Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 340
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v13i3.2397
Interactive playful strategies and their impact with speaking
development among eighth-grade students at Tufiño High
School
Estrategias lúdicas interactivas y su impacto en el desarrollo de la expresión oral en
estudiantes de octavo grado de la Unidad Educativa Tufiño
Wilson Santiago Portilla Lomas
wilsons.portilla@upec.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2890-6587
Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi
Ecuador - Tulcán
Artículo recibido: 10 junio 2026- Aceptado para publicación:16 julio 2026
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
ABSTRACT
Promoting oral expression in English remains a challenge in rural settings, where technological
resources, opportunities for interaction, and communicative practice are scarce. Since the purpose
of this study was to examine the connection between interactive game-based strategies and
progress in oral expression among eighth-grade students at the Tufiño school, located in the
Ecuadorian province of Carchi, a non-experimental, cross-sectional diagnostic design was
employed, characterized by a quantitative approach and the incorporation of qualitative measures.
Thirty-seven students and two English teachers participated through a census. Data were collected
via a 16-item student questionnaire, an oral expression test, observation checklists, and teacher
interviews; three experts reviewed the instruments, and the results revealed that although group
work was common (91.89%), the frequent use of tongue twisters (13.51%), riddles (18.92%),
role-playing games (8.11%), and spelling competitions (21.62%) was limited. 70.27% of the
students reported that they take frequent pauses when speaking; only 27.03% said they
communicate fluently, and 35.14% stated that they speak accurately because, according to the
results of the diagnostic test, 54.05% were at the A1 in development level, 29.73% at Pre-A1, and
16.22% at A1 (consolidated). Furthermore, 81.08% opted for role-playing games or group
competitions indicating that the institution has a significant collaborative foundation but needs to
incorporate recreational activities focused on oral production in a more systematic, contextual,
and assessable manner.
Keywords: interactive playful strategies, speaking skills, English language teaching, rural
education, mixed methods
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 341
RESUMEN
Fomentar la expresión oral en inglés sigue siendo un desafío en entornos rurales, donde los
recursos tecnológicos, las oportunidades de interacción y la práctica comunicativa son escasos ya
que el propósito de esta investigación fue examinar la conexión entre las estrategias lúdicas
interactivas y el progreso de la expresión oral en los alumnos de octavo grado del plantel educativo
Tufiño que se encuentra en la provincia del Carchi, Ecuador, entonces se empleó un diseño
diagnóstico no experimental y transversal, que se caracteriza por su enfoque cuantitativo y la
incorporación de pruebas cualitativas. 37 alumnos y dos profesores de inglés tomaron parte a
través de un censo. La información fue adquirida a través de un cuestionario para estudiantes
compuesto por 16 ítems, un examen de expresión oral, listas de observación y una consulta con
maestros; tres expertos revisaron los instrumentos mientras que los resultados revelaron que
aunque el trabajo en grupo era común (91,89 %) la utilización frecuente de trabalenguas (13,51
%), adivinanzas (18,92 %), juegos de rol (8,11 %) y competiciones de deletreo (21,62 %) era
escasa. El 70,27 % de los alumnos informó que hace pausas frecuentes al hablar; solamente el
27,03 % dijo que se comunica con fluidez y el 35,14 % expresó que habla con precisión porque
de acuerdo con los resultados de la prueba diagnóstica el 54,05 % se encontraba en A1 en
desarrollo, el 29,73 % en Pre-A1 y el 16,22 % en A1 consolidado pues además, el 81.08% optó
por juegos de rol o competiciones en grupo y se determina que la institución cuenta con una base
colaborativa significativa, pero necesita incluir de manera más sistemática, contextual y evaluable
actividades lúdicas enfocadas en la producción oral.
Palabras clave: estrategias lúdicas, expresión oral, enseñanza del inglés, educación rural,
métodos mixtos
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
RESUMEN
Fomentar la expresión oral en inglés sigue siendo un desafío en entornos rurales, donde los
recursos tecnológicos, las oportunidades de interacción y la práctica comunicativa son escasos ya
que el propósito de esta investigación fue examinar la conexión entre las estrategias lúdicas
interactivas y el progreso de la expresión oral en los alumnos de octavo grado del plantel educativo
Tufiño que se encuentra en la provincia del Carchi, Ecuador, entonces se empleó un diseño
diagnóstico no experimental y transversal, que se caracteriza por su enfoque cuantitativo y la
incorporación de pruebas cualitativas. 37 alumnos y dos profesores de inglés tomaron parte a
través de un censo. La información fue adquirida a través de un cuestionario para estudiantes
compuesto por 16 ítems, un examen de expresión oral, listas de observación y una consulta con
maestros; tres expertos revisaron los instrumentos mientras que los resultados revelaron que
aunque el trabajo en grupo era común (91,89 %) la utilización frecuente de trabalenguas (13,51
%), adivinanzas (18,92 %), juegos de rol (8,11 %) y competiciones de deletreo (21,62 %) era
escasa. El 70,27 % de los alumnos informó que hace pausas frecuentes al hablar; solamente el
27,03 % dijo que se comunica con fluidez y el 35,14 % expresó que habla con precisión porque
de acuerdo con los resultados de la prueba diagnóstica el 54,05 % se encontraba en A1 en
desarrollo, el 29,73 % en Pre-A1 y el 16,22 % en A1 consolidado pues además, el 81.08% optó
por juegos de rol o competiciones en grupo y se determina que la institución cuenta con una base
colaborativa significativa, pero necesita incluir de manera más sistemática, contextual y evaluable
actividades lúdicas enfocadas en la producción oral.
Palabras clave: estrategias lúdicas, expresión oral, enseñanza del inglés, educación rural,
métodos mixtos
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. 342
INTRODUCTION
Speaking is one of the most visible outcomes of foreign-language learning because it
requires learners to retrieve vocabulary, organize ideas, select grammatical structures, manage
pronunciation, and respond to an interlocutor almost simultaneously. In contrast to merely
reproducing isolated forms, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
places a strong emphasis on intentional communication and the learner's capacity to act through
language (Council of Europe, 2020). The national English curriculum in Ecuador also encourages
the integrated development of language skills and communicative ability (Ministerio de
Educación del Ecuador, 2016). However, the inclusion of communicative objectives in formal
documents does not ensure ongoing classroom speaking opportunities.
Oral development requires a balanced combination of meaning-focused input, meaning-
focused output, deliberate attention to language, and fluency practice (Newton & Nation, 2020).
In early proficiency levels, students need predictable support, repeated opportunities, and tasks
that make communication achievable without reducing it to mechanical repetition (Pérez et al.,
2025). Communicative Language Teaching therefore places interaction, negotiation of meaning,
and functional language use at the center of classroom practice (Richards, 2006). When students
mainly copy rules, translate sentences, or answer short display questions, they may acquire
declarative knowledge but still hesitate when they need to produce an extended message.
The challenge is especially relevant in rural schools. Limited connectivity, scarce
specialized spaces, restricted access to devices, and heterogeneous prior learning can narrow the
range of activities that teachers are able to implement. Recent evidence from Ecuadorian teachers
shows that limited instructional time, an emphasis on grammar and writing, low motivation, and
uneven resources continue to affect speaking instruction (Guerrero Rodríguez & Moreira
Baquerizo, 2025). It's not only a technical issue Carefully planned pair work, role play
information-gap tasks, storytelling, competitions, and low-cost oral games can increase classroom
engagement even in the absence of technology (Yanez et al., 2026).
Because interactive playful tactics provide learners with a clear goal, rules reasonable
hurdles, and instantaneous social feedback, they provide a practical way to increase engagement
(Román & Rodríguez, 2025). Although results depend on pedagogical design rather than just
points or competition, gamification research has typically showed positive benefits on learning,
motivation, and behavior (Bai et al., 2020; Sailer & Homner, 2020) and the quantity and caliber
of meaningful language that a game produces is more valuable in language classes than the game's
name. While the teacher offers scaffolding and feedback, a well-designed activity should require
students to share knowledge, make decisions, reformulate ideas, and listen to peers.
Role play is particularly relevant because it places language within recognizable
situations and enables students to rehearse social meanings before speaking more spontaneously.
INTRODUCTION
Speaking is one of the most visible outcomes of foreign-language learning because it
requires learners to retrieve vocabulary, organize ideas, select grammatical structures, manage
pronunciation, and respond to an interlocutor almost simultaneously. In contrast to merely
reproducing isolated forms, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
places a strong emphasis on intentional communication and the learner's capacity to act through
language (Council of Europe, 2020). The national English curriculum in Ecuador also encourages
the integrated development of language skills and communicative ability (Ministerio de
Educación del Ecuador, 2016). However, the inclusion of communicative objectives in formal
documents does not ensure ongoing classroom speaking opportunities.
Oral development requires a balanced combination of meaning-focused input, meaning-
focused output, deliberate attention to language, and fluency practice (Newton & Nation, 2020).
In early proficiency levels, students need predictable support, repeated opportunities, and tasks
that make communication achievable without reducing it to mechanical repetition (Pérez et al.,
2025). Communicative Language Teaching therefore places interaction, negotiation of meaning,
and functional language use at the center of classroom practice (Richards, 2006). When students
mainly copy rules, translate sentences, or answer short display questions, they may acquire
declarative knowledge but still hesitate when they need to produce an extended message.
The challenge is especially relevant in rural schools. Limited connectivity, scarce
specialized spaces, restricted access to devices, and heterogeneous prior learning can narrow the
range of activities that teachers are able to implement. Recent evidence from Ecuadorian teachers
shows that limited instructional time, an emphasis on grammar and writing, low motivation, and
uneven resources continue to affect speaking instruction (Guerrero Rodríguez & Moreira
Baquerizo, 2025). It's not only a technical issue Carefully planned pair work, role play
information-gap tasks, storytelling, competitions, and low-cost oral games can increase classroom
engagement even in the absence of technology (Yanez et al., 2026).
Because interactive playful tactics provide learners with a clear goal, rules reasonable
hurdles, and instantaneous social feedback, they provide a practical way to increase engagement
(Román & Rodríguez, 2025). Although results depend on pedagogical design rather than just
points or competition, gamification research has typically showed positive benefits on learning,
motivation, and behavior (Bai et al., 2020; Sailer & Homner, 2020) and the quantity and caliber
of meaningful language that a game produces is more valuable in language classes than the game's
name. While the teacher offers scaffolding and feedback, a well-designed activity should require
students to share knowledge, make decisions, reformulate ideas, and listen to peers.
Role play is particularly relevant because it places language within recognizable
situations and enables students to rehearse social meanings before speaking more spontaneously.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 343
Experimental evidence has shown that role-play techniques can increase speaking performance
when learners receive preparation, clear roles, and opportunities to repeat the task (Krebt, 2017).
Ecuadorian research has also highlighted the contribution of playful activities to vocabulary,
participation, and oral communication in basic education (Paredes Reascos et al., 2024). However,
activities can lose their communicative value when they are used occasionally, without
progression, or only as entertainment at the end of a lesson.
At Tufiño High School, the thesis diagnosis identified a contrast between the expected
communicative orientation of English education and the limited regular use of specific playful
strategies. Eighth-grade students were exposed to group work, but they had fewer opportunities
to participate in role plays, riddles, tongue twisters, and spelling contests. Additionally, their
speech performance displayed hesitancy, limited vocabulary, low fluency, and pronunciation
issues. Therefore, the local context required more than just a broad advice to "use games" and it
required proof of the tactics that were already in place the speaking dimensions that were most
vulnerable and the activities that instructors and students thought were practical.
Thus, the study sought to answer the following question and what is the relationship
between interactive playful tactics and the growth of English-speaking abilities among Tufiño
High School eighth-grade students? Using data from student surveys a diagnostic test, classroom
observations and instructor perspectives, the goal was to examine the relationship between
students' speaking growth and the reported use and perceived use of playful tactics. The study did
not attempt to prove causal impact because the design was cross-sectional and non-experimental.
Rather it sought to create a contextualized diagnostic baseline for future pedagogical guides and
interventions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research design
The study used a diagnostic, non-experimental, and cross-sectional design with a
predominantly quantitative orientation and complementary qualitative interpretation. The mixed-
method logic was appropriate because the research combined numerical patterns from student
responses and speaking scores with contextual information from structured classroom observation
and teacher perspectives. The purpose of integration was not to create two independent studies,
but to explain how reported classroom practices, observable conditions, and oral performance
converged within one rural school setting (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The design was
exploratory and descriptive. It characterized the frequency and perceived usefulness of interactive
playful strategies, documented students’ speaking profiles, and examined the association reported
in the thesis between the two constructs. No treatment was randomly assigned, no control group
was established, and all information was collected during the 2025-2026 academic year.
Experimental evidence has shown that role-play techniques can increase speaking performance
when learners receive preparation, clear roles, and opportunities to repeat the task (Krebt, 2017).
Ecuadorian research has also highlighted the contribution of playful activities to vocabulary,
participation, and oral communication in basic education (Paredes Reascos et al., 2024). However,
activities can lose their communicative value when they are used occasionally, without
progression, or only as entertainment at the end of a lesson.
At Tufiño High School, the thesis diagnosis identified a contrast between the expected
communicative orientation of English education and the limited regular use of specific playful
strategies. Eighth-grade students were exposed to group work, but they had fewer opportunities
to participate in role plays, riddles, tongue twisters, and spelling contests. Additionally, their
speech performance displayed hesitancy, limited vocabulary, low fluency, and pronunciation
issues. Therefore, the local context required more than just a broad advice to "use games" and it
required proof of the tactics that were already in place the speaking dimensions that were most
vulnerable and the activities that instructors and students thought were practical.
Thus, the study sought to answer the following question and what is the relationship
between interactive playful tactics and the growth of English-speaking abilities among Tufiño
High School eighth-grade students? Using data from student surveys a diagnostic test, classroom
observations and instructor perspectives, the goal was to examine the relationship between
students' speaking growth and the reported use and perceived use of playful tactics. The study did
not attempt to prove causal impact because the design was cross-sectional and non-experimental.
Rather it sought to create a contextualized diagnostic baseline for future pedagogical guides and
interventions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research design
The study used a diagnostic, non-experimental, and cross-sectional design with a
predominantly quantitative orientation and complementary qualitative interpretation. The mixed-
method logic was appropriate because the research combined numerical patterns from student
responses and speaking scores with contextual information from structured classroom observation
and teacher perspectives. The purpose of integration was not to create two independent studies,
but to explain how reported classroom practices, observable conditions, and oral performance
converged within one rural school setting (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The design was
exploratory and descriptive. It characterized the frequency and perceived usefulness of interactive
playful strategies, documented students’ speaking profiles, and examined the association reported
in the thesis between the two constructs. No treatment was randomly assigned, no control group
was established, and all information was collected during the 2025-2026 academic year.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 344
Consequently, the term relationship is used throughout this article instead of impact whenever the
evidence does not support causal inference.
Context and participants
The study was carried out at Tufiño High School, a rural school in Tulcán Canton,
Ecuador's Carchi Province. All 37 eighth-graders—18 in parallel A and 19 in parallel B made up
the target population and the pupils' ages ranged from 12 to 13 although a census was employed
instead of a probabilistic sampling because the group was small and easily accessible.
Additionally two English teachers took part to share information regarding pedagogical priorities
and current methods because the student cohort (n = 37) served as the main quantitative analytic
unit; teacher replies (n = 2) were evaluated descriptively and were not extrapolated outside of the
institution.
Table 1
Participants, data sources, and analytical purpose
Participants/source n Instrument Purpose
Eighth-grade
students 37 16-item
questionnaire
Frequency, perceived usefulness,
speaking self-report, and preferred
strategies
Eighth-grade
students 37 Diagnostic
speaking test
Classification into Pre-A1,
developing A1, or consolidated A1
English classes Observed
sessions
Two structured
checklists
Physical resources and pedagogical
processes
English teachers 2 Structured
consultation
Current use, perceived effectiveness,
and speaking difficulties
Note. The student cohort was studied through a census. Teacher information is contextual because the number of
respondents was two.
Instruments
The student questionnaire contained 16 closed-ended items. Items 1-8 addressed
exposure to or perceptions of interactive playful strategies, including general interactive activities,
riddles, role plays, group games, team competitions, group work, tongue twisters, and spelling
contests. Items 9-15 explored speaking indicators such as pauses, clarity, organization, fluency,
pronunciation, sentence structure, and vocabulary. A four-point Likert-type scale was used to
collect responses and 4 = always, 3 = almost usually, 2 = occasionally, and 1 = never because
students were asked to choose the approach they thought would be best for speaking development
in item 16.
Three global levels of performance were identified by the diagnostic speaking test and
students who could respond with entire phrases, appropriate basic vocabulary, generally clear
pronunciation, and basic fluency were described in Consolidated A1. Short or insufficient answers
that were still comprehensible but needed repetition or visual assistance were reported in
Developing A1. Pre-A1 reported isolated words, frequent blending of Spanish and English,
imprecise pronunciation, poor comprehension and continuous assistance. Although the
descriptors were locally customized and should not be regarded as an official standardized CEFR
Consequently, the term relationship is used throughout this article instead of impact whenever the
evidence does not support causal inference.
Context and participants
The study was carried out at Tufiño High School, a rural school in Tulcán Canton,
Ecuador's Carchi Province. All 37 eighth-graders—18 in parallel A and 19 in parallel B made up
the target population and the pupils' ages ranged from 12 to 13 although a census was employed
instead of a probabilistic sampling because the group was small and easily accessible.
Additionally two English teachers took part to share information regarding pedagogical priorities
and current methods because the student cohort (n = 37) served as the main quantitative analytic
unit; teacher replies (n = 2) were evaluated descriptively and were not extrapolated outside of the
institution.
Table 1
Participants, data sources, and analytical purpose
Participants/source n Instrument Purpose
Eighth-grade
students 37 16-item
questionnaire
Frequency, perceived usefulness,
speaking self-report, and preferred
strategies
Eighth-grade
students 37 Diagnostic
speaking test
Classification into Pre-A1,
developing A1, or consolidated A1
English classes Observed
sessions
Two structured
checklists
Physical resources and pedagogical
processes
English teachers 2 Structured
consultation
Current use, perceived effectiveness,
and speaking difficulties
Note. The student cohort was studied through a census. Teacher information is contextual because the number of
respondents was two.
Instruments
The student questionnaire contained 16 closed-ended items. Items 1-8 addressed
exposure to or perceptions of interactive playful strategies, including general interactive activities,
riddles, role plays, group games, team competitions, group work, tongue twisters, and spelling
contests. Items 9-15 explored speaking indicators such as pauses, clarity, organization, fluency,
pronunciation, sentence structure, and vocabulary. A four-point Likert-type scale was used to
collect responses and 4 = always, 3 = almost usually, 2 = occasionally, and 1 = never because
students were asked to choose the approach they thought would be best for speaking development
in item 16.
Three global levels of performance were identified by the diagnostic speaking test and
students who could respond with entire phrases, appropriate basic vocabulary, generally clear
pronunciation, and basic fluency were described in Consolidated A1. Short or insufficient answers
that were still comprehensible but needed repetition or visual assistance were reported in
Developing A1. Pre-A1 reported isolated words, frequent blending of Spanish and English,
imprecise pronunciation, poor comprehension and continuous assistance. Although the
descriptors were locally customized and should not be regarded as an official standardized CEFR
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 345
certification, they were understood in relation to early CEFR proficiency (Council of Europe,
2020).
There were two checklists utilized for observations and lesson connection,
communication of objectives, motivation, active participation, technology use, formative
assessment, playful activities, collaborative work, speaking practice and lesson closure were all
covered in the first, while the second focused on the physical environment and resource
availability. Fifteen scaled statements and one preference item were included in the teacher
consultation. It examined how gamification, role-playing, cooperative communication, team
competitions, icebreakers, tongue twisters, spelling exercises and speaking cues were viewed.
Validity, reliability, and data quality
Expert judgment was used to find content and response-process evidence and item
correspondence, representativeness, and wording were examined by three postgraduate experts in
applied linguistics, English education, and language instruction. Their observations led to
revisions in several questions, especially those that used abstract terminology or duplicated
speaking indicators. This process is consistent with the view that validity concerns the
defensibility of interpretations made from survey scores in a specific context rather than a
permanent property of an instrument (Hill et al., 2022).
The thesis reports that a pilot application involved 73% of the population and that
Cronbach’s alpha was selected to examine internal consistency. However, the numerical
coefficient and item-level pilot database were not included in the manuscript supplied for this
article. In keeping with transparent reporting, no alpha value is invented or inferred here. Internal
consistency should be recalculated and reported from the final analytic dataset before journal
submission, because alpha must be interpreted in relation to scale dimensionality and item content
(Tavakol & Dennick, 2011; Zakariya, 2022).
Procedure and analysis
The thirty-seven students got the questionnaire in person. Everything was done according
to the rules, for informed consent and the school said it was okay. This way of doing things worked
well because the students did not usually use their mobile devices at school and the internet
connection was not very good. The Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador said this in 2025. Then
the two teachers finished talking to the students using a task to see how well they could speak and
they used checklists to observe the students. The teachers used the speaking task and the
observation checklists to finish the consultation with the thirty seven students.
For every option on the questionnaire, percentages and frequencies were computed.
Almost always and always were combined for interpretive summaries. This combined % was
deemed favorable in items that represented a desirable speaking outcome. The same combined %
indicated a problem signal in the pauses item and level and percentage summaries of the
certification, they were understood in relation to early CEFR proficiency (Council of Europe,
2020).
There were two checklists utilized for observations and lesson connection,
communication of objectives, motivation, active participation, technology use, formative
assessment, playful activities, collaborative work, speaking practice and lesson closure were all
covered in the first, while the second focused on the physical environment and resource
availability. Fifteen scaled statements and one preference item were included in the teacher
consultation. It examined how gamification, role-playing, cooperative communication, team
competitions, icebreakers, tongue twisters, spelling exercises and speaking cues were viewed.
Validity, reliability, and data quality
Expert judgment was used to find content and response-process evidence and item
correspondence, representativeness, and wording were examined by three postgraduate experts in
applied linguistics, English education, and language instruction. Their observations led to
revisions in several questions, especially those that used abstract terminology or duplicated
speaking indicators. This process is consistent with the view that validity concerns the
defensibility of interpretations made from survey scores in a specific context rather than a
permanent property of an instrument (Hill et al., 2022).
The thesis reports that a pilot application involved 73% of the population and that
Cronbach’s alpha was selected to examine internal consistency. However, the numerical
coefficient and item-level pilot database were not included in the manuscript supplied for this
article. In keeping with transparent reporting, no alpha value is invented or inferred here. Internal
consistency should be recalculated and reported from the final analytic dataset before journal
submission, because alpha must be interpreted in relation to scale dimensionality and item content
(Tavakol & Dennick, 2011; Zakariya, 2022).
Procedure and analysis
The thirty-seven students got the questionnaire in person. Everything was done according
to the rules, for informed consent and the school said it was okay. This way of doing things worked
well because the students did not usually use their mobile devices at school and the internet
connection was not very good. The Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador said this in 2025. Then
the two teachers finished talking to the students using a task to see how well they could speak and
they used checklists to observe the students. The teachers used the speaking task and the
observation checklists to finish the consultation with the thirty seven students.
For every option on the questionnaire, percentages and frequencies were computed.
Almost always and always were combined for interpretive summaries. This combined % was
deemed favorable in items that represented a desirable speaking outcome. The same combined %
indicated a problem signal in the pauses item and level and percentage summaries of the
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 346
diagnostic test results were provided. Student outcomes were triangulated with teacher comments
and observations.
The thesis reports a Pearson product-moment correlation of r = .88 between a composite
score for playful strategies and a composite speaking score. The coefficient was retained as a
reported result, but raw paired scores, confidence intervals, and the exact item-composition rules
were not available for independent verification. It is therefore interpreted cautiously as a strong
association within this cohort, not as proof that playful strategies caused higher speaking
performance.
Ethical considerations
It was entirely voluntary to participate and students were given age-appropriate
information regarding the objective and procedures, and parents or legal guardians were sought
for their informed consent. Anonymity safe data processing, nondiscrimination and the separation
of the researcher's teaching function from participation decisions were all outlined in the research
strategy. Participation was not to have an impact on students' grades or how they were treated in
class. These safeguards were particularly important because the participants were minors and the
researcher also worked within the educational setting.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Use and perceived usefulness of interactive playful strategies
The first group of items revealed an uneven instructional profile. General interactive
activities received 70.27% favorable responses, and group work was the most established practice,
with 91.89% of students indicating that it occurred always or almost always. Students also valued
group games: 62.16% believed that they facilitated oral production. In contrast, specific speaking-
oriented techniques were rarely used. Only 8.11% reported frequent role play, 18.92% frequent
riddles, 13.51% frequent tongue twisters, and 21.62% frequent spelling contests. Team
competitions occupied an intermediate position: 45.95% considered them useful, while 54.05%
selected sometimes or never.
Table 2
Student reports on interactive playful strategies (n = 37)
Item/strategy Type of item
Always or
almost always
(%)
Sometimes or
never (%)
Main
interpretation
Interactive
activities
Reported
exposure 70.27 29.73 Generally
present
Riddles Reported
exposure 18.92 81.08 Infrequent
Role plays Reported
exposure 8.11 91.89 Very infrequent
Group games Perceived
usefulness 62.16 37.84 Mostly valued
Team competitions Perceived
usefulness 45.95 54.05 Mixed appraisal
diagnostic test results were provided. Student outcomes were triangulated with teacher comments
and observations.
The thesis reports a Pearson product-moment correlation of r = .88 between a composite
score for playful strategies and a composite speaking score. The coefficient was retained as a
reported result, but raw paired scores, confidence intervals, and the exact item-composition rules
were not available for independent verification. It is therefore interpreted cautiously as a strong
association within this cohort, not as proof that playful strategies caused higher speaking
performance.
Ethical considerations
It was entirely voluntary to participate and students were given age-appropriate
information regarding the objective and procedures, and parents or legal guardians were sought
for their informed consent. Anonymity safe data processing, nondiscrimination and the separation
of the researcher's teaching function from participation decisions were all outlined in the research
strategy. Participation was not to have an impact on students' grades or how they were treated in
class. These safeguards were particularly important because the participants were minors and the
researcher also worked within the educational setting.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Use and perceived usefulness of interactive playful strategies
The first group of items revealed an uneven instructional profile. General interactive
activities received 70.27% favorable responses, and group work was the most established practice,
with 91.89% of students indicating that it occurred always or almost always. Students also valued
group games: 62.16% believed that they facilitated oral production. In contrast, specific speaking-
oriented techniques were rarely used. Only 8.11% reported frequent role play, 18.92% frequent
riddles, 13.51% frequent tongue twisters, and 21.62% frequent spelling contests. Team
competitions occupied an intermediate position: 45.95% considered them useful, while 54.05%
selected sometimes or never.
Table 2
Student reports on interactive playful strategies (n = 37)
Item/strategy Type of item
Always or
almost always
(%)
Sometimes or
never (%)
Main
interpretation
Interactive
activities
Reported
exposure 70.27 29.73 Generally
present
Riddles Reported
exposure 18.92 81.08 Infrequent
Role plays Reported
exposure 8.11 91.89 Very infrequent
Group games Perceived
usefulness 62.16 37.84 Mostly valued
Team competitions Perceived
usefulness 45.95 54.05 Mixed appraisal
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 347
Group work Reported
exposure 91.89 8.11 Strongest
routine
Tongue twisters Reported
exposure 13.51 86.49 Very infrequent
Spelling contests Reported
exposure 21.62 78.38 Infrequent
Note. Percentages combine the response options always and almost always. Items 4 and 5 measure perceived
usefulness rather than direct classroom frequency.
Figure 1
Favorable responses regarding interactive playful strategies
Note. The figure combines always and almost always responses. Values for group games and team competitions
reflect perceived usefulness; the remaining values reflect reported exposure.
It is crucial from a pedagogical standpoint to contrast regular group work with infrequent
role acting. Meaningful speech engagement is not always produced when students are grouped
together and students can work on written assignments in groups, split up their responses, or rely
on a single, self-assured speaker. When each participant has information a role, or a decision that
necessitates speaking, communicative value arises. This distinction helps explain why kids may
report doing a lot of group work but yet exhibiting hesitancy and poor fluency.
The lack of exposure to particular activities may also indicate that fun tactics were not
arranged in a logical sequence and according to research on gamification, learning is not always
improved by standalone game elements unless they are in line with goals, feedback and learner
needs (Bai et al., 2020; Sailer & Homner, 2020) moreover the goal in this situation is to transform
current collaboration routines into repeating speaking cycles—preparation, initial performance,
feedback, and improved repetition—rather than to maximize the number of games.
Student-reported speaking performance
The speaking indicators showed that oral production remained fragile. Seventy-point-
two-seven percent of students indicated that they always or almost always made many pauses
when speaking English. Only 27.03% reported consistent fluency, and 35.14% reported accurate
pronunciation. Clear expression, organized messages, and appropriate vocabulary each reached
37.84%. Sentence structure was the strongest positive indicator, although only 51.35% reported
Group work Reported
exposure 91.89 8.11 Strongest
routine
Tongue twisters Reported
exposure 13.51 86.49 Very infrequent
Spelling contests Reported
exposure 21.62 78.38 Infrequent
Note. Percentages combine the response options always and almost always. Items 4 and 5 measure perceived
usefulness rather than direct classroom frequency.
Figure 1
Favorable responses regarding interactive playful strategies
Note. The figure combines always and almost always responses. Values for group games and team competitions
reflect perceived usefulness; the remaining values reflect reported exposure.
It is crucial from a pedagogical standpoint to contrast regular group work with infrequent
role acting. Meaningful speech engagement is not always produced when students are grouped
together and students can work on written assignments in groups, split up their responses, or rely
on a single, self-assured speaker. When each participant has information a role, or a decision that
necessitates speaking, communicative value arises. This distinction helps explain why kids may
report doing a lot of group work but yet exhibiting hesitancy and poor fluency.
The lack of exposure to particular activities may also indicate that fun tactics were not
arranged in a logical sequence and according to research on gamification, learning is not always
improved by standalone game elements unless they are in line with goals, feedback and learner
needs (Bai et al., 2020; Sailer & Homner, 2020) moreover the goal in this situation is to transform
current collaboration routines into repeating speaking cycles—preparation, initial performance,
feedback, and improved repetition—rather than to maximize the number of games.
Student-reported speaking performance
The speaking indicators showed that oral production remained fragile. Seventy-point-
two-seven percent of students indicated that they always or almost always made many pauses
when speaking English. Only 27.03% reported consistent fluency, and 35.14% reported accurate
pronunciation. Clear expression, organized messages, and appropriate vocabulary each reached
37.84%. Sentence structure was the strongest positive indicator, although only 51.35% reported
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 348
consistent accuracy. These results suggest that students possessed partial grammatical knowledge
but had difficulty accessing and coordinating it during real-time communication.
Table 3
Student-reported speaking indicators (n = 37)
Speaking indicator Always or almost
always (%)
Sometimes or never
(%) Interpretation
Frequent pauses 70.27 29.73 High difficulty signal
Clear expression 37.84 62.16 Needs strengthening
Organized message 37.84 62.16 Needs strengthening
Fluency 27.03 72.97 Most limited positive
indicator
Accurate pronunciation 35.14 64.86 Needs strengthening
Correct sentence structure 51.35 48.65 Relatively stronger
Appropriate vocabulary 37.84 62.16 Needs strengthening
Note. For frequent pauses, a high percentage represents greater difficulty. For the remaining indicators, a high
percentage represents a favorable self-report.
Figure 2
Always or almost always responses for speaking indicators
Note. Frequent pauses indicate difficulties communicating, which is why the first bar is a negative indicator. The
other bars show the intended speaking results.
The pattern aligns with the cognitive requirements of speaking at a beginning level and
even though they can recognize a phrase pattern when they see it, students may find it difficult to
recall terminology and enunciate sounds fast enough to keep the floor therefore, it is important to
distinguish between first language presentation and fluency practice. Learners need multiple
opportunities to express similar meanings under gradually reduced support, rather than a single
performance that is immediately graded for accuracy (Newton & Nation, 2020).
The stronger result for sentence structure should not be interpreted as evidence of fully
developed grammatical competence. Approximately half of the group still selected sometimes or
never, and the diagnostic descriptions showed short or incomplete responses among many
students. Nevertheless, this relative strength offers an entry point: familiar sentence frames can
consistent accuracy. These results suggest that students possessed partial grammatical knowledge
but had difficulty accessing and coordinating it during real-time communication.
Table 3
Student-reported speaking indicators (n = 37)
Speaking indicator Always or almost
always (%)
Sometimes or never
(%) Interpretation
Frequent pauses 70.27 29.73 High difficulty signal
Clear expression 37.84 62.16 Needs strengthening
Organized message 37.84 62.16 Needs strengthening
Fluency 27.03 72.97 Most limited positive
indicator
Accurate pronunciation 35.14 64.86 Needs strengthening
Correct sentence structure 51.35 48.65 Relatively stronger
Appropriate vocabulary 37.84 62.16 Needs strengthening
Note. For frequent pauses, a high percentage represents greater difficulty. For the remaining indicators, a high
percentage represents a favorable self-report.
Figure 2
Always or almost always responses for speaking indicators
Note. Frequent pauses indicate difficulties communicating, which is why the first bar is a negative indicator. The
other bars show the intended speaking results.
The pattern aligns with the cognitive requirements of speaking at a beginning level and
even though they can recognize a phrase pattern when they see it, students may find it difficult to
recall terminology and enunciate sounds fast enough to keep the floor therefore, it is important to
distinguish between first language presentation and fluency practice. Learners need multiple
opportunities to express similar meanings under gradually reduced support, rather than a single
performance that is immediately graded for accuracy (Newton & Nation, 2020).
The stronger result for sentence structure should not be interpreted as evidence of fully
developed grammatical competence. Approximately half of the group still selected sometimes or
never, and the diagnostic descriptions showed short or incomplete responses among many
students. Nevertheless, this relative strength offers an entry point: familiar sentence frames can
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 349
support role plays and information-gap tasks while students focus on clarity, rhythm, and
vocabulary expansion.
Diagnostic speaking levels
The performance-based diagnostic test confirmed the self-report pattern. Twenty students
(54.05%) were classified at developing A1, 11 (29.73%) at Pre-A1, and six (16.22%) at
consolidated A1. Thus, 31 of 37 students (83.78%) had not yet reached the locally defined
consolidated A1 profile. The largest group could communicate with limited but understandable
language, yet still required repetition, visual support, or additional planning time.
Table 4
Diagnostic speaking levels
Level Performance descriptor Students Percentage
A1
consolidated
Complete basic sentences, appropriate
vocabulary, generally clear pronunciation, basic
fluency, and confident participation
6 16.22
A1
developing
Short or incomplete sentences, limited but
understandable vocabulary, minor
pronunciation/fluency errors, and some support
required
20 54.05
Pre-A1
Isolated words or Spanish-English mixing,
unclear pronunciation, comprehension difficulty,
and constant support required
11 29.73
Total 37 100.00
Note. The categories were locally adapted for the diagnostic instrument and should not be interpreted as an official
CEFR certification.
Figure 3
Distribution of diagnostic speaking levels
Note. Most students were located at developing A1, indicating an emerging capacity to communicate that still
depended on support.
The convergence between the questionnaire and diagnostic test strengthens the practical
interpretation. Students who reported frequent pauses and limited fluency were also
predominantly located in developing A1 or Pre-A1. This convergence does not establish that the
questionnaire is a substitute for performance assessment; rather, it shows that the two data sources
pointed to the same priority: increasing sustained, comprehensible oral production.
support role plays and information-gap tasks while students focus on clarity, rhythm, and
vocabulary expansion.
Diagnostic speaking levels
The performance-based diagnostic test confirmed the self-report pattern. Twenty students
(54.05%) were classified at developing A1, 11 (29.73%) at Pre-A1, and six (16.22%) at
consolidated A1. Thus, 31 of 37 students (83.78%) had not yet reached the locally defined
consolidated A1 profile. The largest group could communicate with limited but understandable
language, yet still required repetition, visual support, or additional planning time.
Table 4
Diagnostic speaking levels
Level Performance descriptor Students Percentage
A1
consolidated
Complete basic sentences, appropriate
vocabulary, generally clear pronunciation, basic
fluency, and confident participation
6 16.22
A1
developing
Short or incomplete sentences, limited but
understandable vocabulary, minor
pronunciation/fluency errors, and some support
required
20 54.05
Pre-A1
Isolated words or Spanish-English mixing,
unclear pronunciation, comprehension difficulty,
and constant support required
11 29.73
Total 37 100.00
Note. The categories were locally adapted for the diagnostic instrument and should not be interpreted as an official
CEFR certification.
Figure 3
Distribution of diagnostic speaking levels
Note. Most students were located at developing A1, indicating an emerging capacity to communicate that still
depended on support.
The convergence between the questionnaire and diagnostic test strengthens the practical
interpretation. Students who reported frequent pauses and limited fluency were also
predominantly located in developing A1 or Pre-A1. This convergence does not establish that the
questionnaire is a substitute for performance assessment; rather, it shows that the two data sources
pointed to the same priority: increasing sustained, comprehensible oral production.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 350
Student preferences, teacher perspectives, and classroom conditions
Students clearly preferred interaction-based strategies. Role play was selected by 19
students (51.35%), and group competitions by 11 (29.73%). Together, these options accounted
for 81.08% of preferences. Riddles were selected by five students (13.51%) and tongue twisters
by two (5.41%). Both teachers also identified role play as the most effective option and gave their
highest ratings to group interaction and collaborative play. At the same time, both teachers rated
student hesitation and pauses at the maximum level, corroborating the student data.
Table 5
Preferred strategies and teacher priorities
Strategy Student
frequency
Student
percentage Teacher evidence
Role play 19 51.35 Selected by both teachers as most
effective
Group
competitions 11 29.73 Viewed as motivating; collaborative
interaction rated highly
Riddles 5 13.51 Lower priority
Tongue twisters 2 5.41 Lowest teacher rating
Total 37 100.00
Note. Teacher evidence is descriptive because only two English teachers participated.
The physical environment observation showed a clean, safe, and adequately ventilated
school, but visible updated resources, specialized laboratories, technology-equipped classrooms,
common areas, student support materials, and a motivating learning climate were observed only
sometimes. This means that pedagogical innovation must be feasible with the resources already
available. Designs that presume one device per student are less realistic than those that use printed
role cards, graphic sequences, locally relevant scenarios, reusable vocabulary strips, classroom
items and teacher-controlled audiovisual resources.
The checklist for teaching methods showed the result and the ten important things were
only seen sometimes. These things like goals, ways to motivate students keeping students
involved using technology checking progress, fun activities learning in groups speaking practice
and wrapping up the class were not always used so the important thing is to be consistent. Having
a lot of ideas that are not used often may not be as good as using a few good ideas every week.
Teaching methods, like these need to be used to be effective. The teaching methods checklist is
important because it helps teachers see what they are doing well and what they need to work on.
Consistency is key when it comes to teaching methods.
Given that the actual exposure to role play was only 8.11% the preference for role play is
particularly significant. Pupils were requesting an activity that they didn't often engage in
moreover this gap is a practical opportunity for educators to transform the current group work
culture into brief controlled speaking exercises. Role play should begin with linguistic scaffolds
and rehearsal, then gradually allow more choice. The positive findings reported by Krebt (2017)
Student preferences, teacher perspectives, and classroom conditions
Students clearly preferred interaction-based strategies. Role play was selected by 19
students (51.35%), and group competitions by 11 (29.73%). Together, these options accounted
for 81.08% of preferences. Riddles were selected by five students (13.51%) and tongue twisters
by two (5.41%). Both teachers also identified role play as the most effective option and gave their
highest ratings to group interaction and collaborative play. At the same time, both teachers rated
student hesitation and pauses at the maximum level, corroborating the student data.
Table 5
Preferred strategies and teacher priorities
Strategy Student
frequency
Student
percentage Teacher evidence
Role play 19 51.35 Selected by both teachers as most
effective
Group
competitions 11 29.73 Viewed as motivating; collaborative
interaction rated highly
Riddles 5 13.51 Lower priority
Tongue twisters 2 5.41 Lowest teacher rating
Total 37 100.00
Note. Teacher evidence is descriptive because only two English teachers participated.
The physical environment observation showed a clean, safe, and adequately ventilated
school, but visible updated resources, specialized laboratories, technology-equipped classrooms,
common areas, student support materials, and a motivating learning climate were observed only
sometimes. This means that pedagogical innovation must be feasible with the resources already
available. Designs that presume one device per student are less realistic than those that use printed
role cards, graphic sequences, locally relevant scenarios, reusable vocabulary strips, classroom
items and teacher-controlled audiovisual resources.
The checklist for teaching methods showed the result and the ten important things were
only seen sometimes. These things like goals, ways to motivate students keeping students
involved using technology checking progress, fun activities learning in groups speaking practice
and wrapping up the class were not always used so the important thing is to be consistent. Having
a lot of ideas that are not used often may not be as good as using a few good ideas every week.
Teaching methods, like these need to be used to be effective. The teaching methods checklist is
important because it helps teachers see what they are doing well and what they need to work on.
Consistency is key when it comes to teaching methods.
Given that the actual exposure to role play was only 8.11% the preference for role play is
particularly significant. Pupils were requesting an activity that they didn't often engage in
moreover this gap is a practical opportunity for educators to transform the current group work
culture into brief controlled speaking exercises. Role play should begin with linguistic scaffolds
and rehearsal, then gradually allow more choice. The positive findings reported by Krebt (2017)
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 351
and the local evidence synthesized by Paredes Reascos et al. (2024) support this direction, while
also reminding educators that improvement depends on repeated practice and feedback.
Reported association and methodological interpretation
The thesis reports a Pearson correlation of r = .88 between composite playful-strategy
and speaking scores, interpreted as a very strong positive relationship. Practically the students
with higher scores on strategy in the cohort usually had higher scores in speaking and this result
confirms the validity of interactive practice as a pedagogical hypothesis and conforms to the
descriptive pattern.
However, the coefficient should not be used as proof that using playful tactics greatly
enhanced speaking. First common-method variance may inflate connections because both
composites were mostly produced from the same self-report instrument. Second, the study was
cross-sectional and did not compare pre-intervention and post-intervention performance. Third,
raw paired data, p values, confidence intervals, and final reliability estimates were not available
in the thesis file used for this article. The scientifically defensible conclusion is therefore that the
study found a strong reported association and a clear contextual need for intervention, not a
demonstrated causal effect.
Pedagogical implications and scientific contribution
The findings support a context-sensitive sequence for future implementation. A brief
model and vocabulary bank may be used at the beginning of a lesson, followed by paired practice,
role-based interaction, peer or instructor feedback, and a second try moreover pronunciation can
be addressed with brief, concentrated practice incorporated into communicative tasks, and fluency
can be increased by repeated speaking on the same subject. Intelligibility, cooperation,
involvement, and message completion should be rewarded in group competitions rather than
merely speed.
The scientific contribution of the work is the triangulated diagnosis of a rural Ecuadorian
environment. This points to a particular mismatch: oral performance remains fragile formal
speaking games are infrequent, and collaborative grouping is widespread. This distinction refines
the standard advice to use ‘interactive strategies’ it shows that interaction needs to be designed so
that each learner produces words, receives feedback and practices the activity again moreover,
the study provides a benchmark for assessing future action-research or quasi-experimental
interventions.
Because it can expand access to communicative practice through low-cost participatory
ways that don't require personal gadgets this suggested strategy is consistent with inclusive and
high-quality education. UNESCO (2020) emphasizes the significance of educator capacity
building and contextualized educational action. In this case, task design, classroom management
for simultaneous speaking, formative assessment, and adaptation for Pre-A1 and emerging A1
students should be the main areas of expert assistance.
and the local evidence synthesized by Paredes Reascos et al. (2024) support this direction, while
also reminding educators that improvement depends on repeated practice and feedback.
Reported association and methodological interpretation
The thesis reports a Pearson correlation of r = .88 between composite playful-strategy
and speaking scores, interpreted as a very strong positive relationship. Practically the students
with higher scores on strategy in the cohort usually had higher scores in speaking and this result
confirms the validity of interactive practice as a pedagogical hypothesis and conforms to the
descriptive pattern.
However, the coefficient should not be used as proof that using playful tactics greatly
enhanced speaking. First common-method variance may inflate connections because both
composites were mostly produced from the same self-report instrument. Second, the study was
cross-sectional and did not compare pre-intervention and post-intervention performance. Third,
raw paired data, p values, confidence intervals, and final reliability estimates were not available
in the thesis file used for this article. The scientifically defensible conclusion is therefore that the
study found a strong reported association and a clear contextual need for intervention, not a
demonstrated causal effect.
Pedagogical implications and scientific contribution
The findings support a context-sensitive sequence for future implementation. A brief
model and vocabulary bank may be used at the beginning of a lesson, followed by paired practice,
role-based interaction, peer or instructor feedback, and a second try moreover pronunciation can
be addressed with brief, concentrated practice incorporated into communicative tasks, and fluency
can be increased by repeated speaking on the same subject. Intelligibility, cooperation,
involvement, and message completion should be rewarded in group competitions rather than
merely speed.
The scientific contribution of the work is the triangulated diagnosis of a rural Ecuadorian
environment. This points to a particular mismatch: oral performance remains fragile formal
speaking games are infrequent, and collaborative grouping is widespread. This distinction refines
the standard advice to use ‘interactive strategies’ it shows that interaction needs to be designed so
that each learner produces words, receives feedback and practices the activity again moreover,
the study provides a benchmark for assessing future action-research or quasi-experimental
interventions.
Because it can expand access to communicative practice through low-cost participatory
ways that don't require personal gadgets this suggested strategy is consistent with inclusive and
high-quality education. UNESCO (2020) emphasizes the significance of educator capacity
building and contextualized educational action. In this case, task design, classroom management
for simultaneous speaking, formative assessment, and adaptation for Pre-A1 and emerging A1
students should be the main areas of expert assistance.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 352
Limitations
There are some limitations in the interpretation of the results and the results are context
specific since the study only included one school and a small census. The instructor component
only had two participants. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the last part was not available and
a large part of the student evidence was self-reported. The diagnostic rubric was locally developed
and not standardized and the observation record did not provide enough information about the
number and duration of sessions. Finally, the correlation could not be independently reproduced
from raw data. These limitations do not invalidate the diagnostic value of the study, but they
restrict generalization and causal interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS
The study established that interactive practice existed at Tufiño High School, but it was
concentrated in general group work rather than in systematic speaking-oriented playful strategies.
Group work was reported by 91.89% of students as frequent, whereas role play, riddles, tongue
twisters, and spelling contests were used regularly by fewer than one quarter of the cohort. The
findings therefore do not indicate an absence of collaboration; they indicate that collaboration
was not consistently transformed into purposeful oral production.
Students’ speaking development required targeted support. Frequent pauses affected
70.27% of the cohort, and favorable self-reports for fluency, pronunciation, clarity, organization,
and vocabulary remained low. The diagnostic test reinforced this conclusion: 54.05% were at
developing A1 and 29.73% at Pre-A1, while only 16.22% met the locally defined consolidated
A1 profile. The group possessed an emerging base, but most students still needed scaffolding,
repetition, visual support, and more time to formulate messages.
Role play and group competitions offer the strongest starting point because they were
preferred by 81.08% of students, and both teachers selected role play as the most effective
strategy. These activities should not be introduced as occasional entertainment. They ought to be
a part of a planned sequence that incorporates feedback, repeated performance, equal
participation, communicative purpose and language preparation. Even in a situation with limited
resources, this shift can be made possible by existing group-work processes.
Although the non-experimental design does not show a causal impact, the reported
Pearson coefficient (r =.88) indicates a strong correlation between speaking scores and playful-
strategy scores. Future research should use a transparent analytical database compare performance
before and after the intervention, report full reliability evidence and apply the suggested guide
over a predetermined time period. Stronger proof of change would come from a comparison group
or a meticulously recorded classroom action-research cycle.
Overall, the study provides a useful diagnostic baseline and a useful direction for
instructional improvement. The principal proposal is a long-term, low cost, context-sensitive
Limitations
There are some limitations in the interpretation of the results and the results are context
specific since the study only included one school and a small census. The instructor component
only had two participants. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the last part was not available and
a large part of the student evidence was self-reported. The diagnostic rubric was locally developed
and not standardized and the observation record did not provide enough information about the
number and duration of sessions. Finally, the correlation could not be independently reproduced
from raw data. These limitations do not invalidate the diagnostic value of the study, but they
restrict generalization and causal interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS
The study established that interactive practice existed at Tufiño High School, but it was
concentrated in general group work rather than in systematic speaking-oriented playful strategies.
Group work was reported by 91.89% of students as frequent, whereas role play, riddles, tongue
twisters, and spelling contests were used regularly by fewer than one quarter of the cohort. The
findings therefore do not indicate an absence of collaboration; they indicate that collaboration
was not consistently transformed into purposeful oral production.
Students’ speaking development required targeted support. Frequent pauses affected
70.27% of the cohort, and favorable self-reports for fluency, pronunciation, clarity, organization,
and vocabulary remained low. The diagnostic test reinforced this conclusion: 54.05% were at
developing A1 and 29.73% at Pre-A1, while only 16.22% met the locally defined consolidated
A1 profile. The group possessed an emerging base, but most students still needed scaffolding,
repetition, visual support, and more time to formulate messages.
Role play and group competitions offer the strongest starting point because they were
preferred by 81.08% of students, and both teachers selected role play as the most effective
strategy. These activities should not be introduced as occasional entertainment. They ought to be
a part of a planned sequence that incorporates feedback, repeated performance, equal
participation, communicative purpose and language preparation. Even in a situation with limited
resources, this shift can be made possible by existing group-work processes.
Although the non-experimental design does not show a causal impact, the reported
Pearson coefficient (r =.88) indicates a strong correlation between speaking scores and playful-
strategy scores. Future research should use a transparent analytical database compare performance
before and after the intervention, report full reliability evidence and apply the suggested guide
over a predetermined time period. Stronger proof of change would come from a comparison group
or a meticulously recorded classroom action-research cycle.
Overall, the study provides a useful diagnostic baseline and a useful direction for
instructional improvement. The principal proposal is a long-term, low cost, context-sensitive
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 353
program of speaking activities which emphasize role-playing, group problem-solving and
organized competitions. Its success should be evaluated through performance rubrics that capture
fluency, intelligibility, vocabulary, grammatical control, and the ability to maintain interaction.
program of speaking activities which emphasize role-playing, group problem-solving and
organized competitions. Its success should be evaluated through performance rubrics that capture
fluency, intelligibility, vocabulary, grammatical control, and the ability to maintain interaction.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 354
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. A. M. (2021). A gamification program to enhance speaking skills of EFL secondary
stage students and their motivation towards learning these skills. Journal of the Faculty of
Education–Mansoura University, 116(3), 21–43.
Aftinia, F., Munir, A., Nugroho, H. A., & Lutfi, A. (2025). Game-based learning in an EFL
English club: Insights into speaking skills and self-efficacy development. TEM Journal,
14(3), 2431–2441.
Arzhangi, M., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2025). The impact of game-based learning on EFL learners’
buoyancy, directed motivational currents, and language learning. International Journal of
Instruction, 18(1), 675–690.
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome?
Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts.
Educational Research Review, 30, 100322.
Benlaghrissi, H., & Ouahidi, L. M. (2024). The impact of mobile-assisted project-based learning
on developing EFL students’ speaking skills. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article
18.
Bennacer, F. (2022). Playing online video games as a learning strategy to enhance EFL learners’
speaking skill. Milev Journal of Research and Studies, 8(1), 391–402.
Chadafi, M. (2023). The use of game-based learning on students’ speaking skill and speaking
anxiety: An experimental research at seventh grade of MTs YASMU. Journal of English
Education and Technology, 4(1), 43–57.
Chan, S., & Lo, N. (2024). Enhancing EFL/ESL instruction through gamification: A
comprehensive review of empirical evidence. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1395155.
Cheng, J., Zhang, L., & Yan, G. (2025). Effects of gamification on EFL learning: A quasi-
experimental study of reading proficiency and language enjoyment among Chinese
undergraduates. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1448916.
Hernández-Chérrez, E., Hidalgo-Camacho, C., & Escobar, P. (2021). Communication games:
Their contribution to developing speaking skills. International Journal of Instruction,
14(4), 643–658.
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, C.-C. (2025). A self-determination theory-based digital gaming approach
to enhancing EFL learners’ competence in applying professional English. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 73, 1205–1223.
Ismayilli, T. M., Mammadova, S., & Huseynova, A. (2025). The impact of educational games on
speaking skills in the foreign language teaching process. International Journal of
Education and Literacy Studies, 13(2), 230–241.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. A. M. (2021). A gamification program to enhance speaking skills of EFL secondary
stage students and their motivation towards learning these skills. Journal of the Faculty of
Education–Mansoura University, 116(3), 21–43.
Aftinia, F., Munir, A., Nugroho, H. A., & Lutfi, A. (2025). Game-based learning in an EFL
English club: Insights into speaking skills and self-efficacy development. TEM Journal,
14(3), 2431–2441.
Arzhangi, M., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2025). The impact of game-based learning on EFL learners’
buoyancy, directed motivational currents, and language learning. International Journal of
Instruction, 18(1), 675–690.
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome?
Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts.
Educational Research Review, 30, 100322.
Benlaghrissi, H., & Ouahidi, L. M. (2024). The impact of mobile-assisted project-based learning
on developing EFL students’ speaking skills. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article
18.
Bennacer, F. (2022). Playing online video games as a learning strategy to enhance EFL learners’
speaking skill. Milev Journal of Research and Studies, 8(1), 391–402.
Chadafi, M. (2023). The use of game-based learning on students’ speaking skill and speaking
anxiety: An experimental research at seventh grade of MTs YASMU. Journal of English
Education and Technology, 4(1), 43–57.
Chan, S., & Lo, N. (2024). Enhancing EFL/ESL instruction through gamification: A
comprehensive review of empirical evidence. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1395155.
Cheng, J., Zhang, L., & Yan, G. (2025). Effects of gamification on EFL learning: A quasi-
experimental study of reading proficiency and language enjoyment among Chinese
undergraduates. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1448916.
Hernández-Chérrez, E., Hidalgo-Camacho, C., & Escobar, P. (2021). Communication games:
Their contribution to developing speaking skills. International Journal of Instruction,
14(4), 643–658.
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, C.-C. (2025). A self-determination theory-based digital gaming approach
to enhancing EFL learners’ competence in applying professional English. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 73, 1205–1223.
Ismayilli, T. M., Mammadova, S., & Huseynova, A. (2025). The impact of educational games on
speaking skills in the foreign language teaching process. International Journal of
Education and Literacy Studies, 13(2), 230–241.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 355
Kamal, M. A. A., & Khaidzir, M. F. S. (2025). From silent to speaking: Reducing speaking
anxiety in low-proficiency ESL learners through game-based learning. Arab World English
Journal, 16(4), 257–276.
Li, M., Ma, S., & Shi, Y. (2023). Examining the effectiveness of gamification as a tool promoting
teaching and learning in educational settings: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology,
14, Article 1253549.
Malgazhdarova, D. A., Kenzhetayeva, G. K., & Mirici, İ. H. (2024). Application of
communicative game-based learning project “Aengime” for teaching grammar in EFL
classrooms. Novitas-ROYAL: Research on Youth and Language, 18(2), 131–145.
Marin-Pacurucu, B. A., & Argudo-Garzón, A. L. (2022). Gamification strategies and speaking
fluency in EFL elementary students. Iustitia Socialis, 7(1), 77–95.
Pérez, I. del P. L., Lema, C. E. P., Balcázar, R. N. L., Masabanda, C. S. M., & Cunalata, M. E. B.
(2025). Propuesta conceptual de un modelo pedagógico contextualizado para mejorar la
motivación en la enseñanza del inglés. Revista Veritas de Difusão Científica, 6(3), 4590-
4621. https://doi.org/10.61616/rvdc.v6i3.1168
Pittayanantakul, N., & Phusawisot, P. (2024). The effect of board games on speaking skills of
Thai EFL primary students. Journal of Education and Learning, 13(6), 227–242.
Robles Juárez, A. K., & Cango Patiño, A. E. (2025). Gamified learning for enhancing English
speaking skills among A1 learners at FineTuned English Language Institute. Ciencia
Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 9(2), 407–422.
Román, M. G. M., & Rodríguez, J. G. S. (2025). El juego como estrategia lúdica para fortalecer
el aprendizaje de la química en bachillerato: The game as a playful strategy to strengthen
chemistry learning in high school. LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales
y Humanidades, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v6i2.3778
Saha, S. K., Singh, S., & Singh, R. (2021). Investigating the development of speaking skill
through language games in an EFL context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
12(5), 792–801.
Saptiany, S. G., Sari, D. M. M., & Widiati, U. (2025). Gamification with natural language
processing: A pathway to improved English speaking for EFL students. Celtic: A Journal
of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics, 12(2).
Shen, Z., Jiang, L., & Chen, M. (2024). Investigating the influence of gamification on motivation
and language learning achievement among Chinese EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology,
15, Article 1295709.
Yan, W., Lowell, V. L., & Yang, L. (2024). Developing English language learners’ speaking
skills through applying a situated learning approach in VR-enhanced learning experiences.
Virtual Reality, 28, Article 167.
Kamal, M. A. A., & Khaidzir, M. F. S. (2025). From silent to speaking: Reducing speaking
anxiety in low-proficiency ESL learners through game-based learning. Arab World English
Journal, 16(4), 257–276.
Li, M., Ma, S., & Shi, Y. (2023). Examining the effectiveness of gamification as a tool promoting
teaching and learning in educational settings: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology,
14, Article 1253549.
Malgazhdarova, D. A., Kenzhetayeva, G. K., & Mirici, İ. H. (2024). Application of
communicative game-based learning project “Aengime” for teaching grammar in EFL
classrooms. Novitas-ROYAL: Research on Youth and Language, 18(2), 131–145.
Marin-Pacurucu, B. A., & Argudo-Garzón, A. L. (2022). Gamification strategies and speaking
fluency in EFL elementary students. Iustitia Socialis, 7(1), 77–95.
Pérez, I. del P. L., Lema, C. E. P., Balcázar, R. N. L., Masabanda, C. S. M., & Cunalata, M. E. B.
(2025). Propuesta conceptual de un modelo pedagógico contextualizado para mejorar la
motivación en la enseñanza del inglés. Revista Veritas de Difusão Científica, 6(3), 4590-
4621. https://doi.org/10.61616/rvdc.v6i3.1168
Pittayanantakul, N., & Phusawisot, P. (2024). The effect of board games on speaking skills of
Thai EFL primary students. Journal of Education and Learning, 13(6), 227–242.
Robles Juárez, A. K., & Cango Patiño, A. E. (2025). Gamified learning for enhancing English
speaking skills among A1 learners at FineTuned English Language Institute. Ciencia
Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 9(2), 407–422.
Román, M. G. M., & Rodríguez, J. G. S. (2025). El juego como estrategia lúdica para fortalecer
el aprendizaje de la química en bachillerato: The game as a playful strategy to strengthen
chemistry learning in high school. LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales
y Humanidades, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v6i2.3778
Saha, S. K., Singh, S., & Singh, R. (2021). Investigating the development of speaking skill
through language games in an EFL context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
12(5), 792–801.
Saptiany, S. G., Sari, D. M. M., & Widiati, U. (2025). Gamification with natural language
processing: A pathway to improved English speaking for EFL students. Celtic: A Journal
of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics, 12(2).
Shen, Z., Jiang, L., & Chen, M. (2024). Investigating the influence of gamification on motivation
and language learning achievement among Chinese EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology,
15, Article 1295709.
Yan, W., Lowell, V. L., & Yang, L. (2024). Developing English language learners’ speaking
skills through applying a situated learning approach in VR-enhanced learning experiences.
Virtual Reality, 28, Article 167.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 356
Yanez, B. M. G., Jara, D. R. P., Salazar, D. R. C., & Román, M. G. M. (2026). Estrategias
didácticas para la lectoescritura en estudiantes de educación básica media. RICEd: Revista
de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación, 4(7), 81-94.
Żammit, J. (2022). Is mobile game-based learning effective for international adults learning
Maltese? Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7, Article 29.
Zhang, S., & Hasim, Z. (2023). Gamification in EFL/ESL instruction: A systematic review of
empirical research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1030790.
Zolfaghari, Z., Karimian, Z., Zarifsanaiey, N., & Mehrabi, M. (2025). A scoping review of
gamified applications in English language teaching: A comparative discussion with
medical education. BMC Medical Education, 25, Article 274.
Yanez, B. M. G., Jara, D. R. P., Salazar, D. R. C., & Román, M. G. M. (2026). Estrategias
didácticas para la lectoescritura en estudiantes de educación básica media. RICEd: Revista
de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación, 4(7), 81-94.
Żammit, J. (2022). Is mobile game-based learning effective for international adults learning
Maltese? Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7, Article 29.
Zhang, S., & Hasim, Z. (2023). Gamification in EFL/ESL instruction: A systematic review of
empirical research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1030790.
Zolfaghari, Z., Karimian, Z., Zarifsanaiey, N., & Mehrabi, M. (2025). A scoping review of
gamified applications in English language teaching: A comparative discussion with
medical education. BMC Medical Education, 25, Article 274.