Students’ preferences for communicative activities and...

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



“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.



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



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,



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.



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.



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?



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

Date post:	03-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doannga
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Students’ preferences for communicative activities and...

Documents