza

Valdivia, Chile

2013


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………… 5 Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...... 7

II. Methodology……………………………………………………………………….. 38

I. Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………… 9 1. State of the Art………………………………………………………………….. 9 1.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)……………………………… 9 1.2. Performance-based Assessment…………………………………………... 10 1.3. Games in Education…………………………………………..................... 10 1.4. Chilean Context…………………………………………...………………. 11 2. Learning English as a Foreign Language………………………………………... 14 2.1. Krashen’s Monitor Model…………………………………………............ 14 2.2 The Role of Anxiety in EFL Learning and the Affective Filter Hypothesis 15 2.3. Multiple Intelligences and the Different Learning Styles in EFL………… 17 2.4. The Young Learner…………………………………………...................... 18 3. The Use of Games for Teaching Young EFL Learners………………………….. 20 3.1. Benefits of Using Games to Teach Young Learners……………………… 21 3.2. Learning through Team and Peer Work…………………………………... 23 3.3. The Use of Games as a Means of Motivation in EFL…………………….. 24 4. Language Assessment of Speaking Skills……………………………………….. 28 4.1. Concept of Assessment………………………………………….................. 28 4.1.1. Assessment, Evaluation and Testing……………………………….... 28 4.1.2. Traditional and Alternative Assessment…………………………….. 29 4.2. Principles of Language Assessment……………………………………….. 29 4.2.1. Practicality…………………………………………...………………. 30 4.2.2. Reliability…………………………………………............................. 31 4.2.3. Validity…………………………………………................................. 31 4.2.4. Authenticity………………………………………………………….. 32 4.2.5. Washback………………………………………….............................. 32 4.3. Assessing Speaking…………………………………………....................... 33 4.3.1. General Issues in Assessing Speaking……………………………….. 34 4.3.2. Canale’s Framework for Speaking Tests…………………………….. 36


1. Research Tools…………………………………………………………………. 38 1.1. Surveys……………………………………………………………………. 38 1.2. Interviews…………………………………………………………………. 39 1.3. Observations……………………………………………………………… 39 2. Subjects of Study……………………………………………………………….. 40 2.1. Schools’ Description……………………………………………………… 40 2.2. Class Description…………………………………………………………. 41 2.3. Criteria……………………………………………………………………. 43 3. Results…………………………………………………………………………... 43 3.1. Students’ Surveys…………………………………………………………. 43 3.1.1. School A…………………………………………………………….. 44 3.1.2. School B…………………………………………………………….. 47 3.1.3. School C…………………………………………………………….. 50 3.1.4. School D…………………………………………………………….. 52 3.1.5. General results………………………………………………………. 55 3.2. Teachers’ Interviews……………………………………………………… 56 3.2.1. School A…………………………………………………………….. 56 3.2.2. School B…………………………………………………………….. 57 3.2.3. School C…………………………………………………………….. 58 3.2.4. School D…………………………………………………………….. 59 3.3. Classrooms Observations…………………………………………………. 60 3.3.1. School A…………………………………………………………….. 60 3.3.2. School B…………………………………………………………….. 61 3.3.3. School C…………………………………………………………….. 62 3.3.4. School D…………………………………………………………….. 62

III. Discussion………………..………………..………………..……………………... 64 1. Problems in Students’ Learning Process………………..……………………... 64 1.1. Lack of Exposition to the Language………………..…………………….. 64 1.2. Lack of Language Production………………..…………………………… 64 1.3. Lack of Continuity………………..………………..……………………... 65 1.4. Lack of Motivation………………..………………..…………………….. 66 1.5. Lack of Understanding of Young Learners’ Characteristics……………... 68 2. Implementation of Game-based Strategies………………..…………………… 69 2.1. Disadvantages Against Game Implementation…………………………… 69 2.1.1. Infrastructure and Class Management………………..…………….. 69 2.1.2. Reticence from Teachers and Authorities………………..………… 70 2.2. Advantages of Game Implementation………………..…………………… 71 2.2.1. Development of Social Skills………………..……………………... 71


2.2.2. Inclusion of Problematic Students………………..………………... 72 2.2.3. Interaction between Teacher and Students…………………………. 72 2.2.4. Consideration of Students’ Preferences………………..………….. 73 2.2.5. Adaptation to Students’ Different Learning Styles……………….. 74 2.3. Assessing Game-based Activities through Valid Assessment Tools……….... 75 2.3.1. General Considerations………………..………………..………………. 75 2.3.2. Example Draft………………..………………..………………………... 78 2.3.2.1. Description………………..………………..………………..…… 78 2.3.2.2. Assessment activity………………..………………..……………. 78

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………. 80 References……………………………………………………………………………….. 82 Appendixes……………………………………………………………………………….. 86


Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our utmost gratitude

to our families for their infinite support,

to all the teachers, students and principals that took part in this study

for welcoming us in their classrooms and letting us learn from their reality

and to Andrea for her persistent guidance and patience

and for always believing in us.

Yenifer & Francisco


Abstract

English teaching has evolved to methods focused on communication; however, in our national

educational context, teachers still use traditional methods that do not encourage interaction

among students. Game-based activities provide the perfect backdrop for students to learn English

in a communicative environment; nevertheless, there are not effective tools to properly assess

content learned through the use of those strategies. The present research seeks to find a proper

manner to assess through oral activities content learned through games. A case study was carried

out in four schools in Valdivia to diagnose the use of games and alternative assessment. It was

found that the use of the latter was almost non-existent, except for few exceptions that did not

assess learning appropriately. This research examines the conditions the participant schools have

to implement this type of activities and proposes recommendations to design effective tools to

assess learning in this setting.

Key words: games, language assessment, evaluation, motivation, language acquisition, learning

styles.


Introduction

Methods to teach English as a foreign language have changed over time, evolving from

methods that pertain to listening, repeating and memorizing grammar formulas to methods that

appeal to real communication with real-world situations as a backdrop. For instance, the Chilean

curriculum states that it is based on the Communicative Approach (MINEDUC, 2012), but that is

not what can be witnessed in the classroom.

Teachers have not updated their methods to fit the present climate in teaching English as

a foreign language (Abrahams & Farías, 2010); as a result, methods based on language structure

still predominate in lessons, thus truncating students’ skills to produce language in context. In

order to change this school of thought, teaching methodologies based on communication need to

be introduced; however, such lessons must also be assessed correctly in order to meet the

principle of validity (Brown, 2004) and must be adaptable to the evaluation requirements of

public schools in Chile.

Game-based strategies give a suitable setup to develop communicative skills, but little is

known about the assessment of this type of activities. Thus, the present research project aims to

discuss game-based strategies in English lessons and design a guideline for teachers to assess the

students’ learning process properly.

In order to contextualize these predicaments, a multiple case study was developed to

answer three main questions:

� Do teachers in public schools in Valdivia use games in the EFL classroom? If so, how do

they assess what their students learned through the use of games?

� How should communicative skills developed through the use of games in the EFL

classroom be assessed?


� How can alternative assessment methods and the traditional evaluation demanded by

public schools in our country be combined?

A case study was applied to observe the current state of English lessons in terms of methodology

and assessment in four schools in Valdivia and its surroundings. The product of the present

research is a guideline, grounded on theoretical principles and the local educational context, to

assess language learned through the use of games in the classroom.

This research project paper is divided into three chapters: Chapter I depicts the state of the art

of English teaching methods and the general context in Chile and an extensive review of the

theoretical foundations of the Communicative Approach, game-based theories and language

assessment. Chapter II details the methodology used for the research of the project, providing

details on the research tools used and the subjects of the study, while also showing the results

found in said research. Chapter III analyzes and discusses problems and contradictions

encountered during the case study and the possibilities of the implementation of game-based

strategies in the classrooms. It also provides a rough draft that puts into practice what was found

through the research into an assessment example.


I. Theoretical Framework

1. State of the Art

1.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

The Communicative Language Teaching model (from now on abbreviated CLT) first

appeared during the seventies as a response to the Audio-lingual Method. The CLT is “a broad

approach to teaching that resulted from a focus on communication as the organizing principle for

teaching rather than a focus on mastery of the grammatical system of the language” (Richards,

2001, p. 36), so greater emphasis was placed on fluency rather than accuracy. In other words, the

CLT represented a shift from structural methods that focused their studies on single components

of language to the communicative facet of language itself.

The CLT model encompasses classroom strategies whose “use of authentic material, link

classroom language learning to life outside the classroom, emphasize communication through

interaction among students, and have a learner-centered, content-centered focus” (Sullivan, 2004,

p. 117). The CLT stresses specifically listening and speaking skills, encourages students to

communicate by using language that can be applied in a real-life context, and puts the student at

the center of the learning process, where the “instructor [is] no longer simply the drill leader but

[is] also charged with providing students with opportunities for communication, that is, using the

language to interpret and express real-life messages” (Lee & Vanpatten, 2003, p. 10).

Within this climate of change in language teaching, the Monitor Model is propounded by

Stephen Krashen and it becomes the “‘credo’ of the Communicative Revolution [by providing]

the theoretical framework for CLT” (Wilson, n.d., p. 722). Krashen proposed a model that was

supported by research and it urged learners to communicate through the second language,


mirroring the learning process conducted for the first language (ibid.). This model will be further

elaborated in another section.

1.2. Performance-based Assessment

Since CLT proposed a drastic shift on the perception of language teaching, logically the

same occurred to language assessment:

Communicative testing presented challenges to test designers. . . Test constructors began

to identify the kinds of real-world tasks that language learners were called upon to

perform. It was clear that the contexts for those tasks were extraordinarily widely varied

and that the sampling of tasks from any one assessment procedure needed to be validated

by what language users actually do with language. (Brown, 2004, p. 10)

What CLT meant to language teaching, performance-based assessment did to language

assessment: it was now student-centered and focused on communication. Performance-based

assessment responded to the needs CLT set as teaching methods and objectives: “Instead of just

offering paper-and-pencil selective response tests of a plethora of separate items, performance-

based assessment of language typically involves oral production, written production, open-ended

responses, integrated performance (across skill areas), group performance, and other interactive

tasks” (ibid., pp. 10-11). Thus, performance-based assessment obliged students to communicate

while, at the same time, was the mean to assess performance during communication situations

that resemble real-life contexts.

1.3. Games in Education

Given that more dynamic and interactive activities are needed in the classroom, game-

based learning is an important asset within this change of course in teaching. Karl Kapp (2012)

states that there is a phenomenon called gamification which summarizes how games are

intertwining with educational features, in other words, “the use of game mechanics to make


learning and instruction more fun” (p. xxi). Also, games “provide a set of boundaries within a

‘safe’ environment to explore, think and ‘try things out’” (ibid.). However, this scheme could

easily fall into a behaviorist reward system, where students perform certain actions in order to

receive a reinforcement. Kapp warns that gamification goes beyond “the use of badges, rewards

and points” (p. xxii), instead relying in “the sense of engagement, immediate feedback, feeling of

accomplishment, and success of striving against a challenge and overcoming it” (ibid.). For

example, if students have difficulties learning some language feature, they should feel

accomplished just for the sake of acquiring that piece of information rather than for receiving

positive stimuli, either physical or intangible, for their progress.

There is a direct connection between the act of speaking and the act of playing. Cook

(2000) evidences this link by comparing how animals and humans play:

Humans, then, like animals, play socially. But we play more than they do, and in ways

which are both more complex and more rule-governed. The key to this difference and this

development is language, which has enabled us to make the rules of sports and games

complex in ways which would have been quite impossible without it. Indeed, language and

games have a particular affinity. Both demand turn-taking and restraint; both enable

enhanced co-operation; both are of potential mutual benefit. (Cook, 2000, p. 103)

Games and language go hand in hand, then, so the use of these strategies must be prominent

when teaching language to young children. However, as it will be seen later on, that is not

always the case, in fact, it is the exception of the rule in the current educational climate.

1.4. The Chilean context

In 2004 the Ministry of Education tested 11,000 students from eighth and twelfth grades

from 299 schools from around the country to diagnose the level of English of Chilean students.

The assessment tool was designed by Cambridge University ESOL Examinations and it was


composed of an English proficiency test that measured comprehension skills and questionnaires

for students and teachers that sought to identify teaching and learning methodologies used in the

classroom. The test consisted of multiple choice questions about written texts and audio

recordings (MINEDUC, 2004). Results showed that only “5% of students finish high school

dominating the basic level of English to perform well in working and academic environments”

(MINEDUC, 2004, own translation). However, apart from showing a low level of proficiency of

English among students, results also depicted what teaching practices and methodologies schools

with competent test scores typically use in the classroom. In this type of setting, there is a strong

emphasis on oral production: teachers speak in English during the class and make students do so

as well through casual conversations and group presentations; there is a focus on reading

comprehension; vocabulary is practiced through word associations; reading comprehension is

stressed; and teachers use different assessment strategies in the classroom (MINEDUC, 2004).

But these types of teaching practices can only be seen on the scarce schools that achieve results

above the average.

Results were not much better in the English SIMCE test of 2010 and 2012, showing that

around 80% of students are not able to achieve a basic level of English (La Tercera, 2011).

Again, these tests only assessed students’ reading and listening comprehension, leaving

completely speaking abilities aside.

However, the curricular bases set by the MINEDUC for EFL position the CLT as the

foundation of English teaching in Chile “and complements it with contributions from other

approaches that emphasize communication . . . [such as] the Natural Approach, Cooperative

Language Learning, Content-Based Instruction and Task-based Language Teaching”

(MINEDUC, 2012, own translation). Therefore, there is a critical contradiction between the


government’s mandates about how teachers must teach English and the assessing efforts to

diagnose the level of English in schools around the country.


2. Learning English as a Foreign Language

The field of foreign language learning has been extensively studied and investigated by

researchers from all over the world. Different theories have been proposed throughout time,

some of them greatly supported and some of them vastly criticized. One of these theories

emerged during the 70s and it sought to change the focus to communication; it was the

Communicative Approach, whose pioneering voice was Stephen Krashen, who proposed the

Monitor Model Theory.

2.1. Krashen’s Monitor Model

One of the main theories alluded when discussing foreign language acquisition is Stephen

Krashen’s Monitor Model (1981), which is the basis for most modern theories, not only about

acquisition, but also foreign language learning. In fact, “it has been favored and influential

because of its relatively comprehensive nature and because that it moves from theory to

classroom practice” (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998, p. 650). Krashen’s Monitor Model consists of

five hypotheses: The acquisition-learning, the monitor, the natural order, the input, and the

affective filter hypotheses.

Regarding the acquisition-learning hypothesis, Krashen (1981) states that the learning of

a second language occurs in two different fronts: Conscious language learning, where the learner

is conscious of language components such as pronunciation, grammar, etc.; and subconscious

language acquisition, where the learner acquires the target language by means of natural

communication, partially mimicking first language acquisition. The monitor hypothesis asserts

that the function of conscious language learning is to act as an editor which corrects utterances

before being spoken (Krashen, 1981). The natural order hypothesis “maintains that learners

acquire grammatical structures in a natural and predictable order” (McKenzie, 2010, p. 27). The


input hypothesis states that learners can acquire a language when the level of exposition they

have to the language is somewhat above their current level. Lastly, the affective filter hypothesis

defends that language acquisition must take place in a positive environment where learners feel

motivated, confident and with a low level of anxiety (Krashen, 1981).

All these five hypotheses provide important insight into the process of learning a foreign

language and the factors which are to be considered when learning and teaching English as a

foreign language. Although all of them take into account different and highly relevant elements,

there is one hypothesis worth analyzing because of its relationship with students’ attitude

towards the learning of the foreign language. The affective filter hypothesis will be analyzed in

the next section along with the role of anxiety.

2.2. The Role of Anxiety in EFL Learning and the Affective Filter Hypothesis

Different researchers from the field of education have discussed exhaustively the effects

of high and low levels of anxiety in students. Anxiety has not been given a definite definition,

but it is matched with feelings of uneasiness, frustration, self-doubt, apprehension, or worry

(Brown, 2002). Douglas Brown (2002) presents two different types of anxiety, one considered

facilitative and one known as debilitative. The former helps the learner with the right amount of

anxiousness to get the job done. It is the latter which has a negative influence on the learner and

the learning process, usually resulting in students’ poor performance and discouraging positive

attitudes when the outcomes are not as good as expected.

As stated before, debilitative anxiety can seriously interfere with any process of learning

and it has a special negative effect on EFL learning. SLA researchers have developed a concept

known as Foreign Language Anxiety (FLA). Elaine K. Horwitz, Michael B. Horwitz and Joann

Cope (1986) describe FLA as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and

behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language


learning process” (p. 128). During the process of learning a language, people normally face a

wide range of emotions. Whether is the first, second or foreign language, emotions will play an

important role based on people’s age, the personal relevance of the language they are learning,

the expectations they have and the goals reached, among others. According to this notion,

students’ success in learning a new language has a tendency to be influenced by students’ self-

concept, associated to their ability to learn a new language and the affective factors previously

mentioned towards the specific foreign language or the process involved in foreign language

learning. Different researchers have made a connection between anxiety and the affective

domain; Krashen includes these two important issues in his Monitor Theory through the

Affective Filter Hypothesis.

Krashen (1981) affirms that language acquisition must take place in a positive

environment where learners feel motivated, confident and with a low level of anxiety. Negative

attitudes tend to hinder language acquisition: “. . . learners with favorable attitudes and self-

confidence may have ‘a low filter’ with consequent efficient second language learning. Those

with unfavorable attitudes and/or high anxiety have ‘high filters’ and so the input of second

language may be blocked or impeded” (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998, p. 649). In the words of

Krashen, not only the quality of the input to which students are exposed is important, but also the

quality of the environment in which students learn, the motivation, the anxiety level and the

attitude towards the foreign language and the process of learning.

In accordance with the theories and proposals of these authors, having into consideration

factors as class environment and students specific issues about themselves and their abilities,

along with attitude problems towards the process of learning a new language may significantly

improve students’ success in EFL learning. In this complex process, there are certainly other


important elements that differentiate one learner from another; students’ different learning styles

are also to be considered.

2.3. Multiple Intelligences and Different Learning Styles in the EFL

In 1993, Howard Gardner proposed that the human being did not possess intelligence as a

single unit, but it had to be understood as multiple intelligences related to senses and abilities.

Gardner developed the theory of multiple intelligences, because he strongly disagreed with

society's notion of intelligence:

Gardner sought to broaden the scope of human potential beyond the confines of the IQ

score. He seriously questioned the validity of determining intelligence through the practice

of taking individuals out of their natural learning environment and asking them to do

isolated tasks they'd never done before – and probably would never choose to do again.

(Armstrong, 2009, p. 6)

The multiple intelligences theory has been applied to different disciplines. Armstrong (2009)

discussed applying the theory to education, adapted to students' different intelligences. There are

eight intelligences, each correspondent to a different skill: Linguistic, logical-mathematical,

spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist. This

classification of intelligences has been widely discussed by researchers of the field. Although not

all of them agree with this classification, they all agree on the general idea beneath this theory:

individuals learn differently.

Based on this notion, there is another theory that, along with the theory of multiple

intelligences, is an attempt to explain and classify the different tendencies in students’ learning

processes; this is known as the learning styles theory. John W. Keefe (1979) describes learning

styles as “cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how

learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment” (p. 4). Learning styles


are divided into different aspects, which are: sensory preferences, personality types, desired

degree of generality and biological differences (Oxford, 2003). Neil Fleming (1987) proposes the

well-known VARK model, which divides learning preferences by visual, auditory, read/write,

and kinesthetic preferences.

Each different variable involved in learning styles has an influence on learners’ outcomes

of their respective processes. According to Rita Dunn and Shirley Griggs (1988), a “learning

style is the biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same

teaching method wonderful for some and terrible for others” (p. 3). Founded on the notion that

learners have different styles and needs concerning their own learning processes, several

teaching and learning strategies have been proposed. Teachers and learners are encouraged to

find the method that better suits a certain learning style. Rebecca Oxford (2003), states that if

there’s harmony between students’ learning styles and the combination of instructional

methodology and materials, students are likely to perform adequately, feel confident, and

experience low anxiety.

The teaching methods chosen for a specific group of people or a single person can make a

difference in the quantity and quality of educational outcomes. Although choosing an appropriate

method specially intended for a particular learning style is associated with positive results, it is

not the only aspect to consider before choosing a teaching method or strategy. One essential

consideration is learners’ age range. Learners among the same age range usually share some

characteristics that are important to acknowledge before choosing an adequate teaching method.

2.4. The Young Learner

Teaching English as a foreign language involves a series of challenges, which include the

considerations previously mentioned in this chapter: choosing an adequate approach for a

particular group; creating the right conditions in order to lower the affective filter and the anxiety


levels; and considering students’ different intelligences and learning styles before choosing the

most appropriate teaching method. Nevertheless, taking into account all these aspects is a

demanding task.

Teaching young learners entails one additional task: considering the special features and

differences between children’s and adults’ processes of learning. There are some differences in

the processes which learners and adults go through while learning a foreign language. Deanna

Kuhn and Maria Pease (2006) affirm that the learning process does not develop in an identical

manner across the life span. “From an early age, children construct theories as a way of

understanding the world around them, and they revise these theories as they encounter new

information” (p. 280) thus deciding if their theories work or not. In accordance with this notion,

it is important to acknowledge that teaching young children requires some special considerations

depending on the developmental stage in which the learners are. Children’s motor development

is closely related to learning. Miriam Resnick & Bernadine Fong (1980) state that “teachers have

discovered that their young pupils’ readiness to learn has a close connection with basic physical

and motor skills” (p. 136). Regarding this idea, not only the stage of psychological development

plays a crucial role, but also the stage of physical development.

Researchers have studied the relationship between motor and language development.

Jana Iverson (2010), for example, states that “in infancy, there are significant changes in the

ways in which the body moves in and interacts with the environment; and these may in turn

impact the development of skills and experiences that play a role in the emergence of

communication and language” (p. 230). Since an early age, children’s physical and cognitive

development are related; they learn as they grow and discover new things. Leslie Opp-Beckman

and Sarah Klinghammer (2006) believe that it is important to consider this essential feature of

young learners in education. They state that:


Young learners need to have opportunities to physically move during class and to play. As

they play, they learn and practice social skills, including communication and language

skills. They are curious and usually willing to learn another language. Because their

cognitive abilities are still developing, they deal better with language as a whole, rather

that with rules about language. (p. 123)

According to this idea, the special characteristics in children’s processes of learning can be

considered in the classroom, and more importantly, they can be seized. These characteristics in

children can be easily seen as benefits when teaching a new language.

Throughout this first chapter several theories have been exposed with reference to the

considerations educators and researchers recommend when teaching a foreign language.

Moreover, these theories are applicable for teaching a foreign language to young learners

considering the distinguishing attributes of their age range. Among the distinctive features of

children’s processes of learning, the need for movement, play opportunities and interaction stand

out. Researchers of the field have come up with a proposal that entails most of these factors:

using games for teaching a foreign language.

3. The Use of Games for Teaching Young EFL Learners

The term ‘game’ is described by Andrew Wright, David Betteridge and Michael Buckby

(2006), as “an activity which is entertaining and engaging, often challenging, and an activity in

which the learners play and usually interact with others” (p. 1). It is due to these qualities that

the use of games for teaching has been highly acclaimed for educational purposes. Children

enjoy doing things in interaction with other people, especially when this interaction involves

physical activity.


3.1. Benefits of Using Games to Teach Young Learners

As mentioned previously in this chapter, young learners need opportunities to move,

interact and play. The use of games in the classroom is aimed to provide students with these

opportunities. Opp-Beckman & Klinghammer (2006) argue that:

Children play. They are social beings and their young bodies like to be active. School has

been considered the opposite of play, as a time to learn, to be serious. However, children

are different from adults; they are still developing. They learn as they play. Why not use

this ability of children to learn through play, the strengths of their cognitive levels, and

their need for physical activity in the classroom to help them learn faster and more easily

(p. 121).

One of the authors’ main ideas is related to allowing children to learn naturally in the classroom;

in other words, in a way that is similar to the style in which they are acquiring knowledge within

their everyday routines. Playing is natural to children, and it is a fun activity. Patricia Richard-

Amato (1996) supports the element of fun in game-based learning, mentioning that at the same

time it is important to consider games’ pedagogical value when teaching a new language due to

the opportunities for real communication they provide, along with the motivation they offer and

the low levels of stress involved.

In accordance with the notion of having students learning in a natural environment,

Andrew Wright, David Betteridge and Michael Buckby (2006) affirm that “games provide one

way of helping the learners to experience language rather than merely study it” (p. 2). In line

with this idea, real and significant communicative situations are fostered through the use of

games. The aim is to provide students with a pleasing learning experience instead of having them

simply studying the language. Nevertheless, some authors believe that the use of games should


follow a specific organization. As an example, Ying-Jian Wang, Hui-Fang Shang and Paul

Briody (2011) point out that “[classroom] games require the involvement of rules, competition,

relaxation, and learning. A major purpose for using games in class is to help students learn

English in a lowered anxiety environment” (p. 128). These three authors agree on using games

to lower students’ anxiety levels, nonetheless, they state that learning in a relaxed environment

should also involve a clear set of rules and a level of competition.

The element of competition during game-based activities is well accepted by some

researchers in the educational area. Two exponents that support the presence of the competition

element are Elliott Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith (1971); they assert that games promote

motivation and that students usually find the competitive aspects of games incredibly attractive,

encouraging them to make a greater effort in these types of activities. As a general conception,

researchers in favor of using games in the classroom defend the idea that games prolong

children’s interest in learning and doing the activities. The reason behind this could be that

“games involve the emotions and the meaning of the language is thus more vividly experienced.

It is, for this reason, probably better absorbed than learning based on mechanical drills” (Wright,

Betteridge & Buckby, 2006, p. 2). The inclusion of different emotions and the excitement of

competence are two important characteristics that help students to keep themselves focused and

interested during game-based activities.

Considering the singular characteristics of young learners’ processes of learning, all the

positive qualities that the use of games entails can be considered as benefits for the learning

process. Exposing children to a foreign language in a natural setting, with real and simple

communicative situations, and providing opportunities for them to experience different emotions

while learning, can make a significant difference in the outcomes of the learning experience.


Nevertheless, for a high-quality language experience, interaction is a key element. Therefore,

special attention must be paid to team and peer work.

3.2. Learning through Team and Peer Work

Interaction and collaborative learning are highly important for children learning a foreign

language. Speaking activities with peers not only help children to practice oral skills, but also to

bond with their classmates. “Games offer an immediate way of working together and can quickly

release tensions in the group” (McGregor et al., 1977, p. 55). The use of games offers a wide

range of possibilities to have children working together, either through team work or peer work.

Games are usually meant to be played by groups of people, which can enhance a positive

atmosphere in the classroom.

Using games to create oral encounters between children gives them the opportunity to

practice listening and speaking skills intensively (Wright et al., 2006). A speaking encounter

with a teacher may be a stressful situation for children, whereas an oral encounter with a peer

may be more relaxed, especially if it is within the context of a game. “Exercises and games can

help the class to trust each other and be supportive. In this way the confidence to work in

increasingly difficult situations is developed” (McGregor et al., 1977, p. 56). Working in peers

or groups in a relaxed activity like a game allows students to solve doubts, to talk and to share

opinions in a comfortable environment. Additionally, students’ confidence can be developed

under these circumstances.

The inclusion of group work in the classroom entails several advantages. Including group

work activities in the EFL classroom leads to additional and differentiated benefits. The

emphasis on group work in foreign language learning relies on the development of

communication skills on the learner, along with the edification of mutual respect when assuming

and expecting responsibilities (Cinar, 2011).


According to Penny Ur (as cited in Cinar, 2011), states that real life situations

incorporating the foreign language are quite restricted outside the classroom; therefore,

communicative group tasks are a better option to reflect real-life situations considering its social,

psychological, and cognitive advantages (ibid.). A real communicative situation outside the EFL

class is hard to be achieved due to the lack of opportunities to speak the foreign language in daily

situations, at least in Chile. For this reason, communicative encounters need to be created in the

class, taking advantage of students’ closeness and friendships to make them authentic.

Learning along with friends and classmates may additionally enhance mutual support

among learners, which is highly important in such a challenging task as learning EFL. As said by

Richards and Rodgers (2001), “[p]ositive interdependence is created by the structure of

cooperative learning tasks and by building a spirit of mutual support within the group” (p. 196).

Mutual support and cooperation between classmates always have a positive effect on the process

of learning and an effective means to achieve this constructive attitude is through motivating

activities that enhance good relationships. The use of games in the classroom can be motivating

and at the same time can enhance a positive environment among students.

3.3. The Use of Games as a Means of Motivation in the EFL classroom

When children first start learning their mother tongue, what leads them to achieve

acquisition is a need for communication (Halliday, 1975). Jean Berko and Nan Bernstein agree

that “language is the thread that connects the experience of our lives, giving us access to the

society of others, and allowing others to understand our thoughts, needs and desires” (1993, p.

2). This idea highlights the importance of the process and purpose of child language acquisition:

The child needs a means to tell the people around him or her what he or she is feeling, thinking

and needing. Language is necessary to become an active part of the society he or she are

immersed in; therefore, there is no need for greater motivation. However, foreign language


learning does not follow the same principles; quite on the contrary, it demands motivation to be

acquired, whether intrinsic or extrinsic.

As presented by Dennis Wiseman and Gilbert H. Hunt (2008), intrinsic motivation is

described as “motivation to become involved in an activity for its own sake” (p. 49). In contrast,

extrinsic motivation is motivation to become involved in an activity as a means to an end”

(ibid.). For example, people can learn English simply because they like to learn languages and

that would be intrinsic motivation; that is, the desire comes from the inside and it is an end in

itself. However, people can also learn English to get a better job, which would be extrinsic

motivation; that is, the motivation is not related to learning English per se, but to get something

else; consequently, what motivates students to learn is different depending on each person.

When talking about motivation, the learning environment must also be taken into

account. Unlike first language acquisition, foreign language learning usually occurs in an

artificial environment: The classroom. Different researchers describe the importance of

motivation in the EFL classroom. Krashen (1981) asseverates that “if our major goal in language

teaching is the development of communicative abilities, we must conclude that attitudinal factors

and motivational factors are more important than aptitude” (p. 5). Whether or not children are

considered to have aptitude, the importance in this artificial foreign language setting is the

motivation to learn and communicate in a different language without having the need to do it.

In order to facilitate learning and build an appropriate and effective classroom

atmosphere, there are certain motivational aspects that should be considered in EFL classrooms.

According to Jere Brophy (1998):

Some treatments of intrinsic motivation emphasize the affective quality of students’

engagement in an activity – the degree to which they enjoy or derive pleasure from the

experience. This kind of intrinsic motivation is more typical of play or recreational


activities than learning activities. Other treatments of intrinsic motivation place more

emphasis on its cognitive aspects – the degree to which students find participation in the

activity to be self-actualizing, competence-enhancing, or otherwise meaningful and

worthwhile.” (p. 127)

Brophy comments on several important elements to consider regarding intrinsic motivation and

the conditions that may transform the environment of the classroom in a motivational and

stimulating atmosphere. Though some of them are focused on cognitive aspects and some others

on affective aspects, all of them are intended to accomplish one single concern: Learning.

Nonetheless, motivational aspects are not considered to that extent with the only purpose of

achieving rote learning, but with the intention to achieve meaningful learning, which according

to David Ausubel’s meaningful learning theory, is described as the process of learning and

anchoring new information to previously established cognitive structures (Brown, 2007). This

conception of meaningful learning is principally focused on building an effective learning

experience, significantly improving the possibilities of achieving important learning goals like

retention and long term memory (ibid.)

The cognitive and affective aspects previously mentioned are all related to intrinsic

motivation; however, when there is a lack of intrinsic motivation in the EFL students, it is

possible for teachers to develop activities that boost extrinsic motivation. According to Fred

Jones (2000), there are certain things that we simply do not control regarding motivational

issues, but among the things we do control are incentives: “By understanding incentive systems

we can have fun with learning and get motivation for free. Having fun with learning is, therefore,

one of the main avenues to raising standards in education” (p. 97). By choosing correctly the

appropriate methods in the EFL classroom, students will be allowed to have fun and learn at the

same time.


The teaching methods and strategies used to teach a foreign language play a crucial role,

not only in terms of effectiveness when learning, but also in terms of motivation to learn. Yi-

Lung Kuo (as cited in Wang, Shang & Briody, 2011, p. 128) stated that “games and game-like

activities have always been a popular tool in an English class in order to interest and ‘wake up’

uninterested students” (p. 2). The importance of the use of games lies in the opportunity of

motivating students to participate and learn doing something as natural for them as playing.

Several researchers of the field of education have greatly supported games and game-like

activities in the classroom, indicating that traditional and routine activities may decrease

motivation in students. Süleyman Sad (2008) stated that, “often, routine activities structured

around whole class lectures and drills can contribute to the lack of motivation, especially when

the children are adolescents” (p. 34). Through game-based activities, the same contents of class

lectures can be covered, but in a more stimulating manner.

Some authors believe that the effectiveness of game-based activities is based on

biological differences due to the developmental stage in which children are, this is why activities

for children and adults should be differenciated. “Younger learners also have a shorter attention

span than adults, which suggests that a variety of short activities during a class would be better

than one long activity” (Opp-Beckman & Klinghammer, 2006, p. 123). In other words, adults are

said to be able to focus on the same activities for longer periods than children are, which should

be born in mind when planning lessons.

The use of game-based activities provides a fun, motivating and effective manner to learn

a foreign language. In addition, it enhances a positive learning environment and a wide range of

possibilities that suit different learners and styles.


4. Language Assessment of Speaking Skills

4.1. The Concept of Assessment

Even though assessment is a key element in education, there seems to be a general

misconception about what assessment really is. It is commonly understood as a single moment

where students’ strengths and weaknesses can be measured, but this assumption could not be

further from the truth: Assessment is more a process than an isolated instant. “In today’s

language classrooms, the term assessment usually evokes images of an end-of-course paper-and-

pencil test designed to tell both teachers and students how much material the student doesn’t

know or hasn’t yet mastered” (Coombe, Folse & Hubley, 2007, p. xiii).

In contrast, Brown (2004) states that language assessment constantly takes place in the

classroom: “Whenever a student responds to a question, offers a comment, or tries out a new

word or structure, the teacher subconsciously makes an assessment of the student’s performance”

(p. 4). In order to keep track of students’ progress, the assessment process “[must include] a

broad range of activities and tasks that teachers [will] use to evaluate student progress and

growth on a daily basis” (Coombe et al, op. Cit.).

4.1.1. Assessment, Evaluation and Testing

The general misunderstanding mentioned above derives from the confusion among three

main concepts: assessment, evaluation and testing. Evaluation is “all-inclusive and is the widest

basis for collecting information in education” (Coombe et al, p. XV); assessment is “an umbrella

term for all types of measures used to evaluate progress” (ibid.) and testing is “a formal,

systematic (usually paper-and-pencil procedure) used to gather information about students’

behavior” (ibid.). In other words, evaluation implies “looking at all factors that influence the

learning process” (ibid.) ranging from administrative decisions to day-to-day classroom

management. Assessment “refers to a variety of ways of collecting information on a learner’s


language ability or achievement” (ibid.). Finally, testing is a mere “subcategory of assessment”

(ibid.); one of the many assessment methods used to gather evidence of students’ learning.

4.1.2. Traditional and Alternative Assessment

Traditional assessment has been the norm in education for years through the use of

standardized paper-and-pencil tests; however, there have been proposals for a change in how

teachers should evaluate their students’ language proficiency. According to Ana Huerta-Macías

(2002), there is no definition of what alternative assessment is; nevertheless, one can understand

the concept by contrasting it with traditional assessment: The difference being that alternative

assessment “actually asks students to show what they can do. Students are evaluated on what

they integrate and produce rather than on what they are able to recall and reproduce” (Huerta-

Macías, 2002, p. 339).

Huerta-Macías (2002) compiles characteristics that alternative assessment procedures

have in common, such as, being nonintrusive “to the classroom because [these procedures] do

not require a separate block of time to implement them, as do traditional tests” (p. 339); utilizing

“the same day-to-day activities that a student is engaged in . . . Thus, little or no change is

required in classroom routines and activities” (ibid.); providing “information on the strengths as

well as the weaknesses of a student” (ibid.) and finally contributing with “a menu of possibilities,

rather than any one single method for assessment” (ibid.). Among some forms of alternative

assessment, Coombe et al (2007) list self-assessment, portfolio assessment, student-designed

tests, learner-centered assessment, and project presentations, among others.

4.2. Principles of Language Assessment

Brown (2004) proposes five principles by which the overall quality of an assessment tool

should be measured: practicality, reliability, validity, authenticity, and washback. According to

the author, a test must fulfill these five principles in order to be considered as an overall effective


test. He explains that these “principles of language assessment can and should be applied to

formal tests, but with the ultimate recognition that these principles also apply to assessments of

all kinds” (p. 19). So, in order to simplify this revision, from here onwards the term ‘test’ will be

used to include all types of assessment.

4.2.1. Practicality

In order for a test to be considered practical, it must “be ‘teacher friendly’. A teacher

should be able to develop, administer, and mark it within the available time and with available

resources” (Coombe et al., 2007, p. xxiv). Brown (2004) complements the concept even further

by adding that a test should not be “excessively expensive” (p. 19). In other words, the whole

process of giving a test should be completed within a convenient period of time and in the most

economically feasible means.

4.2.2. Reliability

Arthur Hughes (2003) gives a detailed explanation of how to create reliable tests:

What we have to do is construct, administer and score tests in such a way that the

scores actually obtained on a test on a particular occasion are likely to be very similar

to those which could have been obtained if it had been administered to the same

students with the same ability, but at a different time. (p. 36)

In order to ensure similar test results in different contexts, Coombe et al (2004) indicate certain

factors that have a direct influence on how reliable a test is; these could be test factors (format,

context. etc.), administrative factors (classroom settings, exam administration, etc.) or affective

factors (fatigue, anxiety, etc.) (Coombe et al, 2004).

Brown (2004) also proposed a series of reliability clauses in his assessment principle,

some of them similar to Coombe’s, such as: student reliability that deals with “physical or

psychological factors” of students (p. 21); rater reliability, which relates to “human error,


subjectivity, and bias” from the raters (ibid.); test administration reliability that is dependent on

“conditions of test administration” (ibid.) such as noise, room temperature, etc.; and test

reliability which takes into account “measurement errors” such as test length, timing, among

others (p. 22).

4.2.3. Validity

Brown (2004) asserts that this principle is “by far the most complex criterion of an

effective test – and arguably the most important principle” (p. 22). Validity, in simple terms,

refers to “the extent to which a test measures what it purposes to measure” (Coombe et al, 2007,

p. XXII). Brown remarks, even further, how a test targeted to a certain skill would be valid and

how important it is to maintain the balance between the different language assessment principles:

A valid test of reading ability actually measures reading ability – not 20/20 vision, nor

previous knowledge in a subject, nor some other variable of questionable relevance. To

measure writing ability, one might ask students to write as many words as they can in

15 minutes, then simply count the words for the final score. Such a test would be easy

to administer (practical), and the scoring quite dependable (reliable). But it would not

constitute a valid test of writing ability without some consideration of

comprehensibility, rhetorical discourse elements, and the organizations of ideas, among

other factors. (p. 22)

Coombe et al. (2007) classifies validity into three main categories: content validity,

construct validity and face validity. A test is considered valid in terms of content when “the test

assesses the course content and outcomes using formats familiar to the students” (p. XXII).

Construct validity refers to “the ‘fit’ between the underlying theories and methodology of

language learning and the type of assessment. For example, a communicative language learning

approach must be matched by communicative language testing” (ibid.). Face validity is simply a


matter of trustworthiness to people observing the test from outside the classroom context: “a test

is said to have face validity if it looks as if it measures what it is supposed to measure” (Hughes,

2003, p. 33). If a test is not considered to have face validity, it “may not be accepted by . . .

teachers, education authorities or employers” (ibid.) as a test.

4.2.4. Authenticity

The principle of authenticity targets real-life situations as a means to teach language in

context. Coombe et al. (2007) complement this definition by adding that using real world

circumstances could even motivate students in their language learning process:

Language learners are motivated to perform when they are faced with tasks that reflect

real-world situations and contexts. Good testing or assessment strives to use formats

and tasks that mirror the types of situations in which students would authentically use

the target language. (p. xxv)

Brown (2004) emphasizes the progress achieved in authenticity in standardized tests,

which has evolved from “unconnected, boring, contrived items” (p. 28) to items based mainly on

contextualized language. Reading and listening activities must come from the real-world context;

they must be selected from sources that students might face in real life and they must be

connected to each other so as to form a cohesive item. At this point, the authenticity that a game-

based lesson offers must be highlighted. Games are an essential element of human beings’ lives

and thus represent an authentic opportunity of learning.

4.2.5. Washback

Washback is defined by Hughes (2003) as the “effect of testing on teaching and learning”

(p. 1), and it could be beneficial or harmful. If washback is beneficial, for example, “students’

incorrect responses can become windows of insight into further work. Their correct responses

need to be praised, especially when they represent accomplishments in a student’s inter-


language” (Brown, 2004, p. 29). Teachers should not just be satisfied with giving grades; Brown

(2004) advices teachers how to proceed:

When you return a written test . . . consider giving more than a number, grade, or phrase

as your feedback. Give praise for strengths . . . as well as constructive criticism of

weaknesses. Give strategic hints on how a student might improve certain elements of

performance. In other words, take some time to make the test performance an

intrinsically motivating experience from which a student will gain a sense of

accomplishment and challenge. (p. 29)

On the contrary, if the washback is harmful, it could demotivate students and lower their morale,

resulting in “negative effects of testing such as ‘test-driven’ curricula and only studying and

learning ‘what they need to know for the test’” (Coombe et al, 2007, p. xxv).

Washback also affects teachers and the school system. If washback is positive, teachers

know that they are doing a good job, since their students have learnt what they are supposed to

learn. If washback is negative, teachers know that there are certain areas in their teaching

practice that need to be improved. At the same time, washback also has an impact on the school

system, because it shows whether schools and teachers are offering quality education or not.

4.3. Assessing Speaking

Language skills are constantly intertwining when exposed to a stimulating context;

however, when young learners engage in game-based activities, they tend to communicate

mostly in oral form, which is why the emphasis in this section will be given to how to assess

students’ speaking abilities. Coombe et al (2007) define oral skills as “speaking skills that are

part of a repertoire of routines for exchanging information or interacting, and improvisational

skills such as negotiating meaning and managing the interaction” (p. 114). These last two are of

extreme importance when communicating: negotiating meaning allows speakers to reach a


mutual understanding of the message they are trying to convey and managing interaction enables

to carry on an actual conversation.

4.3.1. General Issues in Assessing Speaking

Speaking is one language skill that is crucial when learning not only English, but any

second or foreign language: “As in daily life speaking is an important channel of communication

in a general English program. When testing these skills, [teachers need] to simulate real-life

situations in which students engage in conversation, ask and answer questions, and give

information” (Coombe et al, 2007, p. 111); for example, students can engage in pair work to

discuss ideas for a project, thus having to use the English language as the main means of

communication and learning.

The assessment of speaking skills has troubled assessors for years; Coombe et al (2007)

explain the evolution speaking assessment has gone through: “The assessment of spoken

language has evolved dramatically over the last several decades from tests of oral grammar and

pronunciation to tests of genuine communication” (p. 112). In other words, the assessment of

speaking abilities has gone from methods that focused on form to methods that actually

encourage communicative skills.

Even though there has been a remarkable growth on how teachers assess their students’

oral skills, speaking evaluation methods have been questioned for not being able to fulfill the

principles of assessment: “The greatest challenges are resource requirements and reliability,

including the perceived subjectivity in grading. Lack of time, number of students, lack of

available tests, and administrative difficulties are other pressing concerns” (Coombe et al, 2007,

p. 112). Both Coombe’s and Brown’s reliability factors come into play in giving speaking

assessments the benefit of the doubt: since students’ speaking performances are very momentary,


all of these factors stack against their proper assessment; therefore, it is very difficult to have an

assessment tool that captures students’ performances objectively.

Following Brown’s principle of practicality, an oral test must be practical in its

execution, taking into account the time and the quantity of students: “Logistically, the

administration of speaking exams to large numbers of students can be overwhelming in terms of

time and resources. With large classes, it is unrealistic to test speaking individually” (Coombe et

al, 2007, p. 115). The authors propose possible alternatives to this type of predicament:

One solution is to develop assessments that test more than one student at a time, yet

allow each student some opportunities to speak individually. Another solution is to test,

formally only a few times during a course but to use continuous assessment of students

during normal classroom activities. (ibid.)

Before starting to design a speaking assessment tool, the teacher must decide which

feature is more important: either fluency or accuracy (Ur, 2010), and it all falls on the teacher’s

criteria. The teacher must decide how much importance will be attached to the correct

pronunciation and how much will be attached to the proper comprehension of ideas. If the

teacher searches to find a balance between these two language features, Coombe et al.(2007)

propose marking categories that serve this purpose: “accuracy (grammar), vocabulary, linguistic

ability (pronunciation, intonation and stress), fluency (ability to express ideas), and content or

ideas” (p. 116). It is also important that teachers assess students’ oral skills on a regular basis: “. .

. [it is recommended] that teachers assess speaking in class as well as through individual

speaking tests. To get a valid picture of speaking proficiency, use a variety of methods and

techniques” (Coombe et al, 2007, p. 118). For instance, students can be assessed while having a

conversation with a classmate or they can be assessed while giving an oral presentation,

depending on the students’ proficiency levels.


4.3.2. Canale’s Framework for Speaking Tests

In order to design speaking assessments, Coombe et al (2007) develop a series of steps to

evaluate speaking abilities based on Michael Canale’s framework for speaking tests (1984),

which states that assessment methods to evaluate speaking must include four main instances:

warm up, level check, probe and wind down.

Firstly, the warm up is used as an introduction activity to “relax students and lower their

anxiety” (Coombe et al, 2007, p. 118). The warm up must consist of a simple activity, ranging

from giving personal information to spelling a word or counting. This activity is not assessed.

Secondly, during the level check, “the assessor tries to determine the student’s level of

speaking proficiency through a series of questions or situational activities” (ibid.). The activity

looks to raise the level of difficulty of the conversation gradually. This activity, unlike the warm

up, is assessed.

Thirdly, the probe seeks to push the student’s skills to the maximum in order to confirm

what was heard during the level check. However, if the student does not reach a milestone above

what it is expected, there can be different options when it comes to assess this portion of the

assessment; it is only “assessed if the student can go beyond his or her abilities, but it is unscored

if a communication breakdown occurs” (Coombe et al, 2007, p. 118-119).

Finally, during the wind down, “the examiner once again attempts to relax the student

with some easy questions, perhaps about future plans” (Coombe et al, 2007, p. 119). The idea is

to return to the starting state of mind settled during the warm up to lower the student’s anxiety.

The activity is not assessed.

In other words, according to Canale’s framework, there are two instances to relax the

speaker during the assessment session, the warm up and the wind down. At the same time, only

the level check is always assessed, while the probe section will be assessed only if the student


has succeeded in the previous section. These stages provide both the assessor and the students

with several opportunities to know what the test-taker is able to do in a safe environment.

In summary, the concepts of evaluation, assessment and testing are quite different, but

directly related to each other. Alternative assessment is progressively phasing out traditional

assessment, because traditional written tests are not representative of what a language learner

really knows. A language assessment must fulfill a series of principles in order to be considered

a valid tool to assess language. Finally, to assess oral proficiency, one must take into account that

the only valid manner to evaluate oral skills is by establishing a communicative context in which

the learner can demonstrate what he or she has learned naturally. Solid assessment criteria that

take into account affective and communicative factors can be effective when it comes to

evaluating students’ performances.


II. Methodology

The main goal of this research project is to discuss theory and lay the foundations to later

design effective assessment tools to evaluate oral proficiency acquired through the use of games

in the classroom. To do so, we needed to examine the educational context in which the product

of the investigation will be inserted. Since it is not feasible to execute this diagnostic on a grand

scale, a multiple case study was conducted in four schools from around Valdivia with the

purpose of evaluating the existence of educational games and alternative assessment.

The present research project is categorized as an exploratory case study based on multiple

cases, which was chosen because the research project demands the observation of real lessons in

order to obtain legitimate data. In order to do so, three research tools were used: Observations,

surveys and interviews.

1. Research tools

1.1. Surveys

A sample survey (Foreman, 1991) was applied to students from the schools to collect

data about how they are and how they would like to be assessed when learning the English

language. Items were designed to be easy to answer for elementary school students; survey

applications were guided by the researchers in the classroom in case of any doubt.

The survey (see Appendix 1) was applied to 74 students in order to determine how they

were being assessed and how they would like to be assessed in their English courses. The

surveys were written in Spanish to facilitate the answers and younger students were assisted by

the teacher and the researchers when they were in doubt. The survey consisted of 11 multiple

choice questions regarding attitude towards assessment methods and learning preferences.


1.2. Interviews

Individual semi-structured interviews (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006) were conducted with

English teachers in the selected schools to gather information on their perspectives on

assessment and evaluation. The semi-structured interview format was chosen because, according

to Dawson R. Hancock & Bob Algozzine (2006), follow-up questions can be used to go deeper

into an aspect of a specific question which the interviewer might want to emphasize. Also, “[the

format] invites interviewees to express themselves openly and freely and to define the world

from their own perspectives, not solely from the perspective of the researcher” (p. 40).

The four English teachers from the schools selected were interviewed following a format

designed by the researchers (see Appendix 2). The questions asked were related to their

assessment philosophy, assessment methods and perception of their students’ attitudes towards

the lessons and the assessment methods.

1.3. Observations

The observation guideline (see Appendix 3) designed by the English Pedagogy School of

Universidad Austral de Chile to assess trainee teachers was used in this research to keep a record

of what happened in every class; it allowed adding some extra information and details that were

not considered in the guideline that could be of interest to the investigation. The participant

observation method was chosen in order to comprehend the context of certain situations that may

unravel in the classroom and to have a full understanding of the motives behind the teacher’s and

students’ actions (Tassoni, 2007).

Four class groups from four different schools were observed once a week during a 90-

minute English lesson for a period of three months, ranging from 6 to 8 visits. Two class groups

were observed in the first semester of 2011, and two class groups were observed during the

second semester of 2012.


2. Subjects of study

The study comprised a total of 101 students and their respective English teachers from

four public schools: two urban schools located in Valdivia, one in the rural area of the city and

one urban school in Corral. With the purpose of protecting the participants’ identity and

detaching any possible bias from the reader, schools are not mentioned by name, but by an

assigned alphabetical denomination.

Each school description will include the total of students, the average of students per

class, the amount of English hours in their curriculum and any extra comment worth mentioning.

Each group description will include number of students, class participation, classroom

environment and use of English by teachers and students.

2.1. Schools’ Description

School A is an urban school. It has classes from preschool to eighth grade and it has a

total of 420 students with an average of 23 per class. English is taught from fifth grade with 3 to

4 pedagogical hours a week. However, since 2010 English is taught to children from pre-kinder

to fourth grade as an experimental tryout to encourage the teaching of the language from a

younger age.

School B is a rural school. It has classes from preschool to sixth grade and it has 25

students. It has an average of 3 students per class; however, since it is a small school, students

from all levels share only one classroom. English is taught in all levels with 2 hours per week.

School C is an urban school that teaches from preschool to eighth grade with a total of

297 students with an average of 29 students per class. English is taught from fifth to eight grades

with 3 to 4 weekly pedagogical hours.


School D is an urban school. It teaches from preschool to eighth grade and it has 567

students total with an average of 29 students per class. English is taught from fifth to eight grades

with 3 to 4 weekly pedagogical hours. Table 1 summarizes all of this information.

Table 1. General characteristics of the schools involved in the research project.

School A School B School C School D Number of students 420 25 297 567 Average per classroom 23 3* 29 29 Levels From 5th grade** All levels From 5th grade From 5th grade English hours per week 3 – 4 2 3 – 4 3 – 4 *All students have lessons in the same classroom. **Students are taught from 5th grade officially. The rest (from preschoolers to 4th graders) are being taught experimentally. The table above summarizes the schools’ number of students, the average amount of students per

classrooms, the level from which students start being taught English and the amount of hours of

English they have weekly.

2.2. Class Description

The class group selected in School A was a second grade with 21 students. The class was

usually held in a passive environment; there were just a few noisy students, who did not interfere

with the lesson flow. However, there was no active participation of students in the development

of the classes, because they were usually asked to work on their notebooks or using worksheets.

Students showed lack of motivation regarding the activities they were asked to do. English was

rarely used; the teacher spoke in Spanish and did not encourage students to produce using the L2,

unless it was through repetition.

The group from school B was composed by 23 students from different levels. The class

was usually held in a positive environment. Students participated actively in the classes; they

showed motivation towards the activities and towards the English language. There were some

noisy students, but they normally followed the teachers’ instructions to be in silence when


required. They were willing to participate in activities and they demonstrated to feel excited

every time they understood something said in English or every time they answered a question

correctly. Students used Spanish to answer the teacher’s questions, but they were exposed to

English during the whole class.

The group from school C was a second grade composed by 30 students. The environment

of the classes was usually positive; students had a good attitude towards English and class

activities. However, there were students who had behavior problems who did interfere with the

classes; these students were especially noisy and showed an unruly and disruptive behavior.

Because of this, class participation can be described as inconsistent. Other than daily greetings

and basic commands, the use of English was almost non-existent.

The group from school D was formed by 25 third grade students. The environment in the

class was usually positive, despite some noisy students who had a bad attitude towards the

teacher and towards the English language. Class participation was unsystematic; some students

participated in class more than others. The use of English was moderate; the teacher used English

during part of the class and encouraged students to do so in scarce moments during lessons.

Table 2 below summarizes this information.

Table 2. General characteristics of the class groups involved in the research project.

School A School B School C School D Number of students 21 23 30 25 Classroom environment Passive Positive Usually positive Usually positive Class participation Poor Active Inconsistent Unsystematic General use of English Poor Constant Rare Unsystematic

Table 2 shows four basic features of the participant class groups such as: the number of students each class had, the general perception of classroom environment, how much participation students had and how often English was used during the lessons.


2.3. Criteria

The criteria to analyze all the collected data is focused on the three major aspects of the

present research: teaching methodologies, games in the classroom and assessment. Each aspect

will be analyzed from different points of view according to the research tool used. The surveys

overview the students’ perspective: how they perceive their teacher’s methods and how they

would like to be taught, if any game-based method is used in lessons (if it is not, what type of

activities would they prefer) and their attitude towards their teachers’ assessment. The interview

gives a general outlook of the English teacher’s point of view: the justification of their teaching

methodologies, their assessment philosophy and their perspective on students’ attitude towards

assessment. Observations sought to balance the outlooks of the surveys and interviews and

compare differences and similarities that might be of interest to the research, especially

incongruities that might surface between the results of the students and the teachers’ answers.

The data will be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis

will be focused mostly on the results of the surveys with the purpose of measuring tendencies

among students. The quantitative scrutiny will take most of the analysis by interpreting and

inferring the roots of certain trends that could be witnessed in the present research.

3. Results

3.1. Students’ Surveys The survey was applied to a total of 74 students from all selected class groups. Since the

survey was quite extensive and included certain sections that might not be of direct interest of the

research, specific questions were selected in order to encapsulate the context of students’

rationalities and abridge the reading of the present analysis. (See Appendix 1 for the survey

format). The following questions were considered:


- Question 1: How does your teacher assess you?

- Question 4: How do you generally feel before assessments?

- Question 5: Which methods would you like to be used more often in assessments?

- Question 8: Which ways would you say you learn better?

All of them were multiple-choice questions. Questions 1 and 4 were related to

assessment, question 5 to teaching methods and question 8 to learning styles.

3.1.1. School A

In School A, 15 out of 23 students answered the survey. When asked how their teacher

assessed them, the first two majorities answered by written tests (31%) and by notebook

revisions (27%). The rest of the options selected by students were: oral presentations (13%), oral

interrogations (8%), group work (8%), dialogues (4%), individual work (4%) and any other

option (4%), which in this case turned out to be dictations. Figure 1 illustrates these results.

Figure 1. Students’ answers to how their teacher assesses them in School A. As the figure shows, most assessments were carried out through written tests and by checking the completion of the notebook (58%).


When asked how they felt prior to be assessed, 68% of the students affirmed they were in

a positive disposition, while the remaining 32% expressed that they tended to have negative

feelings before an assessment. Figure 2 summarizes these numbers.

Figure 2. Students’ answers to what their attitude is before being assessed in School A. The figure shows that most of the students had a good disposition towards tests. Regarding which assessment methods would they like to use, selections were varied, but

curiously the majority of students chose written tests with 28%. The rest were divided among

dialogues (15%), portfolio (15%), dramatizations (10%), group work (10%), oral presentations

(5%), individual work (5%), games (5%) and music-related activities (5%). Figure 3 summarizes

these results.


Figure 3. Student’s answers to which assessment methods they would prefer in School A. This figure shows that results were varied. Students mostly chose written tests, maybe meaning that they were accustomed to them. Finally, regarding students’ thoughts about how they learn better, reading (16%) and

listening to the teacher’s explanations (16%) were the top two options. The rest of the options

chosen by students varied from visual aids (11%), listening activities (11%), individual work

(11%) and asking help from classmates (11%) to games (5%) and group work (5%). Figure 4

illustrates these percentages.


Figure 4. Students’ answers to how they think they learn better in School A. As the figure shows, students almost did not choose alternative learning activities.

3.1.2. School B In School B, only 8 students out of 23 were able to answer the survey as unfortunately

many students did not attend the day the survey was taken. Regarding how their teacher assesses

them, all of the students answered they were assessed only through written tests.


Figure 5. Students’ answers to how their teacher assesses them in School B. As the figure shows, the students are assessed exclusively through written assignments, which possibly shows a lack of variety in the teacher’s assessment tools. When asked how they feel before an assessment, 62% of the students tend to have

negative feelings while the other 38% stated that they feel the other way around.

Figure 6. Students’ answers to what their attitude is before being assessed in School B. The figure shows that the majority demonstrate a negative attitude towards assessment. However, the remaining percentage is not far behind, showing that negativity is not the rule among this student group. In regards to assessment methods they would prefer, answers were very diverse with

most of the students choosing oral interrogations (33%). Among the remaining options selected

by the students, the percentages do not vary much: games (17%), oral presentations (13%),

dialogues (13%), group work (13%) and music-related activities (13%).


Figure 7. Student’s answers to which assessment methods they would prefer in School B. The figure shows an extensive variety of preferences; most of them oral activities such as interrogations, presentations and dialogues. The rest of the options could be considered alternative-oriented (games, music, etc.) Regarding how they think they learn better, only three options were prominent: games

with 38% of the answers, visual aids with 38% and listening to the teacher’s explanations with

24%.


Figure 8. Students’ answers to how they think they learn better in School B. Figure 8 shows a perfect capsule of different learning styles in the same classroom, with similar percentages to games (kinesthetic), visual aids (visual) and listening to the teacher’s explanation (auditory).

3.1.3. School C In School C, the survey was answered by 28 out of 30 students. When asked how they are

assessed, the three top answers were by notebook revisions with 29%, by written tests with 27%

and by oral interrogations with 24%. Among the remaining selections were: individual work

(8%), other option (8%) and dialogues (5%).

Figure 9. Students’ answers to how their teacher assesses them in School C. As the figure shows, more than half the class (56%) perceives their teacher’s assessment strategies leaning towards written activities. Regarding their feelings before an assessment task, most of them answered they were

positive with 65% while the remaining percentage (35%) were negative.


Figure 10. Students’ answers to what their attitude is before being assessed in School C. The figure shows that most students have an affirmative disposition towards assessment. The results of the question related to assessment methods they would like show that most

of the answers were divided into three options: games (32%), dramatizations (25%) and

dialogues (25%). The remaining 18% was evenly split between oral presentations, notebook

revisions and music-related activities.

Figure 11. Student’s answers to which assessment methods they would prefer in School C. This figure showcases the students’ yearning for alternative assessment tools, most specifically oral activities such as dramatizations and dialogues and games in general.


Lastly, most students think they learn better through game-based activities with 29%.

21% of the students chose visual aids, 14% chose listening activities, 11% chose reading

activities, 11% chose listening activities, 7% chose listening to the teacher and 7% chose by

acting out.

Figure 12. Students’ answers to how they think they learn better in School C. The present figure shows a diverse selection of methods chosen by the participants, which may prove how every single student has different needs in terms of learning.

3.1.4. School D

In School D, 23 out of 25 students answered the survey. The results of the first question

regarding their teacher’s assessment methods showed that writing tests were the most usual

(44%). Among other assessment tools students thought were mostly used were notebook

revisions (21%), dialogues (15%), individual work (10%) and group work (10%).


Figure 13. Students’ answers to how their teacher assesses them in School D. The figure shows that the teacher’s go-to assessment tool is the written test, however, there are students who claim there are other types of assessment occurring in the classroom. Regarding students’ attitudes prior to an assessment task, the majority has negative

feelings towards assessment (84%) while only the remaining 16% has a positive outset when

faced with a test.

Figure 14. Students’ answers to what their attitude is before being assessed in School D. As the figure shows, students have a very negative attitude towards assessment with the vast majority of students claiming to have adverse feelings against it. When asked how they would like to be assessed, the vast majority of the students (52%)

would prefer game-based activities. The rest of the selected options were: notebook revisions


(15%), written tests (7%), oral presentations (7%), individual work (7%), group work (7%) and

music-related activities (4%).

Figure 15. Student’s answers to which assessment methods they would prefer in School D. The figure shows that more than half the class wishes game-based assessment tools in the classroom. The rest of the options are within activities the teacher seldom uses with the exception of music-related activities. Finally, most students think they learn better by using visual aids (26%) and through

individual work (22%). Among other methods selected by the students were listening to the

teacher’s explanations (13%), games (13%), writing activities (9%), listening activities (9%) and

acting out (9%).


Figure 16. Students’ answers to how they think they learn better in School D. As the figure shows, students have varied preferences, further reinforcing the notion that every learner has specific needs that require to be satisfied.

3.1.5. General results The overall results show that the most used assessment method used in the participant

class groups is the written test (36%) followed closely by the notebook revision (25%), both very

traditional assessment tools. In general, most students tend to show a positive attitude towards a

test (63% overall) rather than a negative one. The majority of students would rather have game-

based activities as assessment methods (25%) followed by mainly oral activities: dialogues

(14%) and dialogues (10%), which shows a tendency towards more interactive activities. Finally,

17% of the students stated that prefer learning through visual aids, 15% by listening to the

teacher’s explanation, 13% for games and reading activities each, 11% by working individually,

7% by asking classmates for help, 4% by writing and 3% for acting out and group work each.


3.2. Teachers’ Interviews

3.2.1. School A

The teacher from School A was about to retire when interviewed; she had served as a

teacher for 37 years. At the time of the interview, she was the English teacher from preschool to

second grade. Her specialization was preschool education and she had an English teaching

minor.

According to what the teacher stated, students were assessed through oral activities,

drawings and worksheets. The reason behind these assessment criteria was that since students

were younger and were getting familiarized with the language, the teacher considered that this

was the only way to assess them. When asked which type of activities students felt more

comfortable with, the teacher answered multiple-choice questions and game-like activities such

as coloring and tongue twisters, because it made the class more dynamic and students finished

their tasks faster.

Regarding students’ attitude towards summative assessment tools, the teacher believed

that there was an interest in delivering the best performance on tests; the teacher stated that

students were warned about the contents of the test and how they were going to be tested. The

teacher awarded an average of four summative grades by semester and a grade for class

participation; the teacher explained that this grade is meant to help students who struggle in the

English class by valuing their effort.

Concerning how the teacher measured students’ progress, she was of the opinion that

grades were not extremely important and she valued the effort students invest; she appreciated

quality over quantity when it comes to learning. The teacher worked with the same elicitation

techniques in lessons and in tests. The teacher believed that since her students were quite young


and were starting to learn English, they were not capable of facing improvised situations;

therefore, most of the activities done during lessons were replicated in tests with few changes.

3.2.2. School B

Teacher B had been teaching for 18 years. She worked as a preschool teacher for 12 years

and 6 years as an elementary teacher after obtaining an English teaching minor degree. At the

time of the interview, she worked in a subsidized school and once a week she gave classes at

school B.

The teacher stated that when assessing students at school B, the evaluation is limited to

written tests. The reason is that she did not think students at that level were prepared for any

type of oral evaluation. Concerning the question about which assessment method students felt

more comfortable with, the teacher believed that they felt more comfortable with written tests.

Although students were familiar with written evaluations, they tended to experience

negative feelings when being assessed. The teacher did not believe students prepare themselves

for summative evaluations. However, she stated that they demonstrated to be concerned and

nervous about their performance, unlike what happened during regular classes. Teacher B was

required to carry out merely 3 evaluations per semester by the school. The teacher did not

consider assessment helpful in the students’ process of learning; moreover, she admitted she did

not like assessing students.

When asked about the manner to evaluate students’ progress, the teacher declared that the

only element she is concerned about was immersing students into the English language. With

only one lesson a week, students from school B were rarely exposed to English and for this

reason the whole lesson was taught in English. Teacher B did not use evaluation to measure

students’ progress. The teacher acknowledged that she used distinctive elicitation techniques in

classes from the ones used in evaluations.


3.2.3. School C

Teacher C was an elementary teacher who had been teaching in public schools for 8

years. However, she had been a teacher of English for one year since she obtained an English

teaching minor degree.

Teacher C claimed to prefer written tests when assessing students’ performance. The

reason is that she believed written tests are more objective than oral evaluations. Moreover,

written tests were easier to design, administer and assess. According to her, written tests truly

demonstrated students’ knowledge and through the results of written tests she could have

evidence of which students had learned and studied and the ones who had not. Nevertheless,

when asked for the method she thought students felt more comfortable with, teacher C stated that

students felt more comfortable when being assessed through group work. However, teacher C

usually tried to avoid team work because, in her opinion, the amount of work was never divided

equally among the members of the group. There would always be students who did not work and

students who did the entire job themselves.

Regarding students’ attitude towards summative evaluations, teacher C expressed that

students worked better when they knew they were being assessed with a mark; they tended to

feel excessively relaxed when they knew they would not be punished with a bad mark if they did

not work. Although she emphasized that this problem was more noticeable in older groups,

younger students were not truly aware of the implications of marks yet. In terms of evaluation,

the teacher declared that she usually assessed students with 3 or 4 grades per semester,

depending on the amount of hours per week and the amount of marks required by the school. She

rarely gave more marks than the required amount, because her focus was to fulfill the

requirements of the school.


When the teacher was asked about how she measured students’ progress, she

acknowledged that it was not possible to examine all students’ progress closely. She declared

that it was only feasible to check some students’ progress; the ones she considered were

motivated and willing to learn. Regarding the design of tests, the teacher admitted she did not

previously check in classes the same elicitation techniques used in written tests. The reason is

that, according to her, students were mechanized to taking tests with items like multiple-choice,

true or false, and fill in the blank items, among others. That meant that even if they did not check

contents through these items in classes, they would be able to answer a test including these items

anyhow.

3.2.4. School D

Teacher from School D had been teaching for ten years as a primary school teacher, five

of them with an English teaching minor degree. She had participated in numerous professional

workshops and was eager to encourage her students to partake in English-related instances in the

city.

The teacher assessed students mainly through written tests, notebook revisions and group

projects. The reason behind these assessment criteria, according to the teacher, is that students

were accustomed to be evaluated through those methods. The teacher’s opinion regarding the

assessment method students found more comfortable is that they worked much better in groups,

because they looked more motivated and relaxed and they developed a sense of belonging.

The teacher reflected that students took summative evaluations seriously, meaning that

they knew how important they are, but anyhow, they were quite careless; they took tests

seriously because of what they implicated, but they did not always prepare themselves

thoroughly. Most of the times students did not pay attention to test dates or content.


Since they worked mostly with the student’s book, the teacher tried to implement test

items similar to the ones seen in the book. Students were informed of the contents that would be

asked in the test, but as previously mentioned they did not always take note. The teacher always

asked questions with the same level of difficulty as the ones seen in classes.

3.3. Classroom Observations

As noted in the methodology section, observations were carried out in each class group

once a week during a 90-minute English lesson for a period of three months. Focus was given to

classroom environment, students' participation, classroom activities, use of English and

assessment tasks.

3.3.1. School A

As mentioned before, the class was usually held in a passive environment with little

participation from the students. It is important to mention that there was a lack of interaction

between students and the teacher as well, because since most of the activities were written tasks,

the students worked on their own most of the time. Additionally, it was perceptible that students

did not understand a high percentage of the activities. This was evident when the teacher checked

the exercises in front of the class and most of the children did not have the answers because they

had not understood what the activity was about.

Regarding the activities used for teaching, the teacher usually preferred written tasks.

Students were asked to work on their notebooks writing exercises from the board or completing

worksheets. The worksheets were focused on vocabulary and basic explicit grammar structures.

It was a common practice to carry out three or four long activities each class.

The classes were held in Spanish; the vocabulary and the structures were taught and

explained using the L1. The exposure to English was minimal during the classes; consequently,

students showed pronunciation problems.


Students’ attitude during assessment tasks was very passive. If they were taking a test,

although they were not evidently nervous, they were not truly concerned about the results either.

The environment during tests was quiet; students were familiar with the assessment tool used to

grade them because the elicitation techniques were similar to the ones seen in classes.

3.3.2. School B

The class group maintained a positive classroom environment throughout the observation

process: students were highly participative, actually trying to express themselves through the L2

and were very motivated towards the language. There were some instances of misbehaving, but

the teacher had proper classroom management techniques to keep them focused on the activities.

The teacher used the Communicative Approach; she taught vocabulary and structures

implicitly. Generally, the classes included between 4 to 5 activities, and most of them were

focused on communication. The teacher did not use an English textbook or worksheets to teach;

most of the contents were explained by using the board as a teaching tool. The contents were

explained through drawings on the board and oral examples using comprehensible input. The

classes were held in English in its entirety. Students were allowed to use Spanish, but that did not

stop students trying to speak in English.

Even though the students’ attitude during lessons was remarkable, some problems were

witnessed when it came to assessment. The assessment tasks were written; they were not familiar

with written activities in English considering that in classes they practiced English orally. Only

students from 4th, 5th and 6th grade were assessed, the rest of the class would wait in silence

during the evaluation process.


3.3.3. School C

As mentioned before, classroom environment was inconsistent. The reason behind this

issue was classroom placement: students that sat on the front rows, were more prolific and

participative during lessons; on the contrary, students who sat at the back of the classroom were

prone to be disruptive and uninterested during lessons.

The teacher did not use the English textbook to teach; she used mostly worksheets and

asked students to work on their notebooks. The teacher used the Audio-lingual Method in her

classes, especially to teach vocabulary. Most of the activities consisted in practicing vocabulary

through repetition and completing worksheets. Usually, the teacher did not include more than 3

different activities per class. Most of the classes were held in Spanish; in some cases, the teacher

tried to use English to explain the contents, but students became distracted and more talkative.

Students’ attitude during the classes was similar to their attitude during tests. Students did

not demonstrate to feel excessively concerned about the mark. Although the test observed was a

summative mark, some students were really concentrated and willing to perform well and some

others were distracted, noisy and were not worried about receiving a bad mark.

3.3.4. School D

Classroom environment was usually positive; besides certain interruptions and episodes

of misbehavior, class development was normal. Students’ participation was moderate; some

students were more participative than others that usually did not have a positive attitude towards

the teacher and the subject.

The teacher used the Grammar-translation Method to teach; she taught grammatical

structures and vocabulary explicitly. An important part of the class was used to complete


exercises in the English book students used which was called Bounce in Chile 31. The teacher

normally carried out 3 or 4 activities of the book per class.

The teacher used the L1 for explaining most of the activities and the contents;

consequently, students used the L1 as well. The teacher used English to greet and say goodbye to

students and for simple phrases such as: ‘sit down’, ‘stand up’, ‘thank you’, among others.

Students were very insecure when faced with an assessment task. Even though the same

activities from the book and the ones reviewed in classes were included in tests, students felt

extremely anxious.

1 Macmillan Group; CEFR level: basic user – beginner.


III. Discussion

1. Teaching Methodologies

During the present research project, there were many instances where teachers did not

follow the teaching guidelines exposed so far (Monitor Model, learning styles and multiple

intelligences, communicative approach and proper language assessment) that might hinder the

implementation of game-based teaching and assessment in the classroom. In the following

section, there will be an extensive analysis of said learning anomalies, each of them linked

directly to the theoretical portion of this research project paper.

1.1. Lack of Exposition to the Language

There are some common practices at the different schools that differ from the expected

procedures when teaching English as a foreign language to young students. Based on Stephen

Krashen’s Monitor Model (1981), EFL learning should be achieved subconsciously through

exposure to the English language and through natural communication. According to this, all

English lessons should be carried out in English thus providing students with the necessary input.

However, only one of the four teachers interviewed and observed conducted all the classes in

English. Therefore, the students from the schools that used Spanish most of the time were rarely

exposed to the English language. In consequence, they presented serious pronunciation and

listening comprehension problems. Students from schools A, C and D, whose classes of English

were given in Spanish, had trouble to understand oral instructions and commands of a low

difficulty level. Moreover, oral production was almost non-existent.

1.2. Lack of Language Production

The lack of oral practice focused on natural communication affects students’ ability to

produce orally in English. They are used to repeating the phrases they hear, but most of them are

unable to create new simple sentences in natural contexts. The comprehension and production


problems arose whenever spontaneous communication was required. It was noticeable confusing

for students to use and understand well studied contents in a real conversation.

This situation dissents from the curricular bases stipulated in 2012 by the MINEDUC

intended for the English subject. According to these bases, the English lessons should be focused

on communication rather than on grammatical structures. The program states explicitly that

grammar should not be considered and evaluated as a detached content; it has to be considered as

a useful tool to improve communication.

However, not all class groups had this problem; there was one exception to the norm:

students from school B were regularly exposed to English and presented a better understanding

of common spoken phrases used in natural communicative situations. Although these students

are still in the phase in which they only receive input without producing, they are able to

understand the contents studied when presented orally in natural conversations and they are able

to answer in Spanish showing comprehension. It was evidenced that the frequent exposure to

English used naturally in the classes facilitated the students’ process to reach meaningful

learning, allowing them to be familiar with the significant and real use of the language.

1.3. Lack of Continuity

Not being exposed to the English language in a communicative manner not only

interferes with students’ opportunity to communicate naturally in English, it also affects the

order in which the students should learn the different grammatical structures. Students who are

taught focusing on communication and regular exposure to English, who in this case are students

from school B, will learn grammatical structures implicitly. This means that they will not be

acquainted that they are learning a certain structure or tense; they will be familiar with language

organization and function through experience and contact with the language (Krashen, 1981).


This method of acquiring knowledge of the use of the language subconsciously certainly takes

longer, but the learning is meaningful and perdurable (Brown, 2007; Krashen, 1981).

Unfortunately, the results of interviews and observations demonstrated that the natural

order of acquisition is not considered because teachers do teach grammatical structures explicitly

in most of the schools, and worse, they teach English in Spanish, so students have no

comprehensible and natural input from where to learn the foreign language unconsciously. In

school D, the teacher decides to complement the activities from the vocabulary-driven student

book with activities of her choice, thus including the teaching of explicit grammar. The same

situation was observed in schools A and C, in which the teachers selected different worksheets

for each class that were not focused on creating a communicative environment; quite on the

contrary, they were focused on teaching a certain amount of vocabulary per class, mostly through

mechanical written activities. As a result of these practices, students are not encouraged to

discover the differences and similarities of their mother tongue and the foreign language by

themselves, for example.

Furthermore, the most worrying situation originated by these practices is related to the

lack of continuity in the lessons and the contents that are taught. It was possible to evidence that

many of the contents were taught in an isolated manner, without connecting the new vocabulary

and contents with terms previously studied. Students’ interests and reality were not involved

either in most cases. This reality, apart from generating lack of motivation, hinders genuine

learning because students are asked to memorize terms which are not connected to each other.

Without establishing a link between the contents studied and meaningful real contexts, they will

be easily forgotten.


Students are not encouraged to make an effort to understand and feel proud and

motivated when a goal is finally reached. Moreover, the lack of interaction and the repetitive

activities in the classroom hinders the proper motivation that could be achieved through the

accomplishment of set goals. The tedious lesson style used by most of the teachers involved in

this project is not challenging and students cannot evidence progress themselves; therefore, it is

easy to feel unmotivated due to the lack of expectations regarding the learning of English. In

fact, most of the teachers involved in this project asserted that students were too young to

perform certain tasks, so the activities these students were presented with were not challenging

and, therefore, demotivating. According to Brophy (1998), motivation can be fostered through an

affective quality when students enjoy an activity which is entertaining, and through the cognitive

aspect of intrinsic motivation which is related to students’ finding the activity worthwhile. In

contrast, in school B, it was noticeable that students enjoyed the activities not only because they

were entertaining, but also because they could perceive their progress, since they could realize

that they understood directions and were able to respond to them.

Teachers also thought students are not motivated and do not worry about their education

in general, which might be a consequence of the previously discussed lack of motivation in the

classroom. It is quite baffling that teachers think that motivation is something that is within the

students and that it is their responsibility to be motivated in the lessons; it is the teacher’s

responsibility to take the students out of their comfort zone and search for incentives that can

help motivate students to participate in the class.

Sad (2008) stated that, “often, routine activities structured around whole class lectures

and drills can contribute to the lack of motivation, especially when the children are adolescents”

(p. 34). According to this conception, the planning of the lessons meant for children and

adolescents must include different activities where students can be and feel like an active agent

1.4. Lack of motivation


in charge of their own learning. Due to their biological and psychological characteristics, young

learners require activities in which they can participate actively, move, create and share opinions,

(Iverson, 2010; Opp-Beckmann & Klinghammer, 2006; Resnick & Fong, 1980) among many

other activities. At that early stage of development, they are not prepared to just sit and listen to

the teacher and learn from that; they need to do things and participate in order to achieve

meaningful learning. Thus, with the intention of motivating students in the classroom, different

types of activities should be used in every class, and not only written worksheets, textbook work,

and drills, thus giving students the opportunity to actively participate in class, as in the case of

Class B, and practice different skills.

1.5. Lack of Understanding of Young Learners’ Characteristics

Another problem that affected students’ motivation and the effectiveness of the teaching

strategies was that some of them were not intended for children or did not consider young

learners’ differences from older learners. Opp -Beckman & Klinghammer (2006) stated several

characteristics that are associated to the developmental stage in which young learners are.

Among these characteristics, it is important to highlight their need to physically move and play,

which helps them to develop social and language skills. Considering this information, classes

should include activities that enhance communication and playful activities between peers, which

was not the case in most of the classrooms involved in this research.

Another important difference that characterizes young learners is that they have a shorter

attention span than adults (Opp-Beckman & Klinghammer, 2006). According to this notion, the

activities for teaching young learners should be short and varied in order to avoid students from

getting distracted. Unfortunately and as presented before, the classes in all the different schools

observed included between 4 and 6 long activities each class. This situation generally made


students feel bored, become distracted and disruptive very easily, which caused problems of

discipline. Teachers must find a suitable method to give students space to move and play.

2. Implementation of Game-based Strategies

As seen throughout the present research, game-based strategies are absent from most

schools. However, given that English is hardly used in the classroom, there is a lack of variety of

teaching-learning activities, and that students are usually not motivated to learn, before starting

to conduct this study, we had proposed that game-based activities presented themselves as an

adequate option to enhance communication in the classroom both between the teacher and the

students, and among the students themselves. It was believed that games were a feasible option

to implement in the classroom given that everyone likes to play (Wang, Shang & Briody, 2011),

it is a natural way to learn (Opp-Beckman & Klinghammer, 2006), and that it leads to the use of

English in the classroom in a communicative environment (Cinar, 2011), thus complying with

the curricular bases of the Chilean Ministry of Education.

However, there are some obstacles that teachers must overcome to make this a reality.

The advantages and disadvantages of game implementation in the classroom will be discussed in

the following section, starting with the latter to tell the bad news first and finish with the good

news.

2.1. Disadvantages against Game Implementation

2.1.1. Infrastructure and Class Management

When discussing the possibility of implementing games in their English lessons, some of

the teachers agreed that it is extremely difficult to use games with large groups and small

classroom space. Most classrooms tend to be organized in a way where there is little spare room

to move, in case the games require space and movement.


Another of the reasons given was that students usually become excessively noisy when

they play, which is considered negative for the development of the class. Some of the teachers

think that if they give space to children to play, they will lose the class’ attention and students

will misbehave. This attitude contradicts how children learn and shows that teachers do not fully

trust their students. It also shows that teachers still prefer to have control of the class, instead of

valuing a more student-centered learning environment (Brown, 2004).

2.1.2. Reticence from Teachers and Authorities

There is a deeper layer regarding the implementation of game-based activities that is

crucial when it comes to teaching English in the country: students need to “experience language

rather than merely study it” (Wright, Betteridge & Buckby, 2006, p. 2). In order to experience

the language, students need to face situations that they might encounter in real life; games and

role-plays are suitable for this kind of requirements. However, there is a certain reticence coming

from teachers and management towards methodologies other than the traditional approaches

used in classrooms nowadays.

In general, some teachers are reluctant to consider fun as part of a successful class, some

others resist to try non-traditional teaching approaches because they feel comfortable with the

traditional ones they use, as was the case of Teachers A, C and D; and there are others that are

always looking for new methodologies to test, as was the case of Teacher B; everything will

depend on their criteria based on their knowledge, research or experience. However, it is

important for every teacher to keep the focus on the special and unique group of learners he or

she is in charge of, and to consider their special needs whichever stand he chooses to take. But,

as we could see, that was not the case in this research. Most of the teachers were more concerned

about their own standing point, their own comfort (to keep control of the class, to comply with

the school’s requirements, etc.) rather than their students’ characteristics, needs, interests, etc.


To sum up, the only obstacles that the use of games in the classroom represents are the

teachers’ reluctance to do it, and the said lack of infrastructure in the classroom, which really

should not be a problem when it comes to play. At this point, it is important to highlight that it is

not only the teachers in charge of the classroom of English who are against of noise, movement

and interaction in the class, but the whole schooling system. Throughout this study, reprimands

from other teachers and even from the discipline guard were experienced when students were

engaged in oral practice, because it was believed that any kind of noise was disruptive, negative.

2.2. Advantages of the implementation of games in the classroom

2.2.1. Development of Social Skills

Focusing on communication and oral production is the key to achieve good results when

teaching young learners (Iverson, 2010; Kuhn and Pease, 2006; Resnink & Fong, 1980); this

could be effectively achieved by letting them develop social skills through game-based activities,

for example. It is an advantage to teach a foreign language to young children who are still

developing their cognitive abilities (Kuhn & Pease, 2006) and that are able to see language as a

whole, meaning that they still do not need to get metalinguistic knowledge such as the parts of

speech. These children should learn through communicative activities which provide them with

the opportunity to see the English language as a fun way of communicating in authentic contexts.

In addition, game-based activities provide teachers with the opportunity to easily

integrate the different learning styles and needs of their students to the daily class planning. In

brief, giving students the opportunity of moving and playing during the class are not only fun

ways to motivate them, but also to positively affect the learning process. For example, game-

based and role-playing activities can provide a place where extroverted students can be loud and

proactive and introverted students can find a safe environment where they can play a part

without any risks of feeling embarrassed, nervous, or anxious. As seen in the class group


descriptions, one can find both kinds of students within the class groups which would benefit the

lesson dynamics in the classroom.

2.2.2. Inclusion of Problematic Students

During the observations, it was evidenced that some students interfere with the

development of the class because they have a very hyperactive behavior, for the standards of the

school system nowadays; therefore, they need to be busy during the development of the class to

stay focused. Some of the teachers looked down upon these types of students regarding them as

children with bad behavior and instead of providing activities designed for them, they scolded

them constantly during the lessons, does interrupting the flow of any possible positive

interactions. Teachers must see the value in this type of students because if they are motivated

properly, they can be an exceptionally positive influence within the classroom. For example, the

teacher can give a student a particular role during the lesson, such as delivering handouts, being

in charge of the discipline of the class, etc. The teacher needs to find ways to adapt to the

students (Brown, 2004); if the class is full of students who are talkative and move around all the

time, then the teacher could take advantage of students who like to talk and turn this habit into a

positive activity by, for example, implementing activities that keep the children communicating

and moving around the classroom, but in English.

2.2.3. Interaction between Teacher and Students

There needs to be a constant interaction between the teacher and the students given that

interaction is the main teaching and learning tool in schools. Since most of the activities students

are asked to do are written, the teacher/student interaction is reduced to explaining instructions

and answering doubts, and in the worst case scenario, translating and explaining grammar

concepts explicitly. Since the assessment tools based on game-related activities are mainly based

on a communicative approach, it is essential that the teacher seeks instances to communicate


with his or her students through the L2. Nevertheless, based on the teachers’ interviews, they

tend to overlook their students’ potential and capacities; some of them feel that if they demand

more of their students, they will not be able to fulfill their expectations and overcome their

setbacks. However, this is not the case with the teacher from School B. In that particular case,

the teacher managed to make students who had an almost inexistent level of English to

understand an entire lesson spoken in the L2. The teacher admitted during a conversation that it

was a long process to get the children to understand the language, but all it took was

perseverance and persistence. In consequence, students in his or her class had better

participation, were more motivated to speak, and actually spoke more in English in the

classroom.

2.2.4. Consideration of Students’ Preferences

Not only experts defend the use game-based activities (Avedon & Sutton-Smith, 1971;

Cinar, 2011; McGregor et al., 1977; Opp-Beckmann & Klinghammer, 2006; Richard-Amato,

1996; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Sad, 2008; Wang et al., 2011; Wright et al., 2006), but also an

important percentage of students in the present study do (25% overall). When asked about the

type of activities they would like to use in their English lessons, there was a considerable amount

that had a preference for games and activities involving interaction with other classmates. All of

the class groups consulted had a strong sense of community; in other words, it was observed that

interaction among students was frequent and positive, which is already an indicator that game-

based role-playing games could function appropriately by promoting even further interaction,

competition and collaborative learning.

Even though students are mostly comfortable with the usual writing-related activities,

maybe because they are accustomed to them and, therefore, they are part of their comfort zone,

there was a high percentage of students who would be comfortable with being evaluated through


activities that require oral skills, such as dialogues and collaborative work (45% total). Some

teachers included this type of activities in the lessons, but using them as memory or translation

exercises, and not necessarily focusing on communication. In contrast, there were many

instances during the observation process in which children try to correctly repeat and pronounce

words taught by the teacher in a playful mode; this is the positive environment that game-based

activities can introduce and it should be the primary goal when implementing communicative

activities in the lesson for young children; giving students the space to try to express themselves

through the target language in an unscripted, stress-free environment (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998;

Krashen, 1981).

2.2.5. Adaptation to Students’ Different Learning Styles

In the surveys applied to the students of the four different schools, there was an important

finding regarding learning styles. Students evidenced to have noticeable differences in the

teaching techniques they prefer based on how they think they learn better. This information

supports the renowned theory that students have different learning preferences (Armstrong,

2009; Dunn & Griggs, 1988; Fleming & Mills, 1987; Keefe, 1979; Oxford, 2003); therefore,

they all learn in a different manner and the use of varied teaching techniques is appropriate to

include all of them in the teaching process.

In school B, as observed in figure 8, students showed 3 different preferences: 38%

preferred visual aids, which suggests visual learners; 24% marked teacher’s explanation as an

option, which suggests auditory learners; and 38% preferred games, which suggests kinesthetic

learners (Fleming & Mills, 1987). This means that a class focused only on activities based on the

book and handouts will smooth the progress of only visual learners, leaving aside a great

percentage of the students of the class. In schools A, C and D, students have a bigger array of

preferences (See figures 4, 12 and 16), including reading, writing, listening and working alone,


among others. This evidences that students need a wider variety of activities in the classroom,

given that one or two techniques will not be sufficient for the whole class group.

The need for varied options does not mean that students who are auditory learners cannot

learn from a kinesthetic activity; it means that the kinesthetic activity, in this case, will foster

kinesthetic students’ learning by stimulating their senses, consequently, boosting meaningful

learning. This research is meant to encourage the use of games as a tool to achieve this ideal

situation in which students use their senses to experience the foreign language, rather than

simply study it.

The use of games gives teachers the chance to adapt countless of activities to their own

students’ learning needs. Through one simple game, teachers can easily reinforce speaking,

listening, moving and writing, allowing different learners to enjoy and learn from each activity.

It is not easy to identify each student’s preference; therefore, it is advisable to use a variety of

activities each class so that all students are included and participate in the class development and

at the same time, teachers can avoid monotonous lessons.

2.3. Assessing Game-based Activities through Valid Assessment Tools

2.3.1. General Considerations

If one could extract a crucial statement from Brown’s assessment principles, it should be

that the assessment of students’ progress must be coherent with how contents are taught, that is

the only way assessment can be valid. For that reason, it is critical that if teachers focus on using

the communicative approach in their classrooms to put into practice all the arguments in favor of

teaching and learning by means of game-based activities, assessment should also be game-like

and motivating. Therefore, the ideal assessment strategy for contents learned through game-

based activities must include most of the theoretical concepts previously discussed into Canale’s


framework for speaking tests (Coombe et al., 2007), since the games that are promoted here are

mainly oral.

First and foremost, the teacher must take into account the students’ progress throughout

their learning process; this is not one isolated test with a grade that will reflect students’

performance at that very specific moment; on the contrary, it is part of a greater picture which

includes the entire process and must be assessed accordingly. Since class groups are generally

quite large, the teacher must develop short activities that include small groups of students during

class time, giving to the rest of the group a task to develop while their classmates are in session

or leaving them in charge of some other teacher or assistant if available. Perhaps on the contrary,

the teacher could decide to group students with differing levels to balance out each other. It is up

to the teachers’ choice, but it is important to give all students an opportunity to show their

abilities during the session.

Canale’s framework for speaking tests consists (Coombe et al., 2007) of four stages:

warm-up, level check, probe and wind down. During the warm-up, the teacher must provide a

relaxed environment before beginning the next stages by motivating students and reducing

anxiety. Then, in the level check, students would be assessed as a group by using what they have

learned in a fictional real-world situation related to the content being assessed. Afterwards,

during the probe the teacher must check if students can go beyond their abilities, always taking

into account that if not, this part of the assessment is not scored. Finally, in the wind down, the

teacher must provide good feedback to the students to keep their motivation and self-esteem

high.

This scheme may be adapted by the teacher’s specific needs in any way, but always

having in mind that it must respect Brown’s principles of assessment. It must be practical, that

means it should be taken in a convenient period of time and it should be easy to administer. It


must be reliable, taking special consideration on classroom settings and students’ affective

factors. It must be valid; the assessment must be in line with the strategies used in the classroom.

It must be authentic; real-life communicative situations are a must to train students to use the

language naturally. Washback is left to the teacher’s criteria; he or she must decide how to

interpret the assessment’s results and how to keep progressing students’ English learning

process.

Table 3. General considerations when applying Canale’s framework for speaking tests

Stage General recommendations Warm up • Start by greeting students kindly and asking them general

information to start developing a relaxed environment. • If time is on your side, breathing exercises are recommended to

lower anxiety. • It is also recommended to start asking words or contents the teacher

know for sure all students know to make them feel more secure about themselves.

• Keep in mind this stage is not assessed. Level check • Before beginning to design any type of assessment activity, decide

the main goal behind the activity is and assess accordingly. • It is important to choose an appropriate fictional situation in which

students can make use of the specific contents being assessed. • Make sure to give enough time to every student in the group to

showcase their abilities during the assessment activity, especially with younger students. If a student does not respond, move on to the next one; you can come back to him or her in the next stage.

• If the teacher has a role during the activity, it must be limited to a minimum to make most of the time available.

• This is the main stage where all of the participants are assessed. Probe • During this stage, if students are able to demonstrate abilities beyond

what is required during the activity, it is assessed. However, if students fail this stage, it must remain unscored.

• If for some reason, a student got left behind during the previous stage, the teacher should take this opportunity to check if that student manages the content being assessed.

Wind down • Always make sure to give immediate positive comments once the activity is done to keep students’ spirits up. Whatever problem may have arose, can wait until next lesson.

• Tell students about general information about what’s coming (when the results are going to be ready, what they will be doing next


lesson, etc.). • Remember that this section is not assessed. It is designed as closure

in order to return students to their previous state of mind during the warm up.

The table above summarizes some recommendations when using Canale’s framework for speaking tests to design a valid assessment tool to evaluate speaking performances. It has reminders of which moments during the test are assessed and which not, and advices about how to treat with students through each stage.

2.3.2. Example Draft The following rough draft is an example to show how Canale’s framework would work in

a speaking activity. It includes a general description of a fictitious situation and how the

assessment activity would take place stage by stage.

2.3.2.1. Description

A class group of 40 students that has English lessons 4 hours a week. They are learning

about food vocabulary and the future tense. During lessons, students have played a role-playing

game where one is a store cashier and the other is a customer buying supplies. In the game, they

are supposed to practice food vocabulary by using ‘going to’ in the future form, elaborating

sentences such as “I’m going to buy some apples”, etc.

2.3.2.2. Assessment activity

The assessment task will take an entire lesson of 90 minutes. The teacher will leave a task

to do during class while he or she assesses groups of 4 students in 10-minute sections. The

teacher will call out 4 students. Group selection is up to the teacher’s choice. The teacher should

have a space available other than the students’ classroom to develop the activity (another

classroom, the hallway, the playground, etc.). The activity consists of a role-playing situation in


a restaurant where the teacher is a waiter and students are costumers making their orders. The

activity will be carried out as it follows:

Table 4. Example draft of Canale’s framework for speaking tests applied to a lesson

Stage Description Warm up The teacher welcomes students affably. Small relaxing exercises that takes

no more than 1 or 2 minutes are optional. If there are students that have more difficulties than others, the teacher should cheer them up to give them more confidence.

Level check The teacher explains the activity and makes sure they all understand what the activity is about. He or she begins the activity by taking orders from the students. If any of the students hesitates or doesn’t say anything, don’t pressure him or her. This should take 5 minutes approximately.

Probe The teacher pushes the activity further by asking if they would like some other item such as a drink or another food item. Students are assessed here only if they can answer properly, except if the student didn’t answer the first time around; this is an opportunity for the teacher to ask again and check if the student forgot, was nervous, etc. or simply does not know. This should take 3 minutes approximately.

Wind down The teacher gives positive compliments to everybody and says that the results will be ready next lesson where they will analyze them and see what they did right and what needs improvement. The teachers ask them to go back to the classroom and call the next group. This should take less than a minute.

This table narrates moment by moment how the teacher should carry out the assessment activity according to Canale’s framework for speaking tests.


Conclusion Chilean students need to learn English by replicating similar conditions to the ones they

had when they first learned their L1, by engaging in a communicative environment where they

can make use of their skills to establish real communication. However, it was shown that

teachers in Valdivian schools in general do not use games in their lessons, as they should do in

order to replicate the way children learn their mother tongue and other things related to daily life.

One of the four cases seen in this research project was the only exception, but even in that case

the teacher did not apply adequate assessment tasks to track students’ progress. To assess

students’ achievements in their language learning process, the teacher must develop a context in

which students can make use of what they have learned naturally, in other words, a situation

where communicative skills are required.

The current Chilean curriculum stipulates that students must be able to communicate in

the foreign language when they finish elementary school (MINEDUC, 2012). However, the

Chilean educational system demands results in other skills (most notably reading and listening)

which is evidenced through assessment methods used by teachers. Furthermore, teachers have

not upgraded their old teaching methods that, while valid, do not answer to the requirements of

EFL in this globalized era. This inconsistency between the teaching and the assessment methods

used can be traced to the curricular bases, which specifies a communicative approach focused on

oral production. On the contrary, the SIMCE test assesses only receptive skills, leaving aside the

evaluation of oral communication.

At the same time, the Chilean educational system partially hinders teachers’ assessment

of their students by requesting a certain number of numerical grades by semester. Teachers show

more concern about fulfilling their grade quota than about attending to students’ many learning


needs; a worrying situation that shows how teacher-centered our learning environment can be.

Assessment methods in the Chilean classroom must progress from mere instances of evaluation

to stress-free classroom instants where students can really learn and experience language.

Having found that a game-based teaching strategy is not only feasible but advisable, the

main challenge for future researchers is now to find a balanced assessment philosophy that

matches the communicational aspects of assessing skills acquired through game-based strategies

and other communicative learning strategies and the demands of our current educational

system’s needs. That is to say, there needs to be several assessment proposals for communicative

needs that fulfill the Chilean schools’ specific necessities. To achieve that, a more extensive

research should be carried out to analyze different contexts throughout the country. It would also

be interesting for further research to put the present research into practice in order to test a full

assessment proposal in schools and observe what works and what does not in order to improve it.

EFL in this country should give students the space to learn how to speak in English as

they learned their native language: by experimenting, mimicking, asking and answering

questions. We must let children play; once that is achieved, our students will be really learning

English and opening their minds to the rest of the world.


References

Abrahams, M. J. y Farías, M. (2010). Struggling for Change in Chilean EFL Teacher Education. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 12(2), pp. 110-118.

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiples intelligences in the classroom. (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

ASCD. Avedon, M., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). The Study of Games. New York, NY: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc. Baker, C., & Prys Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education.

Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bernstein, N., Berko, J. (1993). An introduction to psycholinguistics: What language users

know? Psycholinguistics. Florida, FL: HBJ. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. New Jersey, NJ: McGraw-Hill.

Brown, D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson

Education. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices. New York,

USA: Pearson Education. Canale, M. (1984). Considerations in the testing of reading and listening proficiency. In Foreign

Language Annals (Vol. 17, pp. 349-357). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cinar, E. (2011, December 30). The role of group work in learning English as a foreign

language. Retrieved from http://www.comuelt.org/formal-articles/articles-from-çomu-elt-2011/63-the-role-of-group-work-in-learning-of-english-as-a-foreign-language.html

Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Coombe, C., Folse, K., & Hubley, N. (2007). A practical guide to assessing English language

learners. United States: University of Michigan Press. Dunn, R. & Griggs, S. (1988). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in american schools. Reston,

VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.


Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1987). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11(1992), 137. Retrieved from http://www.vark-learn.com/documents/not_another_inventory.pdf

Foreman, E. K. (1991) Survey Sampling Principles. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning How to Mean:Explorations in the Development of Language.

London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd Hancock, D., & Algozzine, R. (2006). Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for

Beginning Researchers. New York: New York Teachers College Press. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M.B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The

Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 128. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/327317 Huerta-Macías, A. (2002). Alternative assessment: Responses to commonly asked questions. In

W. Renandya & J. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practices. United States: Cambridge University Press.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Cambridge

University Press. Iverson, J. (2010). Developing language in a developing body: the relationship between motor

development and language development. Journal of Child Language, 37, 229-261. doi:10.1017/S0305000909990432

Jones, F. (2000). Tools for teaching. Discipline. Instruction. Motivation. Hong Kong: Frederic H.

Jones & Associates, Inc. Kapp, K. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Keefe, J.W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In NASSP’s student learning styles:

Diagnosing and prescribing programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2006). Do children and adults learn differently?. Journal of Cognition

and Development, 7(3), 279–293. Retrieved from http://www.educationforthinking.org/sites/default/files/pdf/04-04DoChildrenAndAdultsLearnDifferently.pdf

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford,

England: Pergamon Press.


La Tercera. (2011, March 24). Simce de inglés: El 11% de los alumnos comprende frases cotidianas y textos breves. La Tercera. Retrieved from http://www.latercera.com/noticia/educacion/2011/03/657-353598-9-simce-de-ingles-el-11-de-los-alumnos-comprende-frases-y-textos-breves.shtml

Lee, F., & Vanpatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. McGregor, L., Tate, M., & Robinson, K. (1977). Learning through drama. London, England:

Heinemann Educational Books for the Schools Council.

McKenzie, R. (2010). The social psychology of English as global language: Attitude, awareness and identity in the Japanese context. (1st ed.). United Kingdom: Springer.

MINEDUC (2004). Resultados nacionales del diagnóstico de inglés. Retrieved from website:

http://www.rmm.cl/usuarios/jriva/doc/200609251337550.cambridge_resultados_simce.pdf

Opp-Beckman, L., & Klinghammer, S. (2006). Shaping the way we teach English: Successful

practices around the world. Washington, DC: United States Department of State.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. GALA, Retrieved from http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf

Resnick, M. R., & Fong, B. C. (1980). The child: Development through adolescence. California,

CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc.

Richard-Amato, P. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: White Plains.

Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd

ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sad, S. N. (2008). Using mobile phone technology in EFL classes. English Teaching

Forum, 46(4), 35. Sullivan, P. (2004). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a

Vietnamese classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (Vol. 3rd). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.


Tassoni, P. (2007). Child care and education: Cache level 3. (4th ed.). United Kingdom: Scotprint.

Wang, Y., Shang, H., & Briody, P. (2011). Investigating the impact of using games in teaching

children English. International Journal of Learning & Development, 1(1), 127-141. doi: 10.5296/ijld.v1i1.1118

Wilson, H. (n.d.). The focus on form model of second language acquisition. Retrieved from

http://www.santiago.cu/hosting/linguistica/descargar.php?d=475 Wiseman, D., & Hunt, G. (2008). Best practice in motivation and management in the classroom.

(2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Thomas Books. Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (2006). Games for language learning. (3rd ed.).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Appendix 1

Encuesta Colegio: Curso: Nombre:

1. ¿Cómo te evalúa tu profesor de inglés? (Puedes marcar más de una alternativa) Pruebas escritas Pruebas orales Disertaciones Revisión de cuadernos Dramatizaciones Diálogos Trabajo individual Trabajo grupal Portafolio ¿Otro? _________________

2. ¿En qué tipo de evaluaciones te va mejor? (Puedes marcar más de una alternativa) Pruebas escritas Pruebas orales Disertaciones Revisión de cuadernos Dramatizaciones Diálogos Trabajo individual Trabajo grupal Portafolio ¿Otro? _________________

3. ¿Con cuáles te sientes más cómodo? (Puedes marcar más de una) Pruebas escritas Pruebas orales Disertaciones Revisión de cuadernos Dramatizaciones Diálogos Trabajo individual Trabajo grupal Portafolio ¿Otro? _________________


4. ¿Cómo te sientes generalmente en las pruebas (orales, escritas, disertaciones, trabajo de grupos, etc.)?

Tranquilo Nervioso Confiado Desganado Ansioso Motivado Concentrado Preparado Despreocupado ¿Otro? _________________

5. ¿Qué métodos te gustaría que se usaran más en tus pruebas de inglés? (Puedes marcar más de una

y puedes sugerir otro) Pruebas escritas Pruebas orales Disertaciones Revisión de cuadernos Dramatizaciones Diálogos Trabajo individual Trabajo grupal Actividades dinámicas Actividades con música Portafolio ¿Otro? _________________

6. ¿Cómo trabajas cuando sabes que no te van a poner nota?

Trabajo de la misma forma que cuando me ponen nota Trabajo sólo cuando el profesor/a está mirando Trabajo más concentrado Trabajo más relajado Hago lo que me piden, pero no me gusta que no lleve nota Me gusta que la actividad no lleve nota y trabajo mejor Me aburro y no trabajo Aprovecho de pedirle ayuda a mis compañeros ¿Otro? __________________________________________


7. ¿Sientes que lo que aprendes/estudias se refleja en tus notas? Siempre Casi siempre A veces Casi nunca Nunca

8. ¿De qué forma crees que aprendes mejor? (Puedes marcar más de una opción) Cuando el profesor explica Leyendo Escribiendo materia en mi cuaderno Con ayudas visuales (pizarra, posters, tarjetas de vocabulario) Escuchando conversaciones, canciones en inglés, etc. Con actividades dinámicas o juegos Actuando Trabajando solo Trabajando en grupo Cuando le pido ayuda a mis compañeros ¿Otro? _______________________________________________

9. ¿Crees que en las pruebas te preguntan lo que pasaste en clases? Siempre Casi siempre A veces Casi nunca Nunca

10. ¿Sabes bien antes de una prueba los contenidos que van a entrar?

Siempre Casi siempre A veces Casi nunca Nunca

11. De 1 a 5, ¿cómo calificarías la dificultad de las pruebas de tu profesor?

1, muy fácil 2, fácil 3, más o menos 4, difícil 5, muy difícil


Appendix 2

Entrevista

- Tipo de entrevista: Entrevista de preguntas abiertas

- Tiempo aproximado por entrevista: 20 minutos - Tema: Métodos de evaluación. - Preguntas: 1. ¿Por qué favorece el uso de los métodos de evaluación seleccionados en la encuesta?

(Mencionar respuestas marcadas en la encuesta)

2. ¿Con cuáles métodos de evaluación nota usted que se sienten más cómodos los estudiantes? ¿Qué le hace pensar eso?

3. En general, ¿en qué tipos de evaluación los estudiantes obtienen mejores resultados? 4. ¿Cuál es la actitud de los alumnos hacia las evaluaciones sumativas?

5. En general, ¿cuántas notas pone en el semestre? 6. ¿Cómo evalúa la evolución del alumno con respecto a su aprendizaje? ¿Valora las notas o el

aprendizaje?

7. ¿Los tipos de ítems que usa en las evaluaciones, son trabajados previamente en clases?

8. ¿Saben de antemano los alumnos qué contenidos entrarán en las pruebas y de qué forma?

9. ¿Contempla usted hacer preguntas con una dificultad mayor a lo ejercitado en clases? O por lo contrario, ¿prefiere hacer preguntas con nivel de dificultad menor a lo acostumbrado en clases?

10. De 1 a 5, ¿cómo calificaría la dificultad de sus pruebas? (1 muy fácil, 5 muy difícil)


Appendix 3

OBSERVATION GUIDELINES

Teacher observed:…………………………………………………….......................... Grade:……………..…….. School:……………………………………….…Date:…………..………… GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE OBSERVER.

- Arrive before established time. - Observer must be located where he/she may have a wide visual area. - Avoid any activity that may distract students.

DURING CLASS: 1. Has a warm attitude when welcoming his/her students. SÍ NO MED. 2. Presents contents that will be seen clearly. SÍ NO MED. 3. Establishes a relationship between contents seen and contents SÍ NO MED. that will be dealt with. 4. Demonstrates knowledge and security while presenting contents. SÍ NO MED. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLASS 1. Presents challenging and attractive learning situations appropriate for students. SÍ NO MED. 2. Uses coherent resources in learning activities. SÍ NO MED. 3. Stimulates students to ask questions and/or clarify doubts. SÍ NO MED. 4. Provides opportunities of participation to all students. SÍ NO MED. 5. Sets a respectful and empathetic environment between individuals. SÍ NO MED.


6. Maintains a flexible attitude when facing new ideas from students. SÍ NO MED. 7. Responds in an effective and assertive manner when confronted SÍ NO MED with misconduct and maintains discipline during class. CLOSURE: 1. Leaves enough time for class closure: SÍ NO MED. - Summarizes ideas and contents. - Outlines contents previously seen. - Asks questions to different students to determine if they have comprehended. - Students evaluate their own performance and learning. - Others ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2. Stimulates students by highlighting positive aspects of SÍ NO MED their performance in class. . GENERAL SUMMARY: 1. Time and teaching methods are well used. SÍ NO MED. 2. Establishes continuity. (For next class) SÍ NO MED. ABOUT THE SUBJECT (ENGLISH) 1. The teacher communicates in the foreign language. SÍ NO MED. 2. Messages are comprehensible to students. SÍ NO MED 3. The affective filter is low. SÍ NO MED. 4. The teacher uses diverse materials in the different activities SÍ NO MED 5. The application of different methods is observed. SÍ NO MED 6. The lesson focuses on communicative goals SÍ NO MED. 7. Do students speak when ready? SÍ NO MED 8. Is grammar taught implicitly? SÍ NO MED. 9. Are errors corrected indirectly? SÍ NO MED 10. Is the language taught in a natural way? SÍ NO MED


ASSESSMENT 1. The teacher provides positive feedback when students participate. SÍ NO MED. 2. The teacher uses body language to covey his/her message SÍ NO MED. 3. The teacher engages students in role-play situations SÍ NO MED. 4. The teacher evaluates what has been done in class. SÍ NO MED. 5. Children shows high levels of anxiety when it comes to evaluation. SÍ NO MED.

The Use of Game-Based Teaching and Assessment Activities

Documents

Transcript of The Use of Game-Based Teaching and Assessment Activities