View
229
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Nahum Samperio Sáncheza María del Rocío Ríos Garduñob David Guadalupe Toledo Sarracinoc
ABSTRACT The activities teachers use in class have a great influence in creating an enjoyable classroom environment
for students. Communicative activities in the classroom are necessary to be included in order for learners to
develop communicative skills. This study followed a quantitative research methodology by collecting
numerical data by means of a 62-item questionnaire administered to 263 English language learners and 20
teachers. Twenty-two communicative activities were observed and data was analyzed by using SPSS and
Excel software. Results indicate a 50% match between students’ preference and teachers’ frequency of use
of communicative activities not only on the highly-preferred activities but also activities with low students’
preference.
Keywords: Communicative activities, speaking, communicative approach, preference, classroom activities
RESUMEN Las actividades que los maestros usan en el salón de clase tienen una gran influencia en la creación de un
ambiente agradable en el salón de clase. Es necesario incluir actividades comunicativas en el salón de clase
para desarrollar en los estudiantes las habilidades comunicativas. Este estudio siguió una metodología de
investigación cuantitativa recabando información numérica por medio de un cuestionario de 62-ítem
administrados a 263 estudiantes y 20 maestros del idioma inglés. Se observaron veintidós actividades
comunicativas y la información fue analizada usando los programas SPSS y Excel. Los resultados indican un
50% de coincidencia entre las actividades que los maestros incluyen en clase y las actividades que los
alumnos prefieren no solo las actividades que los alumnos prefieren sino también en las que las que no
prefieren.
Palabras clave: Actividades comunicativas, producción oral, enfoque comunicativo, preferencia, actividades de clase.
Volumen # 12, número 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
Students’ preferences for communicative activities and teachers’ frequency of communicative activity
use in Tijuana
La preferencia de los estudiantes por las actividades comunicativas y la frecuencia de uso de los maestros de inglés en Tijuana
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
16 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
1. INTRODUCTION
Activities play an important role in the process of learning in the classroom. Choosing the correct
activities, or procedures, to use in the classroom is not an easy task because these decisions can
have both positive and negative repercussions on the students; for instance, demotivation,
increasing anxiety, boredom, absenteeism, or even dropping out of class. The preference students
have for classroom activities might be influenced by many factors in the language classroom such
as students’ learning styles, motivation for studying the language; perception of usefulness or
importance of the activity; anxiety, classroom environment, students’ personalities, students’
language level, or their goals in language learning, among others.
At times, teachers need to manage activities based on the possibilities readily available.
Deciding the sort of activities at times it goes beyond teachers’ decision. Teachers base their
teaching on textbooks and heavily rely on the activities, tasks and exercises suggested in the
textbooks that institutions decide to use in their programs. Additionally, many of the activities
teachers choose to use reflect their beliefs about teaching and their teaching styles; deciding if the
activity to be included in the lesson plan is useful, interesting, necessary or motivating depends on
what the teacher thinks students should learn. Similarly, many of the activities students prefer for
the classroom reflect their learning styles; however; very often this preference between teachers
and students do not coincide.
Tijuana is a Mexican City that borders the American City of San Diego. The social and
economic contact between Tijuana and San Diego involves a wide variety of interactional and
transactional activities such as shopping, leisure, visiting relatives or friends, commercial
transactions and work. The frequency and intensity of contact between speakers of Spanish and
English, and the resulting diversity in speech, might lead one to assume that border inhabitants
have reasons to learn the language in a communicative way. Thus, language centers promote classes
where learners learn to communicate in an efficient way.
The Language Center (now UNISER) at the faculty of the University of Baja California, in
which this study was conducted, offers General English classes to university students who are
required to take the courses to meet university exit requirements; and, partly, to people who are
taking the courses for personal or business reasons. The Language Center seeks for learners to
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
17 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
“Communicate in oral and written forms the various situations of everyday life” (Language Center,
Faculty of Tijuana, 2012). Their curriculum documents emphasized a communicative methodology
where teaching and learning should include activities such as role plays, presentations,
questionnaires, interviews and discussions with a focus on pair work and group work; to be
precise, the institution requires teachers to promote learners’ communicative efficiency.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to identify the learners’ preference for communicative
activities as well as the communicative activities teachers decide to include in their daily teaching.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Communicative and Traditional approaches
Over the years, language teaching has faced changes in methodology; nowadays, it is difficult to
speak about a single methodology used in the classroom. English language teaching methodology
has looked for better ways to improve teaching for a long time; new methods and approaches
appeared; for instance, the Direct Method, the Grammar Translation Method, the Audio-lingual
Method, Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response, or the communicative approach among others
(See Richards and Rodgers, 2014). Although they were functional in the period they were
developed, new methods have substituted them; apparently, the newer method in turn offered
more advantages trying to improve English foreign teaching and learning.
As a result of a need for a more functional, communicative and real use of the language that
the on-going methods did not provide learners of the language with, the communicative approach
developed rapidly in the 1970s (e.g. Savignon, 2007; Spada, 2007; Canale and Swain, 1980).This
evolution has been developed in an increased awareness of communicative and task-based
language teaching. In the 1980s, communicative methodologies appeared, and they were the
beginning of a “major paradigm shift” (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p.151) this change still
influences today’s methodology; and with this view, approaches such as the Natural Approach,
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), Content-Based Teaching (CBT), the Task-Based
Approach, and Cooperative Language Learning emerged.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
18 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
The principal hypothesis underlying communicative methodologies is that communicative
proficiency rather than mastery of structures should be the goal. The communicative approach
focuses on communicative competences developed by Hymes (1972). According to Widdowson
(1978) communicative competence is rehearsed mainly through tasks in which the student first
uses the language and later induces rules rather than first studying how it is formed; the principal
goal of such approach is for the students to obtain the skills to communicate in real life and
everyday situations. The approach emphasizes on meaning, it is student-centered, and activities
are mainly through pair and group work where the students are required to rehearse their
communicative skills not only speaking but also writing and reading (Harmer, 2007). The
approach is often task-based, and fluency is considered important (Richards, 2006).
Communicative activities seem to be included in every day teaching and publishers use a
more communicative approach in their textbooks. Activities in the classroom can range from
controlled to communicative. On one hand, communicative activities provide authentic practice
that prepares students for real-life communication situations. On the other, according to Harmer
(2007), controlled activities do not have a communicative desire (students only practice because
they are asked to practice); they do not have a communicative purpose (students are not interested
in the exchange of information); the activities focus on form and not on the content (grammar,
pronunciation, etc.) the teacher monitors the activity (he or she checks mistakes); usually, only
one structure is practiced; and the material guides students into the practice of the structure or
specific vocabulary.
Nowadays, there seems to be a combination of teaching approaches, as a consequence,
different choices of activities for the classroom.
2.2 Research conducted on the efficacy of communicative activities
Many studies have been conducted concerning activities used in the classroom; studies have looked
into preference on communicative or traditional activities (e.g. Spratt 1999); others have researched
on students’ and teachers’ perception of usefulness, preference, or even importance of activities in
the learning process (e.g. Rao, 2002; Peacock,1998; Liu, 1997). For instance, Kang, Son and Lee
(2006) researched student-teachers’ perception and preferences for the use of teaching and
learning activities in the classroom, by means of a questionnaire about their motivations for
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
19 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
becoming a teacher and their perceptions of teaching. Participants reported having preference for
student-to-student conversation, playing language games and pronunciation drills as the most
preferred activities whereas traditional activities such as translation exercises and grammar
exercises as the least preferred ones. Thus, student-teachers reported a preference for activities
that helped them practice the language in a communicative way.
Contrary to Kang et.al (2006), Peacock (1998) conducted researched with teachers’ and
students’ perception of usefulness of different activities. Peacock discovered that students
preferred traditional learning activities over communicative activities. His findings indicated that
students consider grammar exercises, pronunciation, and error correction more useful. In contrast,
teachers did not consider very useful the traditional activities students perceived as useful; instead,
teachers perceived pair and group work, and communicative tasks as more useful. Peacock claims
that this mismatch between what students and teachers perceive might have undesirable
consequences not only on the progress of the learner but also on their satisfaction with the class
and their confidence in their teachers. Peacock’s findings suggest that teachers include activities
that they considered useful based on different factors; for example, the perception they have of
their students, their teaching styles or their teacher’s beliefs. Bada and Okan (2000) researched
students’ preferences for learning English. They also explored the extent of teachers’ awareness of
their students’ preferences. They discovered a gap between teachers’ and students’ perceptions and
they suggested that both teachers and students need to cooperate as to how learning activities
should be implemented. In order to lower teacher-student style conflicts, some researchers of
learning styles suggest that teaching styles should concur with learning styles (e.g. Griggs and
Dunn, 1984; Smith and Renzulli, 1984; Charkins O'Toole and Wetzel, 1985).
Rao (2002) also studied students’ perception of communicative activities in a Chinese
university. Students reported communicative activities difficult to perform. Rao (2002) concluded
that communicative and non-communicative activities should be included more frequently in non-
English speaking classrooms in order for students to find communicative activities more
productive. In some social contexts, the role of the teacher and the student is so strict that students
are not often taken into account in deciding what processes or methods teachers should follow in
the classroom. Therefore, teachers do not have the freedom to include other than the activities
suggested on textbooks. Barkhuizen (1998) investigated students’ preference for classroom
activities. His findings showed that between South African high school students and teachers,
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
20 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
perceptions for activities greatly differed one from the other; students reported to prefer traditional
over communicative activities.
In contrast, in a study carried out in Iran, Eslami-Rasekh and Valizadeh (2004) found that
students prefer communicative activities, however, teachers are not aware of these preferences;
therefore, teachers do not usually include communicative activities in their practice. McDonough
(199, p.131) states that “Activities valued by teachers are not the same valued by learners”;
nowadays, there is a gap between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the usefulness in
communicative activities. According to this, Kumaravadivelu (1991) states that there is an
inevitable gap between teaching and learning styles; nonetheless, this gap can be shortened when
teachers use activities that fulfill students’ expectations of the class, thus, generating an adequate
environment and the preference for activities. Concurrently with Eslami-Rasekh and Valizadeh
(2004), Tomlinson and Dat (2004), in a Vietnamese context, reported that students like having
communicative group work activities, however, they also reported that anxiety, linguistic
limitations, and classroom atmosphere inhibited their active participation in class. In
communicative language teaching, anxiety provoking activities, along with the classroom
atmosphere, might hinder the performance of students in communication. Tomlinson and Dat
concluded that although participation is a clear objective in the language class, activities could
encourage or discourage students to do so, and that the variation in the participation of students
in class is the result of how students perceive the activity.
Different variables might influence in the preference for activities. For instance, Yorio (1986)
conducted research in a Canadian university; he discovered that students in basic levels of language
learning have a tendency to like traditional and controlled activities because they feel safe and
secure such as grammar explanations or learning vocabulary lists. Controlled activities usually help
students realize that language can be learned, and they give students a feeling of self-confidence in
managing a new language.
In a similar study, Garret and Shortall (2002) conducted research with students at different
language levels; they explored students’ perception for communicative activities; they discovered
that students preferred interactive activities more as they moved up through learning levels. In
other words, the lower the level, the more mechanical and controlled activities are, consequently,
students get a feeling of comfort when they use the language.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
21 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
When students become aware of the learning process, activities or materials teachers use in
the classroom, they become conscious of their attributes; then they are able to evaluate the
importance or usefulness they have for their learning. Students usually know what weaknesses
they have; though, at times, they are not able to identify their strengths. Horwitz (1988)
investigated the beliefs of language learning of foreign language university students at the
beginning stage; these students perceived activities such as error correction, translation, grammar
rules, vocabulary lists, and pronunciation as important. As stated before, it might also be influenced
by their feeling of security and comfort in basic stages of learning the language.
Bada and Okan (2000) explored the usefulness of teachers’ activities in the classroom. They
found that students believed that those activities in which there is student-to-student interaction
are more beneficial or useful. Bada and Okan (2000) suggest that Interaction among students is
crucial to the process of learning, just as interaction between teacher and students making course
activities more memorable. Harmer (2007) claims that pair and group work immediately increase
the amount of student talking time. Activities in which students interact with one another such as
information-gap, question-answer interviewing, mingling and so on will work well in classrooms
where students are able to practice the use of English as the means of communication. Such
activities are used to promote fluency and to give a contextualized practice of grammatical
structures, functional exponents, and items of vocabulary. Not including these activities from one’s
teaching would hinder students the opportunity to use the language they are learning. Group work
gives students the opportunity to communicate with each other and to share suggestions
hypothesis, insights, feedback, successes, and even failures (Nielson,1989).
A few studies have reported finding a match between students’ preferred activities and their
teachers’ perceptions of usefulness of activities. For instance, Spratt (1999) conducted research
with 997 students in Hong Kong. She used a 48-item questionnaire to explore the preferences
learners have for classroom activities, she discovered that students’ and teachers’ preferences
match in a 54% of accuracy. In her study, Spratt found that students had a preference for
communicative activities. Findings suggested no differences between what students like or prefer
in the classroom and the teachers’ awareness of their preference.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
22 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
3. METHODOLOGY
This study used a quantitative research methodology and gathered data through a 62-item
questionnaire administered to 263 students and 20 teachers in order to observe students’
preferences and teachers’ frequency of use of the communicative activities. The researcher
developed a questionnaire from a pool item from activities gathered from previous studies
conducted (Barkhuizen, 1998; Spratt 1999, Bada and Okan, 2000; Green, 1993; Hanh, 2005; Peacock
1998; Kang, Son and Lee, 2006). SPSS and Excel software were used to analyze data by means of
central tendency, and t-tests to observe significant differences between teachers’ and students’
responses. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability for students’ questionnaire was α=.907.
Standard deviation ranged from 0.99 to 1.70 these values suggested that the items had relatively
high internal consistency. Activities were grouped by skills on the teachers’ questionnaire (1-7
grammar, 8-20 listening; 21-38 speaking; 39-46 reading; 47-52 writing; 53-56 vocabulary; 57-62
other activities) so that teachers could center attention on the skill under study and could provide
a more focused answer of the activity asked. Although the questionnaire included 62 items, the
aim of this study focused on twenty-two communicative activities included in the questionnaire
in order to observe students’ preference and teacher’s inclusion of these activities in class, and to
allow respondents to choose from a variety of activities (grammar activity 5 listening activity 14;
speaking activities 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36,and 38; reading activities 40 and
46; writing activities 48, 49, 50,and 51) See table 1 for description of activities.
Students and teachers of the six levels of the English program at the Language Center
answered the questionnaires in their classroom, and the researcher explicitly explained the
instructions in order to avoid confusion for the participants. This study revolves around two main
research questions:
1. Do English language learners have a preference for communicative activities?
2. Does the teachers’ frequency of use of communicative activities match students’ preference
for the communicative activities?
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
23 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
4. RESULTS
The primary aim of this research was to identify students’ preferences for communicative activities
carried out in the classroom by the teacher. The second aim was to observe the concordance there
is between the activities teachers include in their daily practice and the activities students prefer
having in the classroom.
Over all data of the questionnaires show that student’s preference for communicative
activities is very diverse. Students’ data indicate that an average of M=4.85, or above, indicates a
high preference for activities whereas an average of M= 4.21, or below, suggests a low preference for
activities. Similarly, teachers’ data indicate that an average above M=4.06 is considered high
frequency of use while an average below M=3.50 is considered low frequency of use.
From table 1, we can observe that learners have a preference for communicative activities (5,
14, 21, 22, and 38) with a mean score of M=4.85. It indicates that students prefer those activities;
however, the rank of the activity which suggests the position of the activity within the whole
questionnaire only activities 5,14 and 22 fall on the list of ten highly preferred activities. Contrary,
students reported low preference for a higher number of communicative activities; activities 28,
50, 40, 36, 33, 25, 35, 49, 26, 32, 27, 51 showed a mean score lower than M=4.21 which indicates low
preference for activities. The rank order of the activities shows that most of the activities learners
do not prefer having in class fall in the lowest positions. This indicates that learners have a low
preference for such activities when compared with other activities.
When teachers’ data were analyzed results indicated that teachers reported making use of
nine communicative activities with a mean score of M=4.06, or above, which indicates a frequent
use. Teachers use activities 14, 22, 23, 29, 33, 21, 5, 32, 24 and 46 at a high frequently rate. Contrary,
communicative activities with a mean score of M= 3.50 or below such as activities 25, 26, 50, 49, 51,
57 were reported as not frequently included in the classroom by teachers. Table 1 shows mean
scores of the communicative activities and their rank order in the whole questionnaire.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
24 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
Table 1. Students’ mean scores of communicative activities as ranked in the overall questionnaire
Rank Act # Description Mean STD Skill
1 5. listening to the teacher explaining grammar 5.4 0.77 Grammar
2 14. listening to the teacher when he or she gives me instructions in English
5.3 0.85 Listening
10 22. asking and answering questions in pairs 5.0 0.90 Speaking
12 38 chatting with the teacher or other students informally in English
5.0 1.07 Speaking
16 21. answering questions, the teacher asks or I read based on pictures, cartoons
4.9 1.10 Speaking
28 24. describing visuals, photos, cartoons, etc. 4.7 1.13 Speaking
29 29. participating in discussions in pairs, trios or groups 4.7 1.13 Speaking
32 23. brainstorming about a topic 4.7 1.12 Speaking
33 46. reading and then having discussions about what I read 4.7 1.02 Reading
46 48. writing short passages, stories, dialogs, individually 4.3 1.25 Writing
48 28. narrating stories based on photos, cartoons, etc. 4.1 1.37 Speaking
50 50. writing e-mail, letters, messages, posts, summaries, etc. 4.1 1.33 Writing
51 40. reading and then writing summaries about what I read 4.0 1.32 Reading
52 36. taking part in role plays in pairs in my seat 4.0 1.73 Speaking
53 33. standing up and collecting information by asking questions 4.0 1.34 Speaking
54 25. giving oral group presentations 3.9 1.47 Speaking
56 35. taking part in role plays in front of the class 3.8 1.72 Speaking
57 49. writing assignments (essays, books or articles, paragraphs summaries, etc.)
3.8 1.38 Writing
58 26. giving individual oral presentations 3.8 1.51 Speaking
59 32. reporting information gathered from classmates to other classmates or the class
3.7 1.40 Speaking
60 27. making oral interviews to native speakers of English 3.4 1.72 Speaking
61 51. writing a diary 3.4 1.67 Writing
*Highlighted items indicate mean scores within the high average or low average range.
On table 2, we can observe that teachers reported including a high number of
communicative activities in their daily teaching. Among the ten activities that teachers most
frequently include in their daily teaching, seven activities promote speaking. The rank order of the
activities suggests activity position within the 62 activities included in the questionnaire.
Communicative activities 14, 22, 23, 29, 33 and 21 are found on the list of the ten activities most
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
25 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
frequently included in the classrooms by teachers. This might suggest that teachers follow a
communicative methodology in the classroom by including activities that promote
communication.
Table 2. Teacher’s mean scores of communicative activities as ranked in the overall questionnaire.
Rank # Activity Mean STD Skill
1 14 listen to you when you give them instructions in English? 5.7 0.9 Listening
2 22 ask and answer questions in pairs? 5.7 0.5 Speaking
3 23 brainstorm about a topic? 5.3 0.8 Speaking
5 29 participate in discussions in pairs, trios or groups? 5.1 0.9 Speaking
6 33 stand up and collect information by asking questions to different classmates?
5.1 1 Speaking
8 21 answer questions you ask or they read based on pictures, cartoons, photos, etc.?
5.1 0.7 Speaking
11 5 listen to me explaining grammar 5 0.8 Grammar
12 32 report information gathered from classmates to other classmates or the class?
4.9 1.1 Speaking
13 24 describe visuals, photos, cartoons, etc.? 4.9 1.1 Speaking
17 46 read and have discussions about what they read? 4.6 1.1 Reading
20 36 take part in role plays in pairs in their seats? 4.5 1.2 Speaking
23 38 chat with you or other students informally? 4.4 1.9 Speaking
33 28 narrate stories based on photos, cartoons, etc.? 3.9 1.2 Speaking
35 48 write short passages, stories, dialogs, individually? 3.9 1.3 Writing
37 40 read and write summaries, ideas, sentences about what they read?
3.8 1.1 Reading
42 35 take part in role plays in front of the class? 3.7 1 Speaking
46 25 give group oral presentations? 3.5 1.2 Speaking
48 26 give individual oral presentations? 3.2 1.3 Speaking
50 50 write e-mail, letters, messages, posts, summaries, etc.? 3 1.2 Vocabulary
58 49 write assignments (essays, books or articles, paragraphs summaries, etc.)?
2.5 1.1 Writing
60 51 write a diary? 1.7 0.9 Writing
61 27 make oral interviews to native speakers of English? 1.6 0.7 Speaking
*Highlighted items indicate mean scores within the high average or low average range.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
26 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
Contrasting table 1 and table 2 with a naked eye, results might indicate a significant
difference between what students prefer and the activities teachers use in the classroom. Therefore,
in order to observe if there were significant differences in mean scores between students’
preference and teachers’ inclusion of communicative activities in class, it was necessary to apply a
t-test for independent samples to the twenty-two activities data between students’ preference
(M=4.31, SD=.63) and teachers’ frequency of activity use (M=4.12, SD=.46). Levenes’ test p=.097
indicated that equal variances could be assumed; consequently, it is possible to apply t-test for
independent samples to data. Results showed a t (281)=1.216, p>.189 which indicates that there is
no significant difference between samples. In other words, teachers use activities in their
classrooms that learners like. Results indicated a significant difference on eleven communicative
activities: 27, 51, 49, 32, 33, 50, 22, 23, 38, 5, 14; in contrast, analysis show no significant differences
on eleven activities: 26, 29, 25, 48, 36, 40, 28, 21, 24, 35, 46. In other words, teachers’ inclusion of
activities meets students’ preference for such activities. Table 3 shows t-test for independent
samples values of teachers’ frequency of activity use and students’ preference for activities.
Table 3. T-test for independent samples values of teachers’ frequency of activity use and students’ preference for activities.
Description of the activity
t df Sig. Mean Dif
Std. Error dif
27 making oral interviews to native speakers of English 4.68 281 .000 1.811 .387
51 writing a diary 4.66 281 .000 1.761 .378
49 writing assignments (essays, books or articles, paragraphs summaries, etc.)
4.11 281 .000 1.298 .316
32 reporting information gathered from classmates to other classmates or the class
-3.65 281 .000 -1.170 .321
33 standing up and collecting information by asking questions
-3.63 281 .000 -1.115 .307
50 writing e-mail, letters, messages, posts, summaries, etc.
3.55 281 .000 1.087 .307
22 asking and answering questions in pairs -3.06 281 .002 -.623 .204
23 brainstorming about a topic -2.28 281 .023 -.585 .256
38 chatting with the teacher or other students informally in English
2.26 281 .024 .600 .265
5 listening to the teacher explaining grammar 2.26 281 .024 .407 .180
14 listening to the teacher when he or she gives me instructions in English
-1.97 281 .050 -.392 .199
26 giving individual oral presentations 1.63 281 .104 .572 .350
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
27 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
CONT. TABLE 3
29 participating in discussions in pairs, trios or groups -1.43 281 .153 -.370 .258
25 giving group oral presentations 1.42 281 .157 .478 .337
48 writing short passages, stories, dialogs, individually 1.21 281 .226 .351 .289
36 taking part in role plays in pairs on my seat -1.10 281 .272 -.435 .395
40 reading and then writing summaries about what I read
.78 281 .434 .238 .304
28 narrating stories based on photos, cartoons, etc. .74 281 .458 .233 .314
21 answering questions the teacher asks or I read based on pictures, cartoons
-.47 281 .636 -.118 .250
24 describing visuals, photos, cartoons, etc. -.46 281 .645 -.120 .260
35 taking part in role plays in front of the class .44 281 .661 .171 .390
46 reading and then having discussions about what I read
.28 281 .773 .069 .239
Results show that out of the twenty-two communicative activities observed in this study, 50
percent of the activities, that is, eleven activities, have a significant difference whereas the other
eleven activities do not show a significant difference. In other words, there is an agreement in the
communicative activities that learners prefer having in the classroom and the activities teachers
include in their daily teaching. However, this 50% match is not only on activities with a high mean
score but also on activities with a low mean score. This means that teachers include activities that
learners prefer having in the classroom but also that teachers do not include activities that students
do not like which suggests agreement as well. In other words, teachers include activities that
students prefer having in the classroom but they also do not include activities that learners do not
prefer such as writing a diary or interviewing native speakers.
Figure 1 shows a comparison of mean scores between students’ preference and teachers’
frequency of activity use of the twenty-two communicative activities.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
28 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
Figure 1. Students' preference and teacher's frequency of activity use of communicative activities
In figure 1, we can observe the gap that exists between the teachers’ frequency of activity use and
students’ preference for communicative activities. As it can be observed, teachers include activities
very frequently, for example, activities 33 standing up and collecting information by asking questions and
activity 32 reporting information gathered from classmates are activities students do not appeal to do in
class; or activities such as 27 making oral interviews to native speakers of English, which teachers do not
include but which students prefer having in class.
5. DISCUSSION
The use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) encourages teachers to include activities in
which students develop their communicative skills. Findings in this study have shown that the
teachers’ choice for communicative activities concurs with not only on the activities that students
prefer having in class, but also on the activities that students do not prefer. In contrast, there are
other activities that learners do not like but teachers frequently include them in class.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
5 14 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 35 36 38 40 46 48 49 50 51
Students' preference and teacher's frequency of activity use of communicative activities
Teachers Students
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
29 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
It can only be speculated that teachers include activities based on their experience, their
beliefs, and probably, their teaching styles. Teachers’ teaching styles might have an influence on
the type of activities they include in their lessons. Kaplan and Kies (1995:2) describe teaching styles
as the “teacher’s personal behavior and the media used to transmit data to or receive it from the
learner”; Fischer and Fischer (1979:246) add that the teaching style is a “pervasive way of
approaching the learners”; they go on explaining that it might be consistent with several methods
of the teacher. Reid (1987) claims that every teacher has a teaching style. This personal behavior to
approach learners influences teachers’ perception of the activities they decide to include to
transmit information to learners. Analysis indicates that the number of communicative activities
frequently used by teachers in their daily practice suggests that teachers’ perceive speaking
activities as necessary for students; therefore, they include communicative activities because they
need to make learners exert communication in order to fulfill institution’s goals. In contrast, a
reason for students’ preference, high or low, for activities in the classroom could be that students
see activities as a part of the process of the language learning classroom and not as something that
might help them gain communicative proficiency.
The results of this study are consistent with the findings of previous research in terms of
preference that students have for classroom activities. For instance, Spratt (1999) demonstrated
that students scored communicative activities neither as the most preferred nor as the least ones.
That is, some of the activities learners reported as preferred concurred with the teachers’ frequency
of activity use. In Spratt’s study, students did not see activities as something they preferred but as
something they have to do in the class.
What students prefer to do in the classroom could also depend on many factors that range
from motivational factors to environmental factors. However, an important factor is the goal
learners have for learning the language. Learners’ goal in learning English might not be clear for
students. That is to say, when language classes are compulsory, learners attend classes to fulfill
requirements rather than an intrinsic desire to communicate efficiently in a foreign language.
Consequently, they do not realize the importance activities have for their communicative
proficiency; they might prefer some activities over others because of the enjoyment that such
activities produce in learners. Perhaps, if teachers explained learners the benefits they would gain
by using communicative activities, learners might increase their preference for such activities.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
30 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
Contrary to students’ preferences for activities, communicative activities were scored by
teachers not only in the highest positions but also in the lowest ones (See table 2). It is important
to note that the 50 % coincidence there is between what students prefer and what teachers do in
the classroom matches not only the activities teachers frequently use but also the ones they do not
use. This is important because including activities students do not like might have negative results
in the classroom.
Results indicated that communicative speaking activities such as making oral interviews to
native speakers of English (M=1.4) and recording themselves on a video recording (M=1.6) were
scored as “never done in class before” or “almost never”, and they were ranked in the lowest
positions by both teachers and students (see table 3). A reason to explain these findings is that
these activities might be considered by teachers as anxiety-provoking; consequently, teachers
avoid including them in their regular practice. According to Price (1991), anxiety is often associated
with tasks involving speaking in front of others; either in front of the class in a small group or being
stared at by other students while speaking. Other factors such as being afraid of making a bad
impression or receiving negative appraisal together with the failure to express oneself clearly and
correctly have also been often cited sources of anxiety Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986).
Additionally, a lack of interest in the topic and lack of linguistic resources could also account as
reasons for not including certain speaking activities as a common practice.
Since it was not an aim of this study to observe the reasons learners have for their preference
or teachers for the inclusion of communicative activities in the classroom, it is feasible to risk saying
that teachers’ teaching styles and their beliefs about teaching and learning might be related to those
reasons.
6. CONCLUSION
The inclusion of appealing activities for students helps in creating an ideal environment where
participants have the opportunity to put into practice what they have learned. However, it is
necessary to point out that different factors influence in the teachers’ decision to include, or not,
activities students prefer. It is often not explicit or sufficiently clear why teachers plan the class
the way they do, but teachers might have certain preconceived ideas or beliefs about how best to
approach English teaching. Teachers’ decisions, on one hand, are based on what they perceive as
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
31 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
useful, necessary or appealing for their students; and on the other hand, on what institutions
require them to do through the textbooks they use.
It is equally important to note that preference is subjective and it constantly varies during a
lesson or a course; factors that enhance preference are always fluctuating; and it might depend on
each individual. Then, it is necessary to understand that not always what students like or want is
what they lack or need; and teachers seem to choose activities based on what they perceive
students lack and need. Now, the task for teachers is to make students aware of the benefits of
including communicative activities have in their communicative efficiency so that learners see
communicative activities from a different perspective.
REFERENCES
Bada, E. and Okan, Z. (2000), Students’ language learning preferences. TESL-EJ, 4(3), 1-15, http://tesl-ej.org/ej15/a1.html (consulted 30/07/11)
Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1), 85-108.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47
Charkins, R. J., O'Toole, D. M., and Wetzel, J. N. (1985). Linking teacher and student learning styles with student achievement and attitudes. The Journal of Economic Education 16 (3), 111-120.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z., and Valizadeh, K. (2004). Classroom activities viewed from different perspectives: Learners’ voice vs. teachers’ voice. TESL-EJ, 8(3), 1-13.
Fischer, N B and Fischer, L. (1979). Styles in teaching and learning. Educational leadership 36(4), 245-254.
Garrett, P and Shortall, T 2002, Learners’ evaluations of teacher-fronted and student-centred classroom activities, Language Teaching Research. Arnold.
Green, J. M. (1993). Student attitude toward communicative and non-communicative activities: Do enjoyment and effectiveness go together? The Modern Language Journal, 77 (i), 1-10.
Griggs, S. A., and Dunn, R. S. (1984). Selected case studies of the learning style preferences of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(3), 115-119.
Hanh, P. T. (2005). Learners’ and teachers’ preferences for classroom activities. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 7(1), 159-179.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Fourth Edition. England: Pearson Education Ltd.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
32 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
Horwitz, E, (1988). The beliefs about language learning of Beginning University Foreign Language Students. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-94.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., and Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics Selected Reading, (pp. 269-93). Harmondswortth: Penguin.
Kang, Hoo-Dong, Son, Jeong-Bae, and Lee, Seong-Won (2006). Perceptions of and Preferences for English Language Teaching among Pre-service Teachers of EFL. English Language Teaching, 18(4), 25-49.
Kaplan, E. J., and Kies, D. A. (1995). Teaching styles and learning styles: Which came first? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(1), 29.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language-learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2), 98-107.
Liu, N. F., and Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371-384.
McDonough, S. M. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language, London: Edward Arnold.
Nielson, A. (1989). Critical Thinking and Reading: Empowering Learners to Think and Act. Illinois: Bloomington, Indiana: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills/The National Council of Teachers of English.
Peacock, M. (1998). Exploring the gap between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about ‘useful’ activities for EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 233-250.
Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interview with highly anxious students. In Horwitz, E. K. & Young, D. J. (rds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 101–108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System 30, 85-105
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21/1, 87-111.
Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. 2nd edition
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. (3rd ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What's ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207-220.
Smith, L., and Renzulli, J. (1984). Learning style preference: A practical approach for classroom teachers. Theory into Practice, 23(1), 45-50.
Students’ preferences for communicative activities Samperio, Ríos y Toledo
33 Plurilinkgua, vol. 12, núm. 1, 2016 ISSN: 2007-6975
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In Cummins, J. and Davison, C. (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching 22 (pp. 271-288). Boston, MA: Springer Science & Business Media. Online access via SpringerLink
Spratt, M. (1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27(2),141-155.
Tomlinson, B., and Bao, Dat. (2004). The contribution of Vietnamese learners of English to ELT methodology. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 199-222.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. London: Oxford University Press
Yorio, C. (1986). Consumerism in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review, 42(3), 668-68
The authors
a He is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Southampton. He holds a M.A. in English Language Teaching at the University of Southampton in U.K. He holds a B.A. in English Language Teaching at Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. He is a full time teacher and a researcher. He has 25 years of experience working as an English teacher for both the educational system and the private sector. He is currently the Community Social Service Coordinator at the Faculty of languages.
b She holds Master in teaching, degree in English language teaching at the Universidad Autónoma de Baja California and now studying the PhD in Education. She teaches in the undergraduate teaching of languages, in the master in teaching at the Faculty of languages of the UABC since August 1998. He is currently responsible of the Specialization in Translation and Interpretation in Tijuana.
b He is a full-time professor and researcher at the Faculty of Languages at Universidad Autónoma de Baja California in
Tijuana. He is a holder of a B.A. in Language Teaching granted by Universidad Juárez Autóma de Tabasco, a Master´s degree in Teaching granted by UABC and a PhD in Linguistics granted by UAQ. He is a Fulbright Alumni at University of California, San Diego. His lines of research are discourse analysis, language policy and teacher training.
Samperio Sánchez, N., Ríos Garduño M. del R., y Toledo Sarracino, D. G. (2016). Students’ preferences for communicative activities and teachers’ frequency of communicative activity use in Tijuana. Plurilinkgua, 12 (1), pp. 15-33.
Recommended