Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 233
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v13i3.2392
Gamification as a didactic strategy for developing speaking
skills in ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús
public school
La gamificación como estrategia didáctica para el desarrollo de la habilidad oral en
estudiantes de noveno grado de la Unidad Educativa Fiscomisional Sagrado Corazón
de Jesús
Elssie Mabel Narváez Cárdenas
mabelnarvaezcar@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8819-7009
Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi
Ecuador – Tulcán
Hi Martha Vivero Almeida
martha.viveros@upec.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2441-6954
Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi
Ecuador - Tulcán
Artículo recibido: 10 junio 2026- Aceptado para publicación:16 julio 2026
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
RESUMEN
Más de la mitad de los estudiantes de noveno grado en la escuela pública Sagrado Corazón de
Jesús llegaron al inicio del año con puntajes de expresión oral por debajo del nivel de aprobación
institucional. Este estudio evaluó seis componentes del habla por separado, fluidez,
pronunciación, vocabulario, gramática, cohesión e interacción, en 63 estudiantes, identificó
cohesión y vocabulario como los más débiles, y construyó a partir de ese diagnóstico una
estrategia gamificada sin tecnología llamada Oral Story Circle. Tras cuatro semanas de
intervención, la prueba t pareada rechazó la hipótesis nula (p < .001, d_z = 3.58). Todos los
participantes mejoraron; la tasa de reprobación cayó del 57.1% al 4.8%. Las ganancias más
grandes se registraron en cohesión y vocabulario, los mismos componentes que la intervención
apuntó explícitamente. El Oral Story Circle ofrece una respuesta replicable y de bajo costo a los
déficits de expresión oral documentados en aulas de EFL de secundaria en Ecuador.
Palabras clave: gamificación, expresión oral en inglés, CEFR A2, educación básica
general, cohesión discursiva
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 234
ABSTRACT
Over half the ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús public school began the year
scoring below the institutional pass mark in spoken English. This study scored six speaking
components separately —fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, and
interaction— in 63 students, identified cohesion and vocabulary as the weakest, and built a low-
tech gamified strategy, the Oral Story Circle, around those specific deficits. After four weeks, a
paired-samples t-test rejected the null hypothesis (p < .001, d_z = 3.58): every participant
improved, the failure rate dropped from 57.1% to 4.8%, and the largest gains were in the two
components the design had targeted. The Oral Story Circle offers a replicable, infrastructure-
independent response to the speaking deficits documented in Ecuadorian secondary EFL
classrooms.
Keywords: gamification, EFL oral proficiency, CEFR A2, secondary education,
discourse cohesion
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
ABSTRACT
Over half the ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús public school began the year
scoring below the institutional pass mark in spoken English. This study scored six speaking
components separately —fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, and
interaction— in 63 students, identified cohesion and vocabulary as the weakest, and built a low-
tech gamified strategy, the Oral Story Circle, around those specific deficits. After four weeks, a
paired-samples t-test rejected the null hypothesis (p < .001, d_z = 3.58): every participant
improved, the failure rate dropped from 57.1% to 4.8%, and the largest gains were in the two
components the design had targeted. The Oral Story Circle offers a replicable, infrastructure-
independent response to the speaking deficits documented in Ecuadorian secondary EFL
classrooms.
Keywords: gamification, EFL oral proficiency, CEFR A2, secondary education,
discourse cohesion
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 235
INTRODUCTION
Speaking a foreign language is one of the harder skills to teach in secondary school, and
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms in Ecuador are a clear example. The national
curriculum sets A2.2 on the CEFR scale as the target for ninth grade (Ministerio de Educación,
2024). Most students do not reach it. In a typical class you see the same pattern: one-word
answers, long pauses, and a quiet majority who would rather not speak at all.
Low motivation and limited exposure explain part of this, but not most of it. Work done
in comparable Latin American settings (Morales, 2025; Zambrano & Méndez, 2025) keeps
pointing at the same three things: a thin active vocabulary, almost no use of discourse connectors,
and the fluency breakdown that happens when a student cannot retrieve a word fast enough or
link two ideas. Each of these makes the others worse. A student with too few words runs out
quickly; without connectors, what comes out is closer to a list than a turn; and after a couple of
stalled attempts in front of the class, staying quiet starts to feel like the rational choice.
Gamification has been one of the responses studied in this kind of situation. Meta-
analyses (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2016; Sailer & Homner, 2020) report that points, levels,
badges, and quick feedback can raise engagement and lower anxiety, and there is more specific
evidence in EFL speaking suggesting gains in willingness to communicate and oral output
(Dehghanzadeh et al., 2021; Zainuddin, Chu, Shujahat, & Perera, 2020). The literature has two
gaps that matter here, though. Most of the better-known studies rely on digital platforms that
assume stable internet, which is not given in Ecuadorian public schools. And very few of them
start by diagnosing which speaking sub-skills are weakest in the current group of students and
then build the mechanics around those weaknesses, instead of dropping a generic gamified app
into the class.
The starting point for this study was less theoretical than that. After several years of
teaching ninth grade, it had become obvious that conventional methods were not reaching a
sizable group of students, especially those who had already decided early on that English speaking
was not for them. What this intervention tries to narrow is the everyday gap between recognizing
vocabulary on the page and producing it out loud while peers are listening.
Three objectives organize the work. The first is a skill-based baseline of speaking
proficiency in 63 ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús public school, scored on
six components separately (fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, interaction)
rather than collapsed into a single mark, so the weakest sub-skills can be identified and prioritized.
The second is the design and implementation of a gamified strategy, Oral Story Circle, which
runs offline, uses small student circles, and requires participants to use specific connectors and
vocabulary items under mild time pressure. The third is the evaluation: pretest-posttest
INTRODUCTION
Speaking a foreign language is one of the harder skills to teach in secondary school, and
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms in Ecuador are a clear example. The national
curriculum sets A2.2 on the CEFR scale as the target for ninth grade (Ministerio de Educación,
2024). Most students do not reach it. In a typical class you see the same pattern: one-word
answers, long pauses, and a quiet majority who would rather not speak at all.
Low motivation and limited exposure explain part of this, but not most of it. Work done
in comparable Latin American settings (Morales, 2025; Zambrano & Méndez, 2025) keeps
pointing at the same three things: a thin active vocabulary, almost no use of discourse connectors,
and the fluency breakdown that happens when a student cannot retrieve a word fast enough or
link two ideas. Each of these makes the others worse. A student with too few words runs out
quickly; without connectors, what comes out is closer to a list than a turn; and after a couple of
stalled attempts in front of the class, staying quiet starts to feel like the rational choice.
Gamification has been one of the responses studied in this kind of situation. Meta-
analyses (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2016; Sailer & Homner, 2020) report that points, levels,
badges, and quick feedback can raise engagement and lower anxiety, and there is more specific
evidence in EFL speaking suggesting gains in willingness to communicate and oral output
(Dehghanzadeh et al., 2021; Zainuddin, Chu, Shujahat, & Perera, 2020). The literature has two
gaps that matter here, though. Most of the better-known studies rely on digital platforms that
assume stable internet, which is not given in Ecuadorian public schools. And very few of them
start by diagnosing which speaking sub-skills are weakest in the current group of students and
then build the mechanics around those weaknesses, instead of dropping a generic gamified app
into the class.
The starting point for this study was less theoretical than that. After several years of
teaching ninth grade, it had become obvious that conventional methods were not reaching a
sizable group of students, especially those who had already decided early on that English speaking
was not for them. What this intervention tries to narrow is the everyday gap between recognizing
vocabulary on the page and producing it out loud while peers are listening.
Three objectives organize the work. The first is a skill-based baseline of speaking
proficiency in 63 ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús public school, scored on
six components separately (fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, interaction)
rather than collapsed into a single mark, so the weakest sub-skills can be identified and prioritized.
The second is the design and implementation of a gamified strategy, Oral Story Circle, which
runs offline, uses small student circles, and requires participants to use specific connectors and
vocabulary items under mild time pressure. The third is the evaluation: pretest-posttest
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 236
comparison, gains broken down by skill and by group, and effect sizes reported next to p-values
so practical and statistical significance can be read together.
The aim is not to add another general claim that gamification helps speaking. It is to test
whether a diagnostic-driven, low-tech design that fits the actual constraints of an Ecuadorian
public classroom can move both the scores and, eventually, how students relate to speaking tasks.
Given that English proficiency still works as a filter for university admission and for a fair share
of jobs in the country, the question is worth asking carefully. The methodology, results, and
discussion below follow the three objectives in order.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research design
The study adopted a quantitative approach and used a pre-experimental pretest–
intervention–posttest design (O¹ → X → O²) with two intact ninth-grade groups from the Sagrado
Corazón de Jesús public school. The scope is correlational-descriptive: the analysis examines
associations between the intervention and changes in speaking sub-skills without random
assignment or a control group. Group A comprised 31 students and Group B comprised 32, Figure
1.
Participants
All 63 participants were ninth-grade students at the same institution who had received at
least three years of English instruction at three hours per week. Students with diagnosed speech
or language disorders and those absent from more than 20% of sessions were excluded. Written
informed consent was obtained from parents or guardians, and student assent was collected before
data gathering began. The school is identified by a placeholder to protect confidentiality.
comparison, gains broken down by skill and by group, and effect sizes reported next to p-values
so practical and statistical significance can be read together.
The aim is not to add another general claim that gamification helps speaking. It is to test
whether a diagnostic-driven, low-tech design that fits the actual constraints of an Ecuadorian
public classroom can move both the scores and, eventually, how students relate to speaking tasks.
Given that English proficiency still works as a filter for university admission and for a fair share
of jobs in the country, the question is worth asking carefully. The methodology, results, and
discussion below follow the three objectives in order.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research design
The study adopted a quantitative approach and used a pre-experimental pretest–
intervention–posttest design (O¹ → X → O²) with two intact ninth-grade groups from the Sagrado
Corazón de Jesús public school. The scope is correlational-descriptive: the analysis examines
associations between the intervention and changes in speaking sub-skills without random
assignment or a control group. Group A comprised 31 students and Group B comprised 32, Figure
1.
Participants
All 63 participants were ninth-grade students at the same institution who had received at
least three years of English instruction at three hours per week. Students with diagnosed speech
or language disorders and those absent from more than 20% of sessions were excluded. Written
informed consent was obtained from parents or guardians, and student assent was collected before
data gathering began. The school is identified by a placeholder to protect confidentiality.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 237
Figure 1
Pre-Experimental Research Design and Outcome Summary (n = 63)
Instrument and scoring rubric
Both pretest and posttest used the same individually administered oral production test,
lasting five to seven minutes per student and consisting of four tasks: a guided monologue
(describe your best friend), a picture description of an everyday scene, a role-play (borrow an
object from a classmate), and oral reading of two sentences targeting /θ/, /ð/, and /ʃ/.
Six analytical components were scored on a 0–10 scale: fluency, pronunciation,
vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, and interaction. The global score was the mean of these six
components. Descriptors were adapted from Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador (2024)
guidelines and the CEFR A2.2 level.
Two trained raters scored 20% of the tests independently at both time points. Inter-rater
reliability was calculated as weighted Cohen’s kappa with quadratic weights. Intra-rater reliability
for the primary researcher was estimated on a random 10% of the sample scored twice at a two-
week interval.
Diagnostic use of pretest results
Pretest scores were examined component by component to identify which sub-skills were
weakest before the intervention was built. Cohesion and vocabulary scored lowest across both
groups. The game mechanics were therefore designed to require connector use on every turn and
to reward productive vocabulary deployment, rather than addressing speaking generically. Full
pretest findings are reported in the Results section.
Figure 1
Pre-Experimental Research Design and Outcome Summary (n = 63)
Instrument and scoring rubric
Both pretest and posttest used the same individually administered oral production test,
lasting five to seven minutes per student and consisting of four tasks: a guided monologue
(describe your best friend), a picture description of an everyday scene, a role-play (borrow an
object from a classmate), and oral reading of two sentences targeting /θ/, /ð/, and /ʃ/.
Six analytical components were scored on a 0–10 scale: fluency, pronunciation,
vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, and interaction. The global score was the mean of these six
components. Descriptors were adapted from Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador (2024)
guidelines and the CEFR A2.2 level.
Two trained raters scored 20% of the tests independently at both time points. Inter-rater
reliability was calculated as weighted Cohen’s kappa with quadratic weights. Intra-rater reliability
for the primary researcher was estimated on a random 10% of the sample scored twice at a two-
week interval.
Diagnostic use of pretest results
Pretest scores were examined component by component to identify which sub-skills were
weakest before the intervention was built. Cohesion and vocabulary scored lowest across both
groups. The game mechanics were therefore designed to require connector use on every turn and
to reward productive vocabulary deployment, rather than addressing speaking generically. Full
pretest findings are reported in the Results section.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 238
Gamified intervention: Oral Story Circle
The Oral Story Circle was designed as a structured oral production task with an embedded
experience-point (XP) system. The core logic was deliberate: every mandatory constraint in the
game corresponded to a diagnosed deficit, and every reward was tied to productive language
behavior rather than to participation alone. The design was also low-tech by choice, requiring no
internet access and no devices beyond printed cards and an XP tracking sheet, in direct response
to the infrastructure constraints documented in Ecuadorian public schools (Bae et al., 2023).
Students worked in circles of eight to ten, passing a soft ball at random. The teacher
provided the opening sentence for each round. On each turn, the student holding the ball was
required to: (a) repeat the previous sentence (+5 XP), (b) use a connector (+10 XP), (c) include a
vocabulary item from the weekly theme (+10 XP), and (d) complete the turn within five seconds,
shown on a visible timer (+5 XP). The four requirements were sequential and non-negotiable; XP
was awarded only for requirements actually met.
Two bonus criteria were available per turn. Using a connector different from either of the
previous two turns earned +15 XP, directly targeting the narrow-repertoire problem documented
in EFL learners’ discourse-marker use. Using a vocabulary item not pre-taught in class earned
+20 XP, rewarding lexical initiative beyond the taught syllabus. The bonus values were
deliberately set above the mandatory ones to make variety and autonomy the most rational
strategy once a student had the basics.
After each round, accumulated XP placed students at one of five levels: Novice (0–199),
Explorer (200–399), Ninja (400–599), Epic (600–799), and Legend (800+). Three badges were
awarded for specific milestones: Connector Ninja (five different connectors in one round), Master
Builder (collaborative story reaching eight sentences), and Linguistic Legend (Level 5). Badges
carried no academic grade but granted small classroom privileges. The combination of points,
levels, and badges follows the gamification elements with the strongest empirical support in EFL
speaking contexts (Zhang & Hasim, 2023).
The five-second window was a deliberate fluency constraint: forced rapid retrieval pushes
learners toward proceduralization of formulaic chunks rather than effortful sentence construction
(De Jong, 2018). The ball-passing protocol distributes production risk across all students rather
than concentrating exposure in those who would otherwise volunteer. The collaborative
storytelling format provides contextualized, low-anxiety oral practice consistent with the
affective-filter reduction mechanisms described in structured oral task research (Maher & King,
2023; Tajik, 2025).
Materials consisted of one soft ball per circle, five printed thematic vocabulary card sets
(20 words each: school, family, food, city, free time), printed picture-sequence cards, individual
XP tracking sheets, and a classroom progress chart. Digital backup tools (Genially and Wordwall)
were used only when stable internet was available.
Gamified intervention: Oral Story Circle
The Oral Story Circle was designed as a structured oral production task with an embedded
experience-point (XP) system. The core logic was deliberate: every mandatory constraint in the
game corresponded to a diagnosed deficit, and every reward was tied to productive language
behavior rather than to participation alone. The design was also low-tech by choice, requiring no
internet access and no devices beyond printed cards and an XP tracking sheet, in direct response
to the infrastructure constraints documented in Ecuadorian public schools (Bae et al., 2023).
Students worked in circles of eight to ten, passing a soft ball at random. The teacher
provided the opening sentence for each round. On each turn, the student holding the ball was
required to: (a) repeat the previous sentence (+5 XP), (b) use a connector (+10 XP), (c) include a
vocabulary item from the weekly theme (+10 XP), and (d) complete the turn within five seconds,
shown on a visible timer (+5 XP). The four requirements were sequential and non-negotiable; XP
was awarded only for requirements actually met.
Two bonus criteria were available per turn. Using a connector different from either of the
previous two turns earned +15 XP, directly targeting the narrow-repertoire problem documented
in EFL learners’ discourse-marker use. Using a vocabulary item not pre-taught in class earned
+20 XP, rewarding lexical initiative beyond the taught syllabus. The bonus values were
deliberately set above the mandatory ones to make variety and autonomy the most rational
strategy once a student had the basics.
After each round, accumulated XP placed students at one of five levels: Novice (0–199),
Explorer (200–399), Ninja (400–599), Epic (600–799), and Legend (800+). Three badges were
awarded for specific milestones: Connector Ninja (five different connectors in one round), Master
Builder (collaborative story reaching eight sentences), and Linguistic Legend (Level 5). Badges
carried no academic grade but granted small classroom privileges. The combination of points,
levels, and badges follows the gamification elements with the strongest empirical support in EFL
speaking contexts (Zhang & Hasim, 2023).
The five-second window was a deliberate fluency constraint: forced rapid retrieval pushes
learners toward proceduralization of formulaic chunks rather than effortful sentence construction
(De Jong, 2018). The ball-passing protocol distributes production risk across all students rather
than concentrating exposure in those who would otherwise volunteer. The collaborative
storytelling format provides contextualized, low-anxiety oral practice consistent with the
affective-filter reduction mechanisms described in structured oral task research (Maher & King,
2023; Tajik, 2025).
Materials consisted of one soft ball per circle, five printed thematic vocabulary card sets
(20 words each: school, family, food, city, free time), printed picture-sequence cards, individual
XP tracking sheets, and a classroom progress chart. Digital backup tools (Genially and Wordwall)
were used only when stable internet was available.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 239
The intervention ran over four weeks at two 45-minute sessions per week, totaling 12
contact hours. Week 1 used vocabulary games (Bingo, Password) to establish the lexical base.
Week 2 introduced connectors through sequencing activities. Week 3 combined both components
without time pressure. Week 4 added the five-second rule, activated all bonus criteria, and closed
with a competitive round (Boss Battle). The researcher facilitated all sessions; the regular English
teacher co-facilitated throughout.
Procedure
In Week 1, the pretest was administered individually in a quiet room adjacent to the regular
classroom. All responses were audio-recorded. Weeks 2 through 5 comprised the intervention.
Each session followed a fixed structure: five-minute warm-up, five minutes of instruction and
modeling, 25–30 minutes of game play with the researcher rotating between circles at
approximately three minutes per circle, five to ten minutes for XP updating and feedback, and a
five-minute cool-down. In Week 6, the posttest was administered under conditions identical to
the pretest, by the same researcher, in the same room and time window. The researcher remained
blind to pretest scores during posttest administration and scoring.
Data Analysis
All analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2024). Normality was assessed with the
Shapiro–Wilk test and visual inspection of Q–Q plots. Because raw pretest scores departed from
normality, nonparametric tests were used for between-group baseline comparisons (Mann–
Whitney U, coin package) and within-group pre–post comparisons (Wilcoxon signed-rank, stats
package). Effect sizes for paired comparisons were calculated as dₓ (Cohen’s d for paired samples;
Lakens, 2013) using the effect size package.
The primary inferential model was a linear mixed-effects model (LMM) fitted with lme4
(Bates et al., 2015): Global ~ Time × Group + (1 | student_id), with Pretest and Group A as
reference levels. p-values were obtained via Satterthwaite degrees of freedom using lmerTest
(Kuznetsova et al., 2017). Estimated marginal means and pairwise contrasts were computed with
emmeans (Lenth, 2024). Because multiple paired comparisons were performed simultaneously
(six components × two groups), p-values were adjusted with the Benjamini–Hochberg false
discovery rate correction (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).
For practical educational interpretation, individual scores were mapped onto the four bands
of the Ecuadorian grading scale: Failing (<7.0), Passing (7.0–7.9), Good (8.0–8.9), and Excellent
(≥9.0). Percentage-point shifts across bands are reported as descriptive measures of redistribution.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Baseline speaking proficiency
Sixty-three ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús public school were
assessed on the institutional 0–10 oral rubric, which scores six analytical dimensions
The intervention ran over four weeks at two 45-minute sessions per week, totaling 12
contact hours. Week 1 used vocabulary games (Bingo, Password) to establish the lexical base.
Week 2 introduced connectors through sequencing activities. Week 3 combined both components
without time pressure. Week 4 added the five-second rule, activated all bonus criteria, and closed
with a competitive round (Boss Battle). The researcher facilitated all sessions; the regular English
teacher co-facilitated throughout.
Procedure
In Week 1, the pretest was administered individually in a quiet room adjacent to the regular
classroom. All responses were audio-recorded. Weeks 2 through 5 comprised the intervention.
Each session followed a fixed structure: five-minute warm-up, five minutes of instruction and
modeling, 25–30 minutes of game play with the researcher rotating between circles at
approximately three minutes per circle, five to ten minutes for XP updating and feedback, and a
five-minute cool-down. In Week 6, the posttest was administered under conditions identical to
the pretest, by the same researcher, in the same room and time window. The researcher remained
blind to pretest scores during posttest administration and scoring.
Data Analysis
All analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2024). Normality was assessed with the
Shapiro–Wilk test and visual inspection of Q–Q plots. Because raw pretest scores departed from
normality, nonparametric tests were used for between-group baseline comparisons (Mann–
Whitney U, coin package) and within-group pre–post comparisons (Wilcoxon signed-rank, stats
package). Effect sizes for paired comparisons were calculated as dₓ (Cohen’s d for paired samples;
Lakens, 2013) using the effect size package.
The primary inferential model was a linear mixed-effects model (LMM) fitted with lme4
(Bates et al., 2015): Global ~ Time × Group + (1 | student_id), with Pretest and Group A as
reference levels. p-values were obtained via Satterthwaite degrees of freedom using lmerTest
(Kuznetsova et al., 2017). Estimated marginal means and pairwise contrasts were computed with
emmeans (Lenth, 2024). Because multiple paired comparisons were performed simultaneously
(six components × two groups), p-values were adjusted with the Benjamini–Hochberg false
discovery rate correction (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).
For practical educational interpretation, individual scores were mapped onto the four bands
of the Ecuadorian grading scale: Failing (<7.0), Passing (7.0–7.9), Good (8.0–8.9), and Excellent
(≥9.0). Percentage-point shifts across bands are reported as descriptive measures of redistribution.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Baseline speaking proficiency
Sixty-three ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús public school were
assessed on the institutional 0–10 oral rubric, which scores six analytical dimensions
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 240
independently: pronunciation, fluency, grammar, vocabulary, interaction, and cohesion. The
global score is the mean of these six components. Component-level scoring, rather than a single
composite, makes it possible to identify which sub-skills are weakest and to interpret post-
intervention gains at the same level of granularity (Saito & Plonsky, 2019). These baseline
numbers translate directly into classroom reality. At the start of the intervention, most students
produced short, disconnected utterances, relied on a narrow set of memorized phrases, and
avoided extended turns altogether. The low cohesion scores reflected the absence of linking
language between ideas; the low vocabulary scores reflected the gap between words students
could recognize on the page and words they could retrieve under the mild social pressure of
speaking in front of peers. Identifying these two dimensions as the priority targets was not only a
statistical decision but a pedagogical one: the intervention needed to give students a structured
reason to use connectors and new words repeatedly, in a low-stakes context, before those forms
could become reliable oral resources.
Between-group differences at baseline
Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated departures from normality in both groups (p < .05), and
group sizes were small and unequal. Between-group differences were therefore tested with the
Mann–Whitney U test, the standard nonparametric alternative to the independent-samples t-test
when normality cannot be assumed (Field, 2024; Lakens, 2022). Figure 2 displays the distribution
of baseline global scores. Table 1 reports the corresponding descriptive statistics.
Figure 2
Baseline Speaking Proficiency Distribution by Group (n = 63)
Note. Boxplots show median (center line), interquartile range (box), and minimum–maximum values (whiskers).
Individual student scores are overlaid as points. Group A (n = 31, M = 6.44, SD = 0.65) scored significantly lower than
Group B (n = 32, M = 7.15, SD = 0.49) at baseline (Mann-Whitney U = 192, p < .001). Scores on a 0–10 scale.
independently: pronunciation, fluency, grammar, vocabulary, interaction, and cohesion. The
global score is the mean of these six components. Component-level scoring, rather than a single
composite, makes it possible to identify which sub-skills are weakest and to interpret post-
intervention gains at the same level of granularity (Saito & Plonsky, 2019). These baseline
numbers translate directly into classroom reality. At the start of the intervention, most students
produced short, disconnected utterances, relied on a narrow set of memorized phrases, and
avoided extended turns altogether. The low cohesion scores reflected the absence of linking
language between ideas; the low vocabulary scores reflected the gap between words students
could recognize on the page and words they could retrieve under the mild social pressure of
speaking in front of peers. Identifying these two dimensions as the priority targets was not only a
statistical decision but a pedagogical one: the intervention needed to give students a structured
reason to use connectors and new words repeatedly, in a low-stakes context, before those forms
could become reliable oral resources.
Between-group differences at baseline
Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated departures from normality in both groups (p < .05), and
group sizes were small and unequal. Between-group differences were therefore tested with the
Mann–Whitney U test, the standard nonparametric alternative to the independent-samples t-test
when normality cannot be assumed (Field, 2024; Lakens, 2022). Figure 2 displays the distribution
of baseline global scores. Table 1 reports the corresponding descriptive statistics.
Figure 2
Baseline Speaking Proficiency Distribution by Group (n = 63)
Note. Boxplots show median (center line), interquartile range (box), and minimum–maximum values (whiskers).
Individual student scores are overlaid as points. Group A (n = 31, M = 6.44, SD = 0.65) scored significantly lower than
Group B (n = 32, M = 7.15, SD = 0.49) at baseline (Mann-Whitney U = 192, p < .001). Scores on a 0–10 scale.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 241
Table 1
Baseline speaking proficiency by group
Group n M (SD) Range Failing <7.0, n
(%)
Group A 31 6.44 (0.65) 5.2–7.8 20 (64.5%)
Group B 32 7.15 (0.49) 6.2–8.2 16 (50.0%)
Total 63 6.80 (0.67) 5.2–8.2 36 (57.1%)
Note. Scores on a 0–10 scale. Between-group difference: Mann-Whitney U = 192, p < .001. Failing = Global score <
7.0 (Ecuadorian grading scale).
Group A (M = 6.44, SD = 0.65) scored significantly lower than Group B (M = 7.15, SD
= 0.49), U = 192, p < .001. The 0.71-point gap was accompanied by a high concentration of failing
students (<7.0 on the Ecuadorian grading scale): 64.5% in Group A and 50.0% in Group B,
totaling 36 students (57.1%) of the sample.
Skill-level diagnosis
Component-level inspection identified cohesion and vocabulary as the two weakest
dimensions across both groups, with pronunciation showing the smallest baseline deficit (Figure
3). This pattern is consistent with regional reports placing Ecuadorian learners among the lowest-
ranked English speakers in Latin America (EF EPI, 2023) and with the broader Latin American
secondary EFL literature, where oral production lags behind receptive skills due to limited
speaking practice in large, mixed-ability classrooms (Cantos et al., 2024).
Treating speaking as a unitary construct would have masked these asymmetries. Saito
and Plonsky (2019) argue that sub-skills follow different acquisition trajectories and respond to
different instructional inputs, so component-level diagnosis is a precondition for targeted
intervention. The cohesion deficit specifically reflects a well-documented limitation in EFL
learners' use of discourse markers: Ebrahimi and Xodabande (2023) and Guba et al. (2023) report
that learners typically rely on a narrow set of basic connectors until explicit instruction broadens
their repertoire. Identifying cohesion and vocabulary as the priority targets directly shaped the
rule structure of the intervention described in the next section.
Figure 3
Baseline speaking proficiency by sub-skill and group (n = 63)
Note. Bars represent pretest means for each rubric sub-skill, ordered from lowest to highest total-sample mean. Error
bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. The shaded region marks the failing band (<7.0) on the Ecuadorian grading
scale. Group B scored consistently above Group A across all six sub-skills.
Table 1
Baseline speaking proficiency by group
Group n M (SD) Range Failing <7.0, n
(%)
Group A 31 6.44 (0.65) 5.2–7.8 20 (64.5%)
Group B 32 7.15 (0.49) 6.2–8.2 16 (50.0%)
Total 63 6.80 (0.67) 5.2–8.2 36 (57.1%)
Note. Scores on a 0–10 scale. Between-group difference: Mann-Whitney U = 192, p < .001. Failing = Global score <
7.0 (Ecuadorian grading scale).
Group A (M = 6.44, SD = 0.65) scored significantly lower than Group B (M = 7.15, SD
= 0.49), U = 192, p < .001. The 0.71-point gap was accompanied by a high concentration of failing
students (<7.0 on the Ecuadorian grading scale): 64.5% in Group A and 50.0% in Group B,
totaling 36 students (57.1%) of the sample.
Skill-level diagnosis
Component-level inspection identified cohesion and vocabulary as the two weakest
dimensions across both groups, with pronunciation showing the smallest baseline deficit (Figure
3). This pattern is consistent with regional reports placing Ecuadorian learners among the lowest-
ranked English speakers in Latin America (EF EPI, 2023) and with the broader Latin American
secondary EFL literature, where oral production lags behind receptive skills due to limited
speaking practice in large, mixed-ability classrooms (Cantos et al., 2024).
Treating speaking as a unitary construct would have masked these asymmetries. Saito
and Plonsky (2019) argue that sub-skills follow different acquisition trajectories and respond to
different instructional inputs, so component-level diagnosis is a precondition for targeted
intervention. The cohesion deficit specifically reflects a well-documented limitation in EFL
learners' use of discourse markers: Ebrahimi and Xodabande (2023) and Guba et al. (2023) report
that learners typically rely on a narrow set of basic connectors until explicit instruction broadens
their repertoire. Identifying cohesion and vocabulary as the priority targets directly shaped the
rule structure of the intervention described in the next section.
Figure 3
Baseline speaking proficiency by sub-skill and group (n = 63)
Note. Bars represent pretest means for each rubric sub-skill, ordered from lowest to highest total-sample mean. Error
bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. The shaded region marks the failing band (<7.0) on the Ecuadorian grading
scale. Group B scored consistently above Group A across all six sub-skills.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 242
The baseline asymmetry between groups also constrained the analytical strategy: post hoc
matching on baseline proficiency was not possible, so within-group rather than purely between-
group comparisons were prioritized for the post-intervention analysis.
The oral story circle intervention. Game mechanics and scoring system
Figure 4 presents the complete game cycle, including the four mandatory rules per turn,
the bonus criteria, and the post-round XP system that maps onto five proficiency levels and four
achievement badges.
Each student turn requires four actions in sequence: repeating the previous sentence (+5
XP), using a connector (+10 XP), including a target vocabulary item (+10 XP), and producing all
of this within a 5-second window (+5 XP). Two bonus criteria reward variety (+15 XP for using
a connector different from the previous turn) and lexical autonomy (+20 XP for introducing a
vocabulary item not pre-taught). After each round, accumulated XP determines progression
through Levels 1–5 and unlocks the four achievement badges. A 45-minute session contains two
to three rounds, with the teacher rotating between circles of 8–10 students every three minutes.
The format is deliberately low-tech: it requires no internet access, no devices, and only
basic materials (a ball, vocabulary cards, a printed XP tracker). This responds directly to
documented infrastructure constraints in Ecuadorian public schools and avoids the technology
dependence that Bae et al. (2023) found correlates with smaller gamification effects.
The baseline asymmetry between groups also constrained the analytical strategy: post hoc
matching on baseline proficiency was not possible, so within-group rather than purely between-
group comparisons were prioritized for the post-intervention analysis.
The oral story circle intervention. Game mechanics and scoring system
Figure 4 presents the complete game cycle, including the four mandatory rules per turn,
the bonus criteria, and the post-round XP system that maps onto five proficiency levels and four
achievement badges.
Each student turn requires four actions in sequence: repeating the previous sentence (+5
XP), using a connector (+10 XP), including a target vocabulary item (+10 XP), and producing all
of this within a 5-second window (+5 XP). Two bonus criteria reward variety (+15 XP for using
a connector different from the previous turn) and lexical autonomy (+20 XP for introducing a
vocabulary item not pre-taught). After each round, accumulated XP determines progression
through Levels 1–5 and unlocks the four achievement badges. A 45-minute session contains two
to three rounds, with the teacher rotating between circles of 8–10 students every three minutes.
The format is deliberately low-tech: it requires no internet access, no devices, and only
basic materials (a ball, vocabulary cards, a printed XP tracker). This responds directly to
documented infrastructure constraints in Ecuadorian public schools and avoids the technology
dependence that Bae et al. (2023) found correlates with smaller gamification effects.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 243
Figure 4
Oral story circle game circle. Mechanics, rules, and gamification system
Note. Each student turn requires completing four mandatory rules in sequence, each awarding experience points (XP).
Bonus XP rewards connector variety (+15 XP) and autonomous vocabulary use (+20 XP). After each round,
accumulated XP determines progression through five proficiency levels (L1–L5) and unlocks achievement badges. A
complete 45-minute session includes 2–3 rounds, with the teacher rotating between circles every 3 minutes.
Theoretical alignment
The design integrates points, levels, badges, time pressure, and storytelling, six of the
most empirically supported gamification elements in EFL contexts according to Zhang and
Hasim's (2023) systematic review. The four-rule sequence operationalizes the three psychological
needs identified by Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2022): competence (incremental
XP signals progress), autonomy (lexical and connector choice within each turn), and relatedness
(peer interaction within circles). Shen et al. (2024) demonstrated that gamified language
environments aligned with these three needs produce stronger motivational gains than reward-
only designs, which can erode intrinsic motivation when extrinsic incentives dominate (García-
Cabot et al., 2024).
Figure 4
Oral story circle game circle. Mechanics, rules, and gamification system
Note. Each student turn requires completing four mandatory rules in sequence, each awarding experience points (XP).
Bonus XP rewards connector variety (+15 XP) and autonomous vocabulary use (+20 XP). After each round,
accumulated XP determines progression through five proficiency levels (L1–L5) and unlocks achievement badges. A
complete 45-minute session includes 2–3 rounds, with the teacher rotating between circles every 3 minutes.
Theoretical alignment
The design integrates points, levels, badges, time pressure, and storytelling, six of the
most empirically supported gamification elements in EFL contexts according to Zhang and
Hasim's (2023) systematic review. The four-rule sequence operationalizes the three psychological
needs identified by Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2022): competence (incremental
XP signals progress), autonomy (lexical and connector choice within each turn), and relatedness
(peer interaction within circles). Shen et al. (2024) demonstrated that gamified language
environments aligned with these three needs produce stronger motivational gains than reward-
only designs, which can erode intrinsic motivation when extrinsic incentives dominate (García-
Cabot et al., 2024).
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 244
The 5-second response window is a deliberate fluency constraint. Forced rapid retrieval
pushes learners toward proceduralization of formulaic chunks rather than effortful sentence
construction (De Jong, 2018). The storytelling spine provides the contextualized, low-anxiety
output practice that Krashen's (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis identifies as necessary for
productive language use, a mechanism repeatedly confirmed in recent work on speaking-anxiety
reduction through structured oral tasks (Maher & King, 2023; Tajik, 2025). The connector-variety
bonus directly targets the cohesion deficit identified in the baseline diagnosis.
Effects of the intervention on speaking proficiency
Posttest scores were compared with pretest scores using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test,
the paired-samples nonparametric counterpart to the dependent t-test. Effect sizes were calculated
as d_z (Cohen's d for paired samples; Lakens, 2013), and p-values were adjusted with the
Benjamini–Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate across the multiple paired
comparisons performed on the same sample (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). Reporting effect
sizes alongside p-values allows practical and statistical significance to be judged independently,
as recommended in current reporting standards (Lakens, 2022).
The score gains document what changed numerically. What changed in the classroom
was the nature of student participation. By the final sessions, students who had produced one-
word answers at baseline were constructing multi-clause turns, selecting connectors deliberately,
and introducing vocabulary they had not been taught. The circle format distributed speaking risk
across the group, the XP system gave students a reason to attempt rather than avoid, and the
storytelling spine provided enough shared context for low-proficiency students to contribute
without needing to generate content independently. The teaching and learning dynamic shifted
from teacher-fronted oral modeling to peer-sustained oral production, which is a structural change
in how speaking practice was distributed across the room.
Global proficiency gains
Figure 5 and Table 2 show individual pretest–posttest trajectories for both groups. Table
2 reports the paired comparisons.
All 63 participants improved. Group A advanced from M = 6.44 (SD = 0.65) to M = 7.54
(SD = 0.37), a mean gain of +1.10 points (V = 0, p < .001, d_z = 3.90). Group B advanced from
M = 7.15 (SD = 0.49) to M = 8.04 (SD = 0.26), a mean gain of +0.90 points (V = 0, p < .001, d_z
= 3.73). The pooled gain across the 63 students was +1.00 point (d_z = 3.58). All effect sizes far
exceed Cohen's (1988) threshold for a large effect.
The 5-second response window is a deliberate fluency constraint. Forced rapid retrieval
pushes learners toward proceduralization of formulaic chunks rather than effortful sentence
construction (De Jong, 2018). The storytelling spine provides the contextualized, low-anxiety
output practice that Krashen's (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis identifies as necessary for
productive language use, a mechanism repeatedly confirmed in recent work on speaking-anxiety
reduction through structured oral tasks (Maher & King, 2023; Tajik, 2025). The connector-variety
bonus directly targets the cohesion deficit identified in the baseline diagnosis.
Effects of the intervention on speaking proficiency
Posttest scores were compared with pretest scores using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test,
the paired-samples nonparametric counterpart to the dependent t-test. Effect sizes were calculated
as d_z (Cohen's d for paired samples; Lakens, 2013), and p-values were adjusted with the
Benjamini–Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate across the multiple paired
comparisons performed on the same sample (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). Reporting effect
sizes alongside p-values allows practical and statistical significance to be judged independently,
as recommended in current reporting standards (Lakens, 2022).
The score gains document what changed numerically. What changed in the classroom
was the nature of student participation. By the final sessions, students who had produced one-
word answers at baseline were constructing multi-clause turns, selecting connectors deliberately,
and introducing vocabulary they had not been taught. The circle format distributed speaking risk
across the group, the XP system gave students a reason to attempt rather than avoid, and the
storytelling spine provided enough shared context for low-proficiency students to contribute
without needing to generate content independently. The teaching and learning dynamic shifted
from teacher-fronted oral modeling to peer-sustained oral production, which is a structural change
in how speaking practice was distributed across the room.
Global proficiency gains
Figure 5 and Table 2 show individual pretest–posttest trajectories for both groups. Table
2 reports the paired comparisons.
All 63 participants improved. Group A advanced from M = 6.44 (SD = 0.65) to M = 7.54
(SD = 0.37), a mean gain of +1.10 points (V = 0, p < .001, d_z = 3.90). Group B advanced from
M = 7.15 (SD = 0.49) to M = 8.04 (SD = 0.26), a mean gain of +0.90 points (V = 0, p < .001, d_z
= 3.73). The pooled gain across the 63 students was +1.00 point (d_z = 3.58). All effect sizes far
exceed Cohen's (1988) threshold for a large effect.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 245
Figure 5
Individual pretest–postest trajectories by group (n = 63)
Note. Each grey line represents one student's score change. The red line and points indicate group means. All 63
students (100%) improved from pretest to postest. Group A: M = 6.44 → 7.54 (gain = +1.10, d_z = 3.90); Group B: M
= 7.15 → 8.04 (gain = +0.90, d_z = 3.73). Both improvements statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p <
.001).
Table 2
Pretest–postest comparison by group (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, Paired)
Group n Pretest
M (SD)
Postest
M (SD)
Gain M
(SD)
V p dz
Group A 31 6.44
(0.65)
7.54
(0.37)
+1.10
(0.28)
0 < .001 3.90
Group B 32 7.15
(0.49)
8.04
(0.26)
+0.90
(0.24)
0 < .001 3.73
Total 63 6.80
(0.67)
7.79
(0.43)
+1.00
(0.28)
0 < .001 3.58
Note. dz = Cohen's d for paired samples (Lakens, 2013). V = Wilcoxon test statistic. All comparisons significant at p
< .001 after Benjamini–Hochberg correction.
The magnitude of these gains is considerably larger than the medium effect (g = 0.517)
reported in Bae et al.'s (2023) meta-analysis of 11 gamification studies in EFL contexts. Three
design features likely explain the gap. First, the intervention combined gamification with
structured oral output rather than digital drill-and-practice; Bae et al. (2023) found that non-
technological gamified interventions produced larger effects (g = 0.932) than technology-
mediated ones (g = 0.298). Second, the storytelling spine provides repeated, contextualized
opportunities for connected discourse, which oral-narrative meta-analyses identify as a stronger
driver of L2 speaking gains than isolated drills (Lin et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2022). Third, the
100% improvement rate suggests that the affective conditions created by the game format, peer-
supported turns, immediate XP feedback, the ball-passing protocol that distributes risk, lowered
Figure 5
Individual pretest–postest trajectories by group (n = 63)
Note. Each grey line represents one student's score change. The red line and points indicate group means. All 63
students (100%) improved from pretest to postest. Group A: M = 6.44 → 7.54 (gain = +1.10, d_z = 3.90); Group B: M
= 7.15 → 8.04 (gain = +0.90, d_z = 3.73). Both improvements statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p <
.001).
Table 2
Pretest–postest comparison by group (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, Paired)
Group n Pretest
M (SD)
Postest
M (SD)
Gain M
(SD)
V p dz
Group A 31 6.44
(0.65)
7.54
(0.37)
+1.10
(0.28)
0 < .001 3.90
Group B 32 7.15
(0.49)
8.04
(0.26)
+0.90
(0.24)
0 < .001 3.73
Total 63 6.80
(0.67)
7.79
(0.43)
+1.00
(0.28)
0 < .001 3.58
Note. dz = Cohen's d for paired samples (Lakens, 2013). V = Wilcoxon test statistic. All comparisons significant at p
< .001 after Benjamini–Hochberg correction.
The magnitude of these gains is considerably larger than the medium effect (g = 0.517)
reported in Bae et al.'s (2023) meta-analysis of 11 gamification studies in EFL contexts. Three
design features likely explain the gap. First, the intervention combined gamification with
structured oral output rather than digital drill-and-practice; Bae et al. (2023) found that non-
technological gamified interventions produced larger effects (g = 0.932) than technology-
mediated ones (g = 0.298). Second, the storytelling spine provides repeated, contextualized
opportunities for connected discourse, which oral-narrative meta-analyses identify as a stronger
driver of L2 speaking gains than isolated drills (Lin et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2022). Third, the
100% improvement rate suggests that the affective conditions created by the game format, peer-
supported turns, immediate XP feedback, the ball-passing protocol that distributes risk, lowered
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 246
the affective filter sufficiently for low-proficiency students to engage productively (Cheng et al.,
2025; Ma & Chen, 2025).
Sub-skill gains
Figure 6 disaggregates the gains by rubric component, ordered by total-sample
magnitude.
Figure 6
Mean skill gains by group and total sample (n = 63)
Note. Bars represent mean gain (Postest − Pretest) per skill, ordered by total-sample gain magnitude. Error bars indicate
95% confidence intervals. Cohesion showed the largest improvement across both groups (Group A: +1.21; Group B:
+0.84), while Fluency showed the smallest (Group A: +0.76; Group B: +0.62). All gains positive across all skills and
groups.
Cohesion showed the largest improvement (Group A: +1.21; Group B: +0.84; total:
+1.02), followed by vocabulary (+0.91), grammar and interaction (both +0.77), pronunciation
(+0.72), and fluency (+0.69). Every skill improved in every group, with no zero or negative cells.
The cohesion result reflects the explicit, points-bearing requirement to use connectors at
every turn (+10 XP base, +15 XP bonus for variety). The intervention's connector-variety bonus
directly targeted the limited-repertoire problem documented in EFL learners' discourse-marker
use (Ebrahimi & Xodabande, 2023; Guba et al., 2023), which explains why cohesion outpaced
every other dimension. The vocabulary gain (+0.91) is consistent with the autonomous-word-use
bonus (+20 XP), which incentivized
lexical experimentation beyond the taught syllabus, converging with Mashrafovich's (2025) and
Tayeh et al.'s (2024) findings that gamified rewards tied to productive vocabulary use accelerate
active lexical retrieval.
The smaller fluency gain is consistent with the wider SLA literature: fluency depends on
automatization of retrieval processes that develop more slowly than discourse-level competencies
and require longer exposure to consolidate (De Jong, 2018; Rosell-Aguilar, 2022). The 4-week
intervention window appears sufficient to expand strategic and lexical resources but insufficient
for full proceduralization. The pattern, large gains in cohesion and vocabulary, smaller gains in
fluency, replicates Al-Jamili et al.'s (2024) findings on a computer-game-based speaking
the affective filter sufficiently for low-proficiency students to engage productively (Cheng et al.,
2025; Ma & Chen, 2025).
Sub-skill gains
Figure 6 disaggregates the gains by rubric component, ordered by total-sample
magnitude.
Figure 6
Mean skill gains by group and total sample (n = 63)
Note. Bars represent mean gain (Postest − Pretest) per skill, ordered by total-sample gain magnitude. Error bars indicate
95% confidence intervals. Cohesion showed the largest improvement across both groups (Group A: +1.21; Group B:
+0.84), while Fluency showed the smallest (Group A: +0.76; Group B: +0.62). All gains positive across all skills and
groups.
Cohesion showed the largest improvement (Group A: +1.21; Group B: +0.84; total:
+1.02), followed by vocabulary (+0.91), grammar and interaction (both +0.77), pronunciation
(+0.72), and fluency (+0.69). Every skill improved in every group, with no zero or negative cells.
The cohesion result reflects the explicit, points-bearing requirement to use connectors at
every turn (+10 XP base, +15 XP bonus for variety). The intervention's connector-variety bonus
directly targeted the limited-repertoire problem documented in EFL learners' discourse-marker
use (Ebrahimi & Xodabande, 2023; Guba et al., 2023), which explains why cohesion outpaced
every other dimension. The vocabulary gain (+0.91) is consistent with the autonomous-word-use
bonus (+20 XP), which incentivized
lexical experimentation beyond the taught syllabus, converging with Mashrafovich's (2025) and
Tayeh et al.'s (2024) findings that gamified rewards tied to productive vocabulary use accelerate
active lexical retrieval.
The smaller fluency gain is consistent with the wider SLA literature: fluency depends on
automatization of retrieval processes that develop more slowly than discourse-level competencies
and require longer exposure to consolidate (De Jong, 2018; Rosell-Aguilar, 2022). The 4-week
intervention window appears sufficient to expand strategic and lexical resources but insufficient
for full proceduralization. The pattern, large gains in cohesion and vocabulary, smaller gains in
fluency, replicates Al-Jamili et al.'s (2024) findings on a computer-game-based speaking
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 247
intervention, suggesting it reflects a general property of gamified oral interventions rather than a
feature of this specific design.
In practical classroom terms, these numbers describe a visible shift in how students
engaged with oral tasks. At the cohesion level, students who had previously strung ideas together
with pauses or simple repetition began producing turns that opened with connectors like however,
as a result, or on the other hand, linking their contribution explicitly to what the previous speaker
had said. At the vocabulary level, students started reaching beyond the unit wordlist, introducing
terms they had encountered outside class and earning the autonomous-word bonus in the process.
Grammar and interaction gains were visible in longer, more complete sentences and in the
increased frequency with which students addressed their peers directly rather than turning to the
teacher for validation. The pronunciation and fluency gains, smaller in magnitude but consistent
in direction, reflected incremental progress in the automatization of retrieval: by the final sessions,
hesitation phenomena were less frequent and responses came closer to the 5-second window
without the visible word-searching that had characterized early rounds. Fluency remained the
dimension with the most room to grow, which is expected given that proceduralization of oral
production requires sustained exposure well beyond four weeks.
Distribution shift across proficiency bands
To assess the practical educational impact of the gains, individual scores were mapped
onto the four bands of the Ecuadorian grading scale. Figure 7 summarizes the redistribution.
The failing band (<7.0) collapsed from 36 students (57.1%) to 3 (4.8%), a 52.3
percentage-point reduction. The passing band (7.0–7.9) absorbed part of this shift (+20.6 pp), and
the good band (8.0–8.9) expanded from 2 students (3.2%) to 22 (34.9%), a +31.7 pp change. No
participant reached the excellent band (≥9.0) at either time point.
The pattern is that of a floor-lifting rather than a ceiling-breaking intervention: the lower
tail of the distribution compressed sharply, the middle bands absorbed the shift, but the upper
threshold remained out of reach. Three points clarify why this is the expected and, arguably most
useful, signature for an 4-week classroom intervention in this population.
First, the floor-lifting effect is the more pedagogically consequential of the two outcomes
in a context where over half the cohort began below the institutional pass mark. Reducing failure
rates by an order of magnitude has direct curricular and equity consequences that ceiling-breaking
does not: it changes who progresses to the next grade, who can participate in subsequent oral
tasks, and who keeps studying English at all. The compensatory pattern documented in recent
gamified EFL interventions for heterogeneous classes points in the same direction, the largest
practical benefits accrue to learners closest to the failing threshold rather than to those already
approaching ceiling (Cheng et al., 2025; Tayeh et al., 2024).
intervention, suggesting it reflects a general property of gamified oral interventions rather than a
feature of this specific design.
In practical classroom terms, these numbers describe a visible shift in how students
engaged with oral tasks. At the cohesion level, students who had previously strung ideas together
with pauses or simple repetition began producing turns that opened with connectors like however,
as a result, or on the other hand, linking their contribution explicitly to what the previous speaker
had said. At the vocabulary level, students started reaching beyond the unit wordlist, introducing
terms they had encountered outside class and earning the autonomous-word bonus in the process.
Grammar and interaction gains were visible in longer, more complete sentences and in the
increased frequency with which students addressed their peers directly rather than turning to the
teacher for validation. The pronunciation and fluency gains, smaller in magnitude but consistent
in direction, reflected incremental progress in the automatization of retrieval: by the final sessions,
hesitation phenomena were less frequent and responses came closer to the 5-second window
without the visible word-searching that had characterized early rounds. Fluency remained the
dimension with the most room to grow, which is expected given that proceduralization of oral
production requires sustained exposure well beyond four weeks.
Distribution shift across proficiency bands
To assess the practical educational impact of the gains, individual scores were mapped
onto the four bands of the Ecuadorian grading scale. Figure 7 summarizes the redistribution.
The failing band (<7.0) collapsed from 36 students (57.1%) to 3 (4.8%), a 52.3
percentage-point reduction. The passing band (7.0–7.9) absorbed part of this shift (+20.6 pp), and
the good band (8.0–8.9) expanded from 2 students (3.2%) to 22 (34.9%), a +31.7 pp change. No
participant reached the excellent band (≥9.0) at either time point.
The pattern is that of a floor-lifting rather than a ceiling-breaking intervention: the lower
tail of the distribution compressed sharply, the middle bands absorbed the shift, but the upper
threshold remained out of reach. Three points clarify why this is the expected and, arguably most
useful, signature for an 4-week classroom intervention in this population.
First, the floor-lifting effect is the more pedagogically consequential of the two outcomes
in a context where over half the cohort began below the institutional pass mark. Reducing failure
rates by an order of magnitude has direct curricular and equity consequences that ceiling-breaking
does not: it changes who progresses to the next grade, who can participate in subsequent oral
tasks, and who keeps studying English at all. The compensatory pattern documented in recent
gamified EFL interventions for heterogeneous classes points in the same direction, the largest
practical benefits accrue to learners closest to the failing threshold rather than to those already
approaching ceiling (Cheng et al., 2025; Tayeh et al., 2024).
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 248
Figure 7
Redistribution of students across Ecuadorian proficiency bands (n = 63)
Note. Stacked bars show the percentage of students in each grading band at pretest and postest. Failing = <7.0;
Passing = 7.0–7.9; Good = 8.0–8.9; Excellent = ≥9.0. The failing band contracted from 57.1% to 4.8% (a 52.3-
percentage-point reduction), while the good band expanded from 3.2% to 34.9%. No student reached the excellent
band at either time point. The pattern reflects a floor-lifting rather than ceiling-breaking effect: the intervention
compressed the lower tail of the distribution but did not extend the upper one.
Second, the absence of excellent-band scores is consistent with the time scale of the
intervention. Reaching ≥9.0 on the rubric requires near-native control of pronunciation, sustained
fluency without hesitation phenomena, and the kind of grammatical accuracy under processing
pressure that develops over much longer instructional windows than 4 weeks (De Jong, 2018;
Saito & Plonsky, 2019). Treating the absence of excellent scores as a failure of the intervention
would conflate "did not occur" with "could not occur given the design".
Third, the redistribution into the good band, from 3.2% to 34.9% of students, indicates
that the ceiling effect was not yet binding for most participants. Roughly a third of the cohort
moved into a band that only two students had reached at baseline, which suggests that with a
longer intervention or a follow-up phase, further upward movement is plausible. The current data
establish a lower bound for what 4 weeks of the Oral Story Circle protocol can deliver.
Hypothesis testing
To evaluate whether the Oral Story Circle intervention improved oral English
proficiency, the following hypothesis was tested: H₀: The mean pretest–postest difference equals
zero (the intervention does not improve speaking proficiency). H₁: The mean pretest–postest
difference is greater than zero (the intervention improves speaking proficiency).
Figure 7
Redistribution of students across Ecuadorian proficiency bands (n = 63)
Note. Stacked bars show the percentage of students in each grading band at pretest and postest. Failing = <7.0;
Passing = 7.0–7.9; Good = 8.0–8.9; Excellent = ≥9.0. The failing band contracted from 57.1% to 4.8% (a 52.3-
percentage-point reduction), while the good band expanded from 3.2% to 34.9%. No student reached the excellent
band at either time point. The pattern reflects a floor-lifting rather than ceiling-breaking effect: the intervention
compressed the lower tail of the distribution but did not extend the upper one.
Second, the absence of excellent-band scores is consistent with the time scale of the
intervention. Reaching ≥9.0 on the rubric requires near-native control of pronunciation, sustained
fluency without hesitation phenomena, and the kind of grammatical accuracy under processing
pressure that develops over much longer instructional windows than 4 weeks (De Jong, 2018;
Saito & Plonsky, 2019). Treating the absence of excellent scores as a failure of the intervention
would conflate "did not occur" with "could not occur given the design".
Third, the redistribution into the good band, from 3.2% to 34.9% of students, indicates
that the ceiling effect was not yet binding for most participants. Roughly a third of the cohort
moved into a band that only two students had reached at baseline, which suggests that with a
longer intervention or a follow-up phase, further upward movement is plausible. The current data
establish a lower bound for what 4 weeks of the Oral Story Circle protocol can deliver.
Hypothesis testing
To evaluate whether the Oral Story Circle intervention improved oral English
proficiency, the following hypothesis was tested: H₀: The mean pretest–postest difference equals
zero (the intervention does not improve speaking proficiency). H₁: The mean pretest–postest
difference is greater than zero (the intervention improves speaking proficiency).
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 249
Figure 8
Effect of the Oral Story Circle Intervention on Speaking Proficiency (n = 63)
Note. Grey points represent individual student scores at pretest and postest, jittered horizontally for visibility. Red
points and connecting line indicate group means; vertical bars show 95% confidence intervals. The dashed horizontal
line marks the institutional pass threshold (≥ 7.0 on the Ecuadorian grading scale). The bracket above the means
reports the result of a paired-samples t-test.
A one-sided paired-samples t-test was conducted on the global scores of all 63 students.
The normality assumption was verified on the difference scores using Shapiro–Wilk (W = 0.969,
p = .109), confirming the parametric test was appropriate. The test p < .001, with a mean gain of
+1.00 point (95% CI [+0.94, +∞]) on the 0–10 scale. Hece H₀ is rejected. Every student in the
sample improved, with the mean rising from 6.80 (SD = 0.67) at pretest to 7.79 (SD = 0.43) at
postest. The score improvement also translated into a near-universal increase in the pass rate (≥
7.0), which rose from 42.9% (27/63) at pretest to 95.2% (60/63) at postest.
The rejection of H₀ provides formal statistical confirmation of what the descriptive
analyses indicated: the Oral Story Circle intervention produced a large, reliable improvement in
oral English proficiency. The effect size (d_z = 3.58) is substantially above the medium effect
reported in recent gamification meta-analyses for EFL contexts (Bae et al., 2023), and the
universal improvement rate (63/63) suggests the gain reflects a systematic property of the
intervention rather than variability among engaged learners. Together with the floor-lifting pattern
documented above, these results support the Oral Story Circle as a viable, evidence-based
response to the speaking deficits observed at baseline.
CONCLUSIONS
The Oral Story Circle intervention produced consistent and substantial gains in oral
English proficiency among 63 ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús public
school. Component-level diagnosis identified cohesion and vocabulary as the weakest dimensions
at baseline, and the gamified design, built around connector use, target lexis, and a 5-second
response window, addressed those deficits directly. After four weeks, the paired-samples t-test
rejected the null hypothesis of no improvement (t(62) = 28.42, p < .001, d_z = 3.58), with every
student in the sample improving and the largest gains concentrated in the two skills the
Figure 8
Effect of the Oral Story Circle Intervention on Speaking Proficiency (n = 63)
Note. Grey points represent individual student scores at pretest and postest, jittered horizontally for visibility. Red
points and connecting line indicate group means; vertical bars show 95% confidence intervals. The dashed horizontal
line marks the institutional pass threshold (≥ 7.0 on the Ecuadorian grading scale). The bracket above the means
reports the result of a paired-samples t-test.
A one-sided paired-samples t-test was conducted on the global scores of all 63 students.
The normality assumption was verified on the difference scores using Shapiro–Wilk (W = 0.969,
p = .109), confirming the parametric test was appropriate. The test p < .001, with a mean gain of
+1.00 point (95% CI [+0.94, +∞]) on the 0–10 scale. Hece H₀ is rejected. Every student in the
sample improved, with the mean rising from 6.80 (SD = 0.67) at pretest to 7.79 (SD = 0.43) at
postest. The score improvement also translated into a near-universal increase in the pass rate (≥
7.0), which rose from 42.9% (27/63) at pretest to 95.2% (60/63) at postest.
The rejection of H₀ provides formal statistical confirmation of what the descriptive
analyses indicated: the Oral Story Circle intervention produced a large, reliable improvement in
oral English proficiency. The effect size (d_z = 3.58) is substantially above the medium effect
reported in recent gamification meta-analyses for EFL contexts (Bae et al., 2023), and the
universal improvement rate (63/63) suggests the gain reflects a systematic property of the
intervention rather than variability among engaged learners. Together with the floor-lifting pattern
documented above, these results support the Oral Story Circle as a viable, evidence-based
response to the speaking deficits observed at baseline.
CONCLUSIONS
The Oral Story Circle intervention produced consistent and substantial gains in oral
English proficiency among 63 ninth-grade students at the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús public
school. Component-level diagnosis identified cohesion and vocabulary as the weakest dimensions
at baseline, and the gamified design, built around connector use, target lexis, and a 5-second
response window, addressed those deficits directly. After four weeks, the paired-samples t-test
rejected the null hypothesis of no improvement (t(62) = 28.42, p < .001, d_z = 3.58), with every
student in the sample improving and the largest gains concentrated in the two skills the
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 250
intervention had targeted. Beyond the score change, the practical signature of the intervention
was a redistribution of the cohort across grading bands: failure rates dropped from 57.1% to 4.8%,
and a third of students reached the Good band. The absence of Excellent-band scores is consistent
with the time scale and should not be read as a ceiling problem; it indicates room for further work
rather than a limit of the design. Read together, the evidence supports a low-tech, diagnostic-
driven gamified protocol as a viable response to the speaking deficits documented in Ecuadorian
secondary EFL classrooms, and points to longer or follow-up implementations as the obvious
next step. Examining the gains by component adds further precision to this picture. Cohesion
showed the largest improvement across both groups (+1.02 points total), a result directly
attributable to the connector-use requirement built into every turn. Vocabulary followed (+0.91),
driven by the autonomous-word-use bonus that incentivized lexical production beyond the taught
syllabus. Grammar and interaction improved equally (+0.77 each), while pronunciation (+0.72)
and fluency (+0.69) showed the smallest, though still substantial, gains. The fluency result is
consistent with the broader SLA literature: automatization of retrieval processes develops more
slowly than discourse-level competencies and requires longer exposure than four weeks. Taken
together, the sub-skill profile confirms that a diagnostic-driven design, one that identifies specific
weaknesses and builds mechanics around them, produces gains that are not only large but
concentrated precisely where they were needed most.
intervention had targeted. Beyond the score change, the practical signature of the intervention
was a redistribution of the cohort across grading bands: failure rates dropped from 57.1% to 4.8%,
and a third of students reached the Good band. The absence of Excellent-band scores is consistent
with the time scale and should not be read as a ceiling problem; it indicates room for further work
rather than a limit of the design. Read together, the evidence supports a low-tech, diagnostic-
driven gamified protocol as a viable response to the speaking deficits documented in Ecuadorian
secondary EFL classrooms, and points to longer or follow-up implementations as the obvious
next step. Examining the gains by component adds further precision to this picture. Cohesion
showed the largest improvement across both groups (+1.02 points total), a result directly
attributable to the connector-use requirement built into every turn. Vocabulary followed (+0.91),
driven by the autonomous-word-use bonus that incentivized lexical production beyond the taught
syllabus. Grammar and interaction improved equally (+0.77 each), while pronunciation (+0.72)
and fluency (+0.69) showed the smallest, though still substantial, gains. The fluency result is
consistent with the broader SLA literature: automatization of retrieval processes develops more
slowly than discourse-level competencies and requires longer exposure than four weeks. Taken
together, the sub-skill profile confirms that a diagnostic-driven design, one that identifies specific
weaknesses and builds mechanics around them, produces gains that are not only large but
concentrated precisely where they were needed most.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 251
REFERENCES
Al-Jamili, O., Aziz, M., Mohammed, F., Almogahed, A., & Alawadhi, A. (2024). Evaluating the
efficacy of computer games-based learning intervention in enhancing English speaking
proficiency. Heliyon, 10(16), e36440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36440
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using
lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and
powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B,
57(1), 289–300.
Cheng, Y., Lu, X., & Xiao, J. (2025). Effects of gamification on EFL learning: A quasi-
experimental study of reading proficiency and language enjoyment among Chinese
undergraduates. Frontiers in Psychology, 16.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1448916
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum.
De Jong, N. H. (2018). Fluency in second language testing: Insights from different frameworks.
Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 237–254.
Dehghanzadeh, H., Fardanesh, H., Hatami, J., Talaee, E., & Noroozi, O. (2021). Using
gamification to support learning English as a second language: A systematic review.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(7), 934–957.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1648298
Ebrahimi, H., & Xodabande, I. (2023). The functions of discourse markers in L2 teachers' and
learners' speech across gender and proficiency: A corpus study. MEXTESOL Journal,
47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v47n1-10
EF Education First. (2023). EF English Proficiency Index 2023. EF Education First.
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). SAGE.
García-Cabot, P., Castro, J. L., & Martínez, L. (2024). Gamification design and self-determination
theory: Fulfilling competence and autonomy needs for sustained student engagement.
Computers in Human Behavior, 150, Article 107990.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107990
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Huneety, A., Alkhawaldeh, A., Mashaqba, B., Zaidan, Z., & Alshdaifat, A. (2023). The use of
discourse markers in argumentative compositions by Jordanian EFL learners. Humanities
REFERENCES
Al-Jamili, O., Aziz, M., Mohammed, F., Almogahed, A., & Alawadhi, A. (2024). Evaluating the
efficacy of computer games-based learning intervention in enhancing English speaking
proficiency. Heliyon, 10(16), e36440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36440
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using
lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and
powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B,
57(1), 289–300.
Cheng, Y., Lu, X., & Xiao, J. (2025). Effects of gamification on EFL learning: A quasi-
experimental study of reading proficiency and language enjoyment among Chinese
undergraduates. Frontiers in Psychology, 16.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1448916
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum.
De Jong, N. H. (2018). Fluency in second language testing: Insights from different frameworks.
Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 237–254.
Dehghanzadeh, H., Fardanesh, H., Hatami, J., Talaee, E., & Noroozi, O. (2021). Using
gamification to support learning English as a second language: A systematic review.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(7), 934–957.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1648298
Ebrahimi, H., & Xodabande, I. (2023). The functions of discourse markers in L2 teachers' and
learners' speech across gender and proficiency: A corpus study. MEXTESOL Journal,
47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v47n1-10
EF Education First. (2023). EF English Proficiency Index 2023. EF Education First.
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). SAGE.
García-Cabot, P., Castro, J. L., & Martínez, L. (2024). Gamification design and self-determination
theory: Fulfilling competence and autonomy needs for sustained student engagement.
Computers in Human Behavior, 150, Article 107990.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107990
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Huneety, A., Alkhawaldeh, A., Mashaqba, B., Zaidan, Z., & Alshdaifat, A. (2023). The use of
discourse markers in argumentative compositions by Jordanian EFL learners. Humanities
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 252
and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 41. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-
01525-0
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in
linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A
practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Lakens, D. (2022). Improving your statistical inferences.
https://lakens.github.io/statistical_inferences/
Lee, J.-Y., & Baek, M. (2023). Effects of gamification on students' English language proficiency:
A meta-analysis on research in South Korea. Sustainability, 15(14), 11325.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411325
Lenth, R. V. (2024). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (R package).
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Maher, K., & King, J. (2023). Language anxiety and learner silence in the classroom from a
cognitive-behavioral perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 105–111.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190523000053
Mashrafovich, T. M. (2025). The effectiveness of gamification in enhancing vocabulary
acquisition of ESL learners. FARS International Journal of Education, Social Science &
Humanities, 13(1), 84–93.
Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2024). Currículo nacional de inglés como lengua
extranjera. Ministerio de Educación.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2022). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 32(1), 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A
proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 69(3), 652–
708. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12345
Shen, Z., Li, Y., & Wang, Q. (2024). Investigating the influence of gamification on motivation
and learning outcomes in online language learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 15.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1295709
and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 41. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-
01525-0
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in
linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A
practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Lakens, D. (2022). Improving your statistical inferences.
https://lakens.github.io/statistical_inferences/
Lee, J.-Y., & Baek, M. (2023). Effects of gamification on students' English language proficiency:
A meta-analysis on research in South Korea. Sustainability, 15(14), 11325.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411325
Lenth, R. V. (2024). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (R package).
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Maher, K., & King, J. (2023). Language anxiety and learner silence in the classroom from a
cognitive-behavioral perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 105–111.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190523000053
Mashrafovich, T. M. (2025). The effectiveness of gamification in enhancing vocabulary
acquisition of ESL learners. FARS International Journal of Education, Social Science &
Humanities, 13(1), 84–93.
Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2024). Currículo nacional de inglés como lengua
extranjera. Ministerio de Educación.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2022). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 32(1), 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A
proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 69(3), 652–
708. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12345
Shen, Z., Li, Y., & Wang, Q. (2024). Investigating the influence of gamification on motivation
and learning outcomes in online language learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 15.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1295709
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 253
Tayeh, Q., Krishan, T. M., & Malkawi, N. (2024). The effect of using gamification to improve
EFL students' academic performance. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(7), 45–54.
https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i7.4173
Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification
on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational
Research Review, 30, Article 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
Zhang, S., & Hasim, Z. (2023). Gamification in EFL/ESL instruction: A systematic review of
empirical research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1030790.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1030790
Tayeh, Q., Krishan, T. M., & Malkawi, N. (2024). The effect of using gamification to improve
EFL students' academic performance. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(7), 45–54.
https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i7.4173
Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification
on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational
Research Review, 30, Article 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
Zhang, S., & Hasim, Z. (2023). Gamification in EFL/ESL instruction: A systematic review of
empirical research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1030790.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1030790