Repositorio Institucional de Documentos

THE USE OF GAMES TO PROMOTE THE SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Universidad de Zaragoza. Facultad de Educación Grado en Maestro en Educación Infantil Curso 2013/2014 AUTOR: Beatriz Puig Cascajo DIRECTOR: Enrique Lafuente Millán 12 / 09 / 2014 ABSTRACT A considerable amount of research and publications have dealt with games in Infant and Primary Education. Nevertheless, little is known about the role games can play in Foreign Language Acquisition with young learners. The aim of this project is to investigate how Infant Education teachers use them to promote SLA and whether their use can help to achieve this objective. Firstly, this study briefly reviews the techniques of English teaching and how these can influence the use of games. Subsequently, key theories and research concerned with the importance of games in Infant Education, are reviewed, as well as the suitability of using games as a methodology for teaching English. Moreover, eight games provided by several teachers from bilingual schools are analyzed and the extent to which they promote the SLA is evaluated. Finally, data from interviews with two teachers is examined to investigate their opinion about games as an educational method. Keywords: GAMES, methodology; SLA; focus on meaning; communicative competence; bilingual teachers; bilingual education INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 2. THEORETICAL FRAME ................................................................................. 3 3. METHODS ................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Analysis of games ................................................................................... 10 3.2 The interview .......................................................................................... 11 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................... 12 4.1 Analysis and evaluation of the sample .................................................... 12 4.1.1 Analysis of games ............................................................................ 12 ( Appendix 2) ............................................................................................. 12 4.1.2 Interview ........................................................................................... 15 (Appendix 3) .............................................................................................. 15 4.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. 18 5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 20 6. LIMITATIONS, IMPROVES FOR FUTURE REACHERS. ............................ 23 7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 25 8. APPENDIX ................................................................................................... 28 1 1. INTRODUCTION There is a common belief among researchers that children need to play in order to have an adequate (cognitive) development and learning the different basic competences in the childhood. Since they are newborn, children enjoy playing. Firstly, children show this fun with body movements but, with the passing of time, they play in order to develop their creativity, express their feelings and relate to other children and adults. Because of that, playing during childhood is essential for having a wholesome personal and mental development. In the last decades there has been much discussion about the difference between play and game. There is now some consensus in literature in viewing Play as the activity by which children play without any rules, developing their creativity and their personality by themselves. Conversely, a Game is an activity in which children play but they have to follow some rules. Because of these two factors, some researchers such as Fröebel, F. (1885) The Education of Man ; Decroly (1914) Educational Games; Elkonin (1995) Phsicology of Play; Bruner (1957) Thinking and Language or Ortega (1990) Jugar y Aprender among many others, proposed using games in classes of Infant Education as a new teaching tool. In this way, they defended the idea that through the use of games children can learn better since they are motivated, and this becomes something natural for them. Their theories became key ideas for the development of the learning and teaching process and its improvement. However, just a little research seems to have investigated the use of games as a tool to promote the FL (Foreign Language). Some years ago, English teachers thought that English learning had to be acquired through repetitive sequences and exercises, focused on memorizing English. This learning concept was not compatible with the use of games as a tool to promote the learning of English. Nevertheless, most English teachers today share a common purpose: to develop the children’s abilities to communicate by using English as a vehicle for communication. For this reason, games may be a good tool for this goal nowadays. 2 Despite what it may seem, introducing games as part of our methodology to teach English in Infant Education is not without difficulties. To start, there is little research about what it makes a game appropriate or effective for teaching a foreign language. Furthermore, there is no general agreement among researchers on which games promote the SLA. In addition, as games have only relatively recently been introduced as a tool to teach a FL, many English teachers lack sufficient training when using games in the FL class or selecting those games that are effective. Besides, although most teachers are aware of the benefits of games at this stage of education, there is still a strong tendency among teachers to perceive them as non-academic activities and to favour the use of textbook activities instead. For all these reasons, the purpose of this project is to investigate which games are used by Infant Education teachers to promote the SLA and how they use them to achieve it. In order to do this, I will try to answer the following research questions:  Research question 1: Is there agreement among teachers on what constitutes a game?  Research question 2: What is the attitude of teachers towards games and their role in promoting the learning of contents and the acquisition of a FL?  Research question 3: Which features of a game are perceived by teachers as the most useful for promoting SLA?  Research question 4: What aspects of games are taken into account by teachers in the selection of games for their classes?  Research question 5: Can games effectively promote SLA at Infant Education Level? In order to elaborate this research project, eight games used in two Infant Education classes by two English teachers are going to be analyzed according to Parcerisa’s theory (1996:32). Moreover, these English teachers will be interviewed so that they can express their views on the content. Finally, my own direct observation of games will be taken into account. 3 2. THEORETICAL FRAME Along the history, there have been different theories about games as an educational method in the process of learning and teaching and their importance. Wikare, Berge and Watsi (2002) sum up in their book different scientific studies related to games at the beginning of the 1900s, expressing the importance of playing and using games in the childhood. Since then, some writers as Piaget, Vygotsky or Olofsson have postulated different theories about this topic. There is not agreement about the importance of games and their aims. For instance, Olofsson (2003) points out that students learning a second language through different games are practicing it unconsciously. Piaget (1956) concludes that games are an excellent tool as long as they have a purpose that is used as an agent of change in order to learn. Nonetheless, Vygotsky (1924) adds a new agent in the process of learning and teaching through games. He considers that the teachers’ role in the process is important. According to what he says, the teacher and his knowledge of the language determine the SLA. Vygotsky thinks that it is important that teachers play with children in class so children can learn by imitation. There is also a recent research Play in Other Languages carried out by Susan Fraser (2009), which shows the importance of games in order to learn. In this research, the author observes how children with different languages and cultural basis can communicate at school. She studies during a year two different classes and their teachers in Canada in order to check which methods are used in communication and which ones are the most efficient. Finally, she concludes that games are the main tools for children to learn and communicate. However, as the previous paragraph shows, it is not the same what teacher thinks about English teaching that they actually do. Moreover, there is another problem because nowadays many schools want to be bilingual but there is not an agreement about what is the aim of bilingual education. Different teachers have the idea of focusing their teaching on grammar. In addition, there are others who think that focusing their teaching on communication is the best method in order to teach a second language. 4 That is why the tradicional view of the language, and the communicative view are the views most renowned among English teachers. The methods before the 1970s are based on repetitive exercises, where children had to learn the grammar structures through repetitions, that is the tradicional view. Sheen (2002) claims: “Focus on forms is based on the assumption that classroom learning derives from general cognitive processes”. Nevertheless, these methods were not useful for SLA because learners simply memorized but did not use English as a vehicle for communication, which should be the aim in teaching a FL. However, this problem started to be solved with the appearance of Krashen’s monitor model (1981) – “Acquisition of a Second Language” – which suggests making a comprehensible input through, for example visual aids or the teacher talk by using a variety of structures and a frequent exposure to input involves SLA, that is, The Communicative View. This model incorporated some Chomsky’s views 1 concerning the acquisition of a first language. First of all, learners acquire the L2 thanks to their exposure to it in real communicative situations. Their internal representations of their new language develop gradually and in predictable stages. Also, in this theory it is important the idea that the learners’ internal processing mechanisms work on the second language input from the environment. In other words, the comprehension of the new language is necessary so that its acquisition takes place. To sum up, Krashen develops the natural order hypothesis according to which there is not a predictable order to learn a L2. Learners learn grammar structures naturally. Finally, Krashen’s hypotheses have been criticized for their lack of empirical support and for the evident inconsistencies that they show. Concerning these previous ideas, other theories and authors have appeared in order to discover which view is more useful to promote the SLA and how teachers have to use it to achieve it. One of this theories promotes giving comprehensible information to children in class so they can develop their own intra-language in L2. In this way, the negotiation of meaning is encouraged. Furthermore, children are more motivated because they can speak without fear, and they can also develop their ability of autocorrection by testing their hypotheses. 1 Chomsky argues that human brains have a language acquisition device (LAD), an innate mechanism or process that allows children to develop language skills. According to this view, all children are born with a universal grammar, which makes them receptive to the common features of all languages. Because of this hard-wired background in grammar, children easily pick up a language when they are exposed to its particular grammar. 5 Few years later, Long (1985) highlighted the role of interaction. Unlike Krashen (1980), Long believed the aim of learning is not the input that children receive but the comprehension of this input, that is, the negotiation of meaning. As Long says (1985): “The alterations of the interactive structure of a conversation produce a comprehensible input (...); The comprehensible input entail the L2 acquisition (...); The conversational adjusts favor the acquisition” This vast amount of theories is harmful to the use of English games as an educative method and their purposes, because depending on the teacher’s idea of English teaching, games will be used in one way or another. For instance, during the period of traditional view, games were not used by teachers because they used exercises of repetition. Yet, in communicative theories some games started to be used by teachers in order to use the English as a vehicle for communication, without paying attention to mistakes, as the important thing was the use of English in real communicative situations. Consequently, contrary to the traditional view, the aim of the new English teaching methodologies such as CLIL 2 (communicative view) is to manage the proceduralisaition of the linguistic knowledge, automatizing it and being able to make use of the language without thinking about the purely metalinguistic and grammatical aspects of it. With this purpose, all the declarative knowledge should be transformed into procedural memory. This change from a declarative knowledge to a procedural one can be achieved by redundant practice and pretty frequent repetitions. According to Macedonia (2005), this procedure of the declarative knowledge about a foreign language can be reached through games. Language games serve the function of redundant oral repetition of grammar structures (morphological, syntactic) and vocabulary in a playful way. Students are not always aware that they are practicing grammar… practice proves fun, repetition is not boring, and declarative knowledge is converted into procedural knowledge. (Macedonia, 2005, p.139) 2 The procedural memory is the memory in charge of the performance of particular types of action. Procedural memory guides the processes we perform and most frequently resides below the level of conscious awareness. When needed, procedural memories are automatically retrieved and utilized for the execution of the integrated procedures involved in both cognitive and motor skills. 6 Holden (1980) states that “children cannot concentrate on one thing for a long period and that lessons should therefore be divided into a series of activities lasting no longer than five or ten minutes” Consequently, infant education teachers should look for catchy activities that keep children´s attention and are also useful for the process of learning. That is to say, as Allison and Duncan (2000, p. 106) assure, “When I stop to think about it I realize that an important part of the state of mind is enjoyment. I get so involved in what I´m doing, I almost forget about time”. Children at an early age acquire knowledge when it is meaningfulness and interesting for them, that is why teachers must consider their previous knowledge since it is a solid base for subsequent knowledge. Quoting Ausubel (1986) "Si tuviese que reducir toda la psicología educativa a un sólo principio, enunciaría éste: el factor más importante que influye en el aprendizaje es lo que el alumno ya sabe. Averígüese esto y enséñese consecuentemente". Because of this, nowadays games can be useful as an educative method as teachers can propose some games where children have to use their English knowledge. In this way, English will be a vehicle for communication. It is important to say that games as a vehicle for communication are useful in English classes with a communicative purpose. Furthermore, there is another difference between the two views in relation to children. In the traditional view, children learn what is taught and, by contrast, in the communicative view children learn what they need and when they are ready. This is an important aspect of the L2 teaching because there are some situations where the teacher uses the traditional view but it is likely that some children are not ready to follow him so they get lost. Therefore, the communicative view is the best method to teach a L2 because the teacher creates different situations where children must use words that they do not know so they finally learn them. Also, they will realize what they need, step by step. As Broughton says “the language student is best motivated by practice in which he senses the language is truly communicative, that it is appropriate to its context, that his teacher’s skills are moving him forward to a fuller competence in a foreign language” That is why if the English teachers want to use games as an educative method, they have to think that games have to develop the communication between children through English because the aim is using English as a vehicle for communication. 13 1. Meaningful 2. Clearly organized 3. Incentive 4. Mediated by a teacher 5. Cognitive learning 6. Adaptable 7. Innovative Once the analysis is made, these are the findings: Teacher 1 Teacher 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 a. Meaningful No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes b. Clearly organized Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes c. Incentive No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes d. Mediated by a teacher No No No No No No No Yes e. Cognitive learning No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes f. Adaptable Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes g. Innovative No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 2/7 4/7 4/7 4/7 6/7 6/7 3/7 7/7 Total: 14/28 Average: 5 Total: 22/28 Average: 7.8 Table 2: evaluation of the 8 games in the sample using Parcerisa’s 7 criteria As we can see in Table 2, on average, the activities suggested by Teacher 1 complied on average with fewer criteria (14 out of 28, an average of 5) than the activities provided by Teacher 2 (22 out of 28, an average of 7.8). As seen on the table above, there is a majority of “Yes” answers that could apparently prove that both teachers use games correctly to promote the SLA. Still, Teacher 2 has obtained more “Yes” answers than Teacher 1. This could be attributed to the fact that Teacher 2 has 14 had much more experience with games, or his English teaching view allows him to use games as a tool. Thoroughly analyzing Table 2, interesting appreciations about games can be observed. The meaningful aspect is not taken into account by Teacher 1 because 3 out of 4 of her games have obtained “No” as an answer. However, Teacher 2 does not keep in mind this aspect in his games, in which he has obtained three “Yes” as an answer. This aspect could be interpreted as the most important aspect in this analysis because if a game does not contain meaning, playing with this game does not have an educational value. So, according to this reflection, Teacher 1 was using some of the games without an educational value. The Clear organization is an aspect that both teachers take into account because all of the games have obtained “Yes” as an answer. This might mean that both teachers in their games’ explanations pay attention to the children’s level and their age, helping them with body language, for example, to supplement the oral explanation. The incentive aspect is taken into account by both teachers because only 1 game of each teacher has had a “No” as an answer. This shows that both teachers have used the games to strengthen the children’s previous knowledge. The mediation by a teacher is an aspect that gets a lot of attention because all the games with the exception of one are not endowed with the necessary attention by the teacher. This might reflect that errors are not used by teachers to improve the learning of their pupils. The cognitive learning aspect is another critical point in this analysis according to Parcerisa’s criteria (1992) because it is generally recognized that all the games used in an Infant Education class, have to have a main purpose. That is, games must content cognitive learning. As reflected in Table 2, this aspect is very present in both teachers. Only 1 game of each teacher has obtained a “No” as an answer. The adaptability aspect reflects the importance which has been attached to the children’s needs by both teachers. It is reflected in the Table 2 that Teacher 1 may always tend to use the same games without paying attention to the children’s needs and possibilities because only 1 game of all, has obtained a “Yes” as an answer. However, Teacher 2 may tend to change his games depending on children and their possibilities or needs, because only 1 game has obtained a “No” as an answer. 15 Finally, the innovative aspect is another important point because it could be reflecting the personality of both teachers. The games of Teacher 1 have obtained 2 “No” and 2 “Yes” as answers. And this might mean that she is a teacher who uses traditional games but she is trying to change them. However, all of the games of Teacher 2 have obtained a “Yes” as an answer, so this might reflect that he is a teacher who uses innovative games, then drawing the children’s attention. Consequently, once we have considered these aspects, each teacher’s personally can be deduced. Teacher 1 is organized and does not like the improvisation because she does not innovate depending on the children’s motivations and she does not adapt the games depending on the children’s needs. She never thinks on the children’s motivations because, as I could see in the implementation of games, there are some children who play unconsciously because they have already memorized the game. Unlike Teacher 1, Teacher 2 is very innovative so he keeps in mind the children’s motivations and depending on them, he modifies the games. Also, he is not organized because he adapts the games depending on the children’s needs and possibilities. This idea is also reflected in the interview when this teacher says: “if we do not take into account the abilities of children to learn English, it is impossible that they can achieve an aim. However it is true that this is difficult because each child learns better with a different method, so sometimes teachers have to do a big effort to create an excellent teaching atmosphere where all children can learn in all time”. Finally, once the results from Table 2 have been analyzed, it can be noticed that according to Parcerisa’s criteria (1992), only 1 game among all is a useful tool to promote the SLA. Because of this, it can be concluded that none of the teachers know which games are useful or how to use them correctly in order to promote the SLA. 4.1.2 Interview (See Appendix 3) The second tool is an interview that will complement the analysis data so as to achieve a reasoned justification of why these teachers use games in that way. Owing to the implementation of the interview, various data have been obtained, producing some general conclusions of this semi-structured interview following the eleven questions proposed in Table 1. 16 In the first question, both gave a definition of “game” in which it is included the idea of “fun” and “essential” in Infant Education. Both have a clear idea of what a game is and that the use of games is something natural in childhood and, because of that, teachers have to use them as a tool to teach English. Nevertheless, this is appealing because, despite they apparently share their concept of game, in the analysis of games none of them gave me the same game. Furthermore, their games are focused on different aspects of English (form or communication). That is, both have the same idea about what a game is, but they do not use the same games, and sometimes they use games which are not fun as can be clearly seen in the analysis of games and in my own direct experience at the school. The second question is another example of the common idea which they have about games, because both think that games are a perfect tool in Infant Education. Also, they agree on the belief that when teaching older children, they have to use other educational methods such as books. However, all the games they gave me are intended to five-year-old children. Because of this, I wonder: Are games a good tool to promote the SLA only with children who are five years old? How do these teachers teach in other ages? Nevertheless, in the third question, they do not always agree. Both think that games are useful because children learn unconsciously. Yet, disagreement starts when regarding the benefits of a game. Teacher 1 thinks that games are useful in Infant Education but only says as benefits the idea of “fun”. On the contrary, Teacher 2 thinks that games are beneficial because children can express their feelings and use the English they have learnt in order to achieve something, emphasizing the use of English as a vehicle for communication. Also, he says that he does not pay attention to mistakes but enjoys seeing how children of three, four or five years old try to say something in English. Furthermore, he gives an advice by saying that English teachers have to make that children are not scared to speak in English. Only in this manner children can learn faster. This reflection illustrates this teacher’s training and experience and how he knows what the real problem is in the English teaching. It is possible that as this teacher knows the real problem of the English teaching, he uses communicative games. The forth question is very interesting because it shows the things English teachers know about what is the best method to teach, but because of different reasons, they do not use them or they use them by chance. Teacher 1 says that she knows that in Infant Education books are not useful to teach something. Nevertheless, 17 she accepts that it is easier for her to use a book. Because of that, her pupils use a book with photocopies that they have to match, paint or cut. She says that children are happier when they are doing these activities. She explains this affirmation by saying that sometimes children that are playing with games get bored. Obviously, she does not understand that the real problem is her games are not funny. On the contrary, Teacher 2 explains that a good teacher should mix both games and books, because he thinks books are a good way to introduce new topics or words within a context. However, he rejects individual teaching (each kid has a book) but promotes the use of the new technologies by using a digital blackboard where the book is reflected and which all the children can see simultaneously. For him, individual books do not promote oral or corporal expression. This is the reason why he invents games that promote these aspects. The fifth question is another key question because teachers do not agree. Teacher 1’s games, as it can be seen in the analysis of the games, are focused on form since children have to match different flashcards or memorize in order to learn some grammar. That is, she defends that it is important to teach grammar first so that the children can speak properly. She explains that if teachers allow children to speak without explaining them the grammar, they will never learn. This is a clear idea of the traditional view. Nevertheless, Teacher 2 prefers that children speak through English because his teaching purposes is that children are not scared to speak in a FL, then promoting the oral and corporal expression. He thinks that when children are older, they will learn grammar with other methods. These ideas are clearly reflected in the analysis of the games. The sixth question is of special relevance because the two teachers provided me with their ideas about when a game is useful to promote the SLA and when it is not. Both agree in the idea that a game has to have a main purpose. Nevertheless, they accept that, sometimes, when they do not have the time to make a new game, they use the same one repetitively, which is not funny for children. Other times they use the games aimlessly in order to fill the time. These answers show that they know the theory but sometimes they do not want to pay attention to it. The eighth question reflects the teachers’ lack of training because Teacher 1 admits that she had no idea about games so she had to read some books. Nevertheless, she read the books some years ago, so nowadays she uses oldfashioned games because she has been using the same games since then. She does not pay attention to the different levels, motivations or personalities as we can see in 18 the analysis of games. By contrast, Teacher 2, who learnt through games when he was a child, admits that at the beginning of the course he always used the same games to observe the children, their levels, personalities, etc. After that, he looks up in his favorite games and takes the ones that are useful in that class. If he considers that he does not have enough games, he creates others, although he admits that he tries to create as few as possible. This question shows that they know the theories but time or their attitude cause them to always use the same games, which are not funny for children. For this reason, they are not educative according to these two teachers, because in the first question they have said that an educational game has to be funny. As can be noted from these conclusions, it is obvious that there is not a common idea about the conception of a game, how games must be used to promote the SLA and which aims they have to achieve. Moreover, in this analysis there is a reflection about the importance of a teacher’s training as well as his experience. This way it is easier to select the methodology and the tools to promote the SLA. Also, it is important the idea that English teachers know the theory of games and their importance during childhood. However, sometimes they prefer to use tools which are easier to prepare, forgetting that the main purpose of Infant Education is not that children have a good time with their classmates, but that they can learn something about English. 4.2 Discussion One of the most striking things about this research project is the disagreement between both teachers in relation to the games’ concept. Both have a clear idea about what are the main features that a game must have to be considered a tool with an educational value. However, none of them gave me the same game to analyze. This could derive from the fact that there is not a common agreement about the games’ concept or which games are the best to promote the SLA. Moreover, another important aspect to consider is the importance of a teacher’s training. This might have an influence in the teaching style. This can be seen for example in the idea that Teacher 1 prefers using always the same games without thinking in the children motivations or needs. On the other hand, Teacher 2 always takes into account the children’s needs or motivations. Also, the importance of the training can be observed when Teacher 1 focalizes her English teaching on the form, that is, she considers the high importance of teaching grammar before children develop 19 their oral skills. This idea can be clearly noticed not only in the games analysis but also in the interview. Teacher 1 claims “I can not imagine a class where children speak without learning grammar rules before. If we allow them to speak as they want, they can learn and internalize something wrong”. Nevertheless, Teacher 2 uses more communicative games in which he wants children to use English as a vehicle for communication so that they can improve their creativity and keep motivated. Obviously, it is important to underline the common mistake in the mediation by a teacher aspect in the analysis of games, done by both teachers. It is a serious error because children’s mistakes are very useful as a tool for teaching English. Children can learn through their own mistakes with the teacher’s help. According to Moon (2000:76), if the teacher makes error corrections and feedbacks, children learn better. There are different techniques as elicitation, indirect, direct or recasting. Furthermore, if the teacher uses these different techniques, children improve their ability to communicate and they can prove English is a vehicle for communication. Besides, each child has a different rhythm, overall in Infant Education. Children have to learn English step by step by themselves and the teacher must be their guide. 3 Following with the analysis of some of the most interesting aspects of this research project, it should be stressed that the majority of games are targeted to fiveyear-old children so this might explain that these teachers only use games with old children. However, it is surprising because in the interviews, teachers affirm that games must be supplemented by other methods as books with older children. Yet, they claim that if children are 3 or 4 years old, they do not have as much English knowledge, so it is more difficult to carry out games which promote the SLA. But with these incongruities there comes the following questions: Are games only good for the age of five years old? How do these teachers teach in the first years of Infant, with photocopies or with games without any aim? 3 Vygotsky stated that a child follows an adult's example and gradually develops the ability to do certain tasks without help. Vygotsky's often-quoted definition of zone of proximal development presents it as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers. For example, two 8 yr. old children may be able to complete a task that an average 8 yr. old cannot do. Next, more difficult tasks are presented with very little assistance from an adult. In the end, both children were able to complete the task. However, the styles methods they chose depended on how far they were willing to stretch their thinking process.” 20 Following the discussion about the results, my own direct observation is not yet used. Comparing some results with my experience at the school, it can be argued that the results obtained from the analyzis of the games according to Parcerisa’s criteria (1992) are valid. On the basis of my own, the teaching method used by Teacher 1 is not necessarily good because of some different examples. For instance, there were children who had lower abilities than others and they did not want to play because they did not know the aim of that game. Moreover, children did not practice oral communication. That class looked like a Primary class where children had to learn some grammar rules, so children wanted to run, stand up or go to the bathroom immediately because they got bored. Because of that, it can be said that the methodology used by Teacher 1 is not very suitable for Infant Education. However, Teacher 2 was quite the opposite. These teacher’s pupils were always motivated because they linked English with fun. Furthermore, they spoke always in English because they were used to it since they were three years old. For this reason, when they played with these games, they did not have any problem. Yet, as this teacher says in the interview “It is important to pay attention to children who do not have a good English level or they are shy. The shyness is a problem with this type of games because these children do not want to play because of that.” Teacher 2 took into account each child’s personality. He split always the shy child with a friend of him in order not to be embarrassed. Also, he was placed next to the child who had lower level in order to take notes. However, he did not participate during the game. This can be clearly seen in the analyzis of the games where teachers do not pay any attention to the mediation of the teacher. 5.CONCLUSION The main aim of this project has been to investigate which games are used by Infant Education teachers to promote SLA and how they use them to achieve it, so the opinion and ideas about the games of two different English teachers and the analysis of different games have been taken into account. Based on the data generated from the first research question, Is there agreement among teachers on what constitutes a game? It can be argued that there is not a general agreement among English teachers on what constitutes a game and which ones are useful to promote the SLA due to different factors. First of all, only a 21 few authors suggest features to create or recognize a useful game, and also these authors are difficult to find. Moreover, the lack of teachers’ training about the use of games and the lack of experience could explain this disagreement. In spite of this fact, together with the results of the analysis and the semistructured interview, it might be concluded that teachers know the difference between play and game. Also, they know the big theories about games—including their benefits during childhood—and highlight the idea that games are something natural for children, so they can be useful as a tool to teach a SL having a great effectiveness in both basic competences and SLA. Data derived from the second research question, What is the attitude of teachers towards games and their role in promoting the learning of contents and the acquisition of a FL?, we may conclude that neither of them believe in the idea that games can be used as the unique tool to promote the SLA. This conclusion can be seen in the interview when both admit that games must be complemented with other tools as books or activities in a digital blackboard. Moreover, most of the teachers understand games as a funny and essential activity in Infant Education. However, their perception and use of games is not the same, because in some games they tend to use repetitive sequences, admitting the possibility that children get bored. This can be understood if it is taken into account the lack of teacher training, which causes them to use other tools in order to feel confident about the quality of their teaching as Teacher 2 expresses in his interview. Another conclusion extracted from this research question is that teachers sometimes have an excessive positive attitude towards games, over-estimating them, believing that all of them are useful to learn. This is noticeable in the analysis of games when each teacher had to give me games which they used in class. According to their opinions, all of the games which they gave me were appropriate to promote the SLA. However, in accordance with Parcerisa’s criteria (1992), only one of the games is useful to achieve a meaningful English teaching in Infant Education. The results obtained from the third research question, Which features of a game are perceived by teachers as the most useful for promoting SLA?, are used to conclude that the most important features of a game to promote the SLA depend on the teaching view of each teacher. That is, if a teacher considers the English grammar is the most important aspect in the English teaching, the main feature of a game to promote the SLA will be the grammar. By contrast, if a teacher thinks the use of English as a vehicle for communication is the most important aspect which a game has to teach, this 22 teacher will carry out games in which children have to speak in English to achieve something. This might be one of the causes that explain why there is not a common idea about which games are useful to teach English. Depending on the teacher’s kind of view, the goal of his games will coincide with the aim of his view. This research project is a cautionary example, since each teacher that has been analyzed has a different teaching view and what each teacher told in the interview, then this can be seen in the analyzed of games. Therefore, the goal of their games will be different. As can be seen in the interview, Teacher 1 would like to achieve a perfect learning about English grammar. By contrast, Teacher 2 would like to develop the children’s oral skills. And this is because each teacher has a different teaching view. Based on the data generated from the forth research question, Which aspects of games are taken into account by teachers in the selection of games for their classes? It can be argued that the most important aspect which a game must have is that it has to be funny as both teachers have expressed in their interviews. This may explain why only one of all the games analyzed is an educational game according to Parcerisa (1992). However, according to the results in Table 2, it can be concluded that the aspects which should be taken into account by teachers, should be the communicative aspects. According to Parcerisa (1992), the games which promote the SLA most effectively are games which have a communicative aim. That is, the games in which the children have to use English as a vehicle for communication to better promote the SLA. Furthermore, the Infant Education curriculum says that a main purpose of this cycle is developing the oral and corporal expressions. The writing and the reading are not compulsory in this cycle. Because of that, the games that are used with a communicative purpose follow the law. Finally, derived from the fifth research question, Can games effectively promote SLA at Infant Education Level?, games that are created correctly with an educational aim and keeping in mind other aspects, can promote SLA effectively as Parcerisa (1992) proves. Still, the lack of theories about games and their use as a tool in Infant Education, the large amount of English teaching views, the lack of teachers’ experience using them as an Educational tool and also, the lack of a common theoretical frame about the main features which a game has to have, do not allow to promote the SLA through games. 29 Name Fly-swatter Age 3, 4 and 5 years old Number of players - Resources Flashcards with different pictures Objectives Memorizing vocabulary Development The teacher spreads out some flashcards on the floor. The teacher says a word and children have to pick up the correct flashcard one by one. Observation It could be a competition between 2 or more children. The teacher says a word and the first child who picks up the correct flashcard, will be the winner. Game 4 – Hangman Name Hangman Age 5 years old Number of players - Resources - Objectives -Memorizing the writing of some words -Practicing with the alphabet Development The teacher thinks a word. The children say a letter one by one in order to guess the word. Observation - Teacher 2 Game 1 – Who is who? Name Who is who Age 5 years old Number of players In pairs Resources Flashcards with people pictures Objectives - Guessing the flashcard of your pair - Using the English for communication Development The children have to make pairs. Each child of the pair has the same flashcards. Each child pick up one and the other can’t see it. Each child has to guess the flashcard of his pair. They have to use the english to communicate. Observation Depending on the age, children only say words as “blonde”, or if they are older, they can make some sentences as “Has she got a cap?” Game 2 – Numbers on back 30 Name Numbers on back Age 4 and 5 years old Number of players - Resources Flashcards with different vocabulary Objectives -Memorizing some vocabulary -Using English for communication Development There are different pairs. Each child of the pair has a different flashcard pasted on the back. Each child has to guess his flashcard making questions to his pair. Observation - Game 3 – Hot potato Name Hot potato Age 3, 4 and 5 years old Number of players - Resources A ball Objectives -Memorizing a English song -Uniting the class Development The children have to make a circle and they have to pass the ball while they sing “Hot potato, hot potato, hot potato, hot. Hot potato, hot potato, hot potato, hot. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten... you're out!" When the song finishes, the child who has the ball is out. Observation If children are old, the child who has the ball when the song finishes, could realize a test. Game 4 – Performance Name Performance Age 5 years old Number of players - Resources Disguises and materials for the scene Objectives -Playing a famous tale -Improving the pronunciation Development During the last trimester, children with the teacher’s help create a story. Each child has a character and allmtogether creat the plot of the story. Teacher allocates the rol to each child and one day per week children practice In that way, children improve their pronunciation and they learn some sentences and vocabulary. The last day of school children perform. APPENDIX 2 – The analysis of games 31 Teacher 1 1. Creating sentences 2. Interrogative questions 3. Fly-swatter 4. Hangman Creating sentences Meaningful: It is not a meaningful game because this game uses repetitive sequences and as each flashcard has a number, there are children who order the numbers but they do not think about how the sentence is made (the aim of this game). Clearly organized: It has a clear organization beacause there is a plot and an ending. Furthermore, the explanation is easy understable. Incentive: It is not an incentive game because a child, who does not anything about English, can resolve this game ordering the number of the flashcards. Mediated by a teacher: The teacher does not interact during the game. She only explains and says the winner. Cognitive learning: Children do not learn anything about English because the order of words in the sentences is a complicated part of English to teach in Infant Education. Furthermore, each flashcard has a number so a child who does not know anything about English can participate in the game too. Adaptative: This game keeps in mind the different possibilities of each child because children who do not know creating correct sentences can use the number to create the sentence, but children who know English can reflect about the order without paying attention to numbers. Innovative: It is not a new game for children. Children are used to order flashcards in different knowledge areas. 32 Interrogative questions Meaningful: This game uses repetitive sequences. Children only have to link the interrogative questions with their correct answer. Clearly organized: It has a clear organization beacause there is a plot and an ending. Furthermore, the explanation is easy understable. Incentive: It is an incentive game because children have to know the meaning of interrogative questions to link the interrogative questions with their answer correctly. Mediated by a teacher: The teacher does not take part in the game. She only explains and says the winner. Cognitive learning: Children practice and internalize the meaning of some interrogative questions. Adaptability: This game does not keep in mind the different levels of English knowledge. Only the children who know the meaning of interrogative questions can play with an educative aim. Innovative: Linking two flashcards is very used as and educative method in Infant Education, so it is not an innovative game. Creating sentences Meaningful No Clearly organized Yes Incentive No Mediated by a teacher No Cognitive learning No Adaptability No Innovative No Interrogative questions Meaningful No Clearly organized Yes Incentive Yes Mediated by teacher No Cognitive learning Yes Adaptability No Innovative No 33 Fly-swatter Meaningful: This game uses repetitive sequences because each child only has to pick up the correct flashcard so it is not a meaningful game. Clearly organized: It has a clear organization beacause there is a plot and an ending. Furthermore, the explanation is easy understable. Incentive: It is an incentive game because children have to know the vocabulary to pick up the correct flashcard. The children memorize the vocabulary with this game. Mediated by a teacher: The teacher does not take part in the game. She only explains and says the winner. Cognitive learning: Children link the word with the correct picture with this game. Because of that, children practice vocabulary with it. Adaptability: This game does not keep in mind the different level of English knowledge, because only children who know the correc vocabulary can play correctly. Innovative: This type of game is very used in Infant Education so it is not an innovative game. Fly-swatter Meaningful No Clearly organized Yes Incentive Yes Mediated by a teacher No Cognitive learning Yes Adaptability No Innovative No 34 Hangman Meaningful: Children have to use the alphabet with repetitive sequences, but also they have to use their previous knowledge and their creativity in order to guess the word. So, it is a meaningful game. Clearly organized: It has a clear organization beacause there is a plot and an ending. Furthermore, the explanation is easy understable. Incentive: It is an incentive game because children have to use their previous knowledge to guess the word. Mediation of teacher: The teacher does not take part in the game. She only explains and says the winner. Cognitive learning: Children memorize new vocabulary. Adaptability: This game does not keep in mind the different levels of English knowledge because only can play children who know the alphabet. Innovative: Children are not motivated because they do not use materials where they can express their creativity or things like that. They only use their knowledge. Hangman Meaningful No Clearly organized Yes Incentive Yes Mediated by a teacher No Cognitive learning Yes Adaptability No Innovative No 35 Teacher 2 1. Who is who? 2. Numbers on back 3. Hot potato 4. A performance Who is who? Meaningful: It is not a groupal game so there are not repetitive questions because each child makes the necessary questions to guess his flashcard. Clearly organized: It has a clear organization beacause there is a plot and an ending. Furthermore, the explanation is easy understable. Incentive: Children have to use their English knowledge to creat correct sentences so that their classmates can understand them. Children use the English as a vehicle for communication so it is an incentive game. Mediated by a teacher: The teacher does not take part in the game. She only explains and says the winner. Cognitive learning: Children practice English. Adaptability: Each child uses the words which he knows. Because of this, it is a game which keeps in mind the different levels of English knowledge. Innovative: It is an innovative game because children can use their creativity to creat sentences. Who is who? Meaningful Yes Clearly organized Yes Incentive Yes Mediated by a teacher No Cognitive learning Yes Adaptability Yes Innovative Yes 36 Numbers on back Meaningful: It is not a groupal game so there are not repetitive questions because each child makes the necessary questions to guess his flashcard. Clearly organized: It has a clear organization beacause there is a plot and an ending. Furthermore, the explanation is easy understable. Incentive: Children have to use their English knowledge to creat correct sentences so that their classmates can understand them. Children use the English as a vehicle for communication so it is an incentive game. Mediation of teacher: The teacher does not take part in the game. She only explains and says the winner. Cognitive learning: Children practice English. Adaptability: Each child uses the words which he knows. Because of this, it is a game which keeps in mind the different levels of English knowledge. Innovative: It is an innovative game because children can use their creativity to creat sentences. Numbers on back Meaningful Yes Clear organization Yes Incentive Yes Mediation of teacher No Cognitive learning Yes Adaptability Yes Innovative Yes 37 Hot potato Meaningful: Children only have to sing the song so it is not a meaningful game. Clearly organized: It has a clear organization beacause there is a plot and an ending. Furthermore, the explanation is easy understable. Incentive: It is not an incentive game because children only have to sing the song so a child who does not know English can play too. Mediated by a teacher: The teacher does not take part in the game. She only explains and says the winner. Cognitive learning: Children do not learn anything. It is only a funny game. Adaptability: This game keeps in mind the different levels of English knowledge because a child who does not know English can play too. Children only have to sing. Innovative: It is not an innovative game. The songs are an old resource to teach in Infant Education. Furthermore, children can not use their creativity. Hot potato Meaningful No Clear organization Yes Incentive No Mediation of teacher No Cognitive learning No Adaptability Yes Innovative No 38 A performance Meaningful: This activity (because it is not a proper game) does not have repetitive sequences because each child has to create a different role. Also, children can develop their creativity and furthermore, children use the English as a vehicle for communication, the main aim of English teaching. Clearly organized: It has a clear organization beacause there is a plot and an ending. Furthermore, the explanation is easy understable Incentive: It is an incentive game because children have to use their previous English knowledge to creat the plot of the story and the dialogues. Furthermore, they will learn new vocabulary in order to creat a funny story. Mediated by a teacher: The mediation of the teacher is important in this activity in each rehearsal because he helps the students with their pronunciation. Furthermore, he gets through questions and reflections that children can create their own dialogues and story. Also, teacher use different tecniques to achieve children reflect about their mistakes and learn thrugh them. Cognitive learning: Children learn new vocabulary and expressions which are necessaries to creat a funny story. Adaptability: Each child creates his dialogue depends on her possibilities. Innovative: Children are motivated because they are using the English as a vehicle for communication and also, they can check that they can express their ideas through a new language. Furthermore, they can develop their creativity with the dialogues, with the disguises etc. A performance Meaningful Yes Clear organization Yes Incentive Yes Mediation of teacher Yes Cognitive learning Yes Adaptability Yes Innovative Yes 45 A: It is very interesing what you have said because you think that games are useful to promote the SLA but it is a resource with some limitations because you have to prepare always a plan B, because you do not know never how the children feel today. B: That it is. A: And Do you think that because of that, most of English teachers do not use games as a resource? B: haha May be. It is more comfortable opening the book and painting the spider and the mouse. Jaja It is a pity because with this type of activities, children are wasting the time, but well.. The are lots of teachers who prefer doing this. A: Tourning to the question of the best method, in your opinion the best method is mix different methods? B: Of course, mixing several methods bearing in mind the characteristics of the pupils is the best option, but always using games, overall in Infant Education because we do not have to forget that it is something natural for children. A: And in this mix of different methods, I know that you practice the communication through English. Is it difficult in Infant Education? B: What I say always is that my main aim as a English teacher is achiving that children do not feel afraid speaking in English aloud. I want that they are able to express their feeling, doubts or opinions through English although they only say a word. However, in my opinion, there must be a balance between the proper form of the game and the avaliable meaning. I should not say this, but I think that the main problem in this country with the English teaching is that there are lots of teachers who has a traditional view..mm you know what is a traditional view, is not it? A: Yes yes haha B: Well, so, their excercices are focused on form forgeting the meaning. We have to change the mentality of the most of English teachers, because it is correct and it is necessary teaching grammar, of course, but then we have to give children the possibility of use it, because if not, they do not understan the real aim of learning English. However, sometimes, I have had some difficulties with shy children because they do not want to play. It is important to pay attention to children who do not have a good English level or they are shy. The shyness is a problem with this type of games because these children do not want to play because of that. A: I totally agree with you. So, for you, all games to be a good resource have to promote the communication among children using English? 46 B: Without doubts! Haha children and overall with these ages, they want to run, jump etc. But also speaking, they will be all day speaking so we have to build these desires to speak, providing them games to speak in English. A: And which other features have to have a game to use in class? B: Buff...It must be funny and with a clear aim, in order to children know what they have to know to achieve the aim. A: And, could you tell me how did you learn these games? B:haha well it is a long story. Well..I start haha When I was a child, I studied in England (Worthing)..Do you know where is it? A: Oh yes haha near of London, I think. B: Yes haha well, so there the teaching is very different in Infant Education because they take the opportunity of games to teach contents. For example, we went to the playground and we saw a beetle and after that, we made a project with different games, and activities.. were exciting. I have never had a book in that school! Besides, we usually played with the same games so I remember still them. Then, when this year started as Bilingual Infant Teacher, I have read lots of books about Infant cycle and the importance of games, because I remembered that in England we did not have books and we went happier to the school. So, haha I have learnt these games through my experience as a child and after reading lots of books. A: So in your case, your experience it is very important. B: Of course. In all teachers I think that the experience is important because the human tend to imitate what we have seen. Because of that, if we have had bad teachers, may be, we will be bad teachers too. Haha A: haha It is a risk affirmation, I think haha B: It is possible haha but the factor of the experiences and the imitation is true. A: I agree with you. Haha tourning the questions, you have said before that you try to make a specific teaching, so do you check the mistakes of a game after implementing it in class? B: Of course. A: Ok haha And as you have been English teacher in older courses, I would like to ask you if you use games there. B: Yes, of course! Why not? In my opinion, the important is using the proper games bearing in mind the age of the pupils. It is the best way so that the pupils practice the language. But it is true that in these course, they have a book in which they have to learn vocabulary, grammar rules and also, writing some papers. Step by step, children have to develop all competences of English to have a perfect learning. And to achieve this, I think that games are very useful. 47