02 Whole

THE EFFECTS OF GAMES ON THE ACQUISITION OF SOME
GRAMMATICAL FEATURES OF L2 GERMAN

ON STUDENTS MOTIVATION AND
ON CLASSROOM ATMOSPHERE
Submitted by Shu-yun YU
Bachelor of Arts
Master of Western Literature
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

Doctor of Education
School of Trescowthick
Faculty of Education
Australian Catholic University

Office of Research,
Locked Bag 4115,
Fitzroy, Victoria 3065
Australia
October 2005
ABSTRACT
The main purpose of this study is to explore the effects of the use of games as a
teaching strategy for raising the grammatical accuracy level of secondary students of German
as a second language. This thesis seeks also to examine the effect of game-based grammar
instruction on students motivation and classroom atmosphere.
The participants in this study were divided into two groups, the Control and
Experimental groups, and received 90 periods, over 18 weeks, of grammatical instruction by
the same teacher. The teaching program was the same for both groups. The difference
consisted in the use of game-based practice for the experimental group, while the control
group performed traditional grammar-based practice only.
Data were collected using the following instruments: grammar tests and examinations,
a questionnaire on motivation, a questionnaire on classroom atmosphere, a questionnaire on
the type of grammar practice, a questionnaire on the role of grammar and grammar instruction,
focus group interviews with students, and the researchers field notes.
While the main result does not support the hypothesis for significant improvement in
grammatical accuracy by the experimental students as a result of game-based practice, their
overall improved performance is a worthwhile achievement, particularly if it is linked to
significant improvements in students motivation and classroom atmosphere.
These positive results offer a notable incentive to language teachers to include games
in their teaching of grammatical features, because the positive results of this experiment with
regard to learners motivation, peer interaction, teacher-student interaction augur well for an
eventual improvement also in the rate of grammatical accuracy.
DECLARATION
This thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part

from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma. No
other persons work has been used without due acknowledgment in the main text of the thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other
tertiary institution. All research procedures reported in the thesis received the approval of the
relevant Ethics committee.
_____________________
Shu-yun YU
October 2005
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this thesis is due to the assistance of many individuals. Without
their generous and expert help, insightful comments and continuous encouragement, I would
not have been able complete the study and this thesis.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest and warmest thanks to Dr John Lando,
my principal supervisor, for his great help, considerable patience and understanding. He was
always available and ready to give advice and assistance to me and stood by me during the
entire process. Much of the thinking that went into this thesis grew out of discussion with
him.
My special thanks go to my co-supervisor, Dr Jo Ryan, for her many words of
encouragement, support and her enthusiasm for my work throughout the doctoral research.
Her patient reading of drafts of chapters and her comments were most valuable. I would also
like to thank Dr Jo Reidy for her ongoing support and encouragement.
Thanks are also due to my brother, Dr Min-lung Yu for his long hours of guidance
and advice in statistical analysis. Dr Yu provided me with detailed feedback and advice on
the statistical sections of the research.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages in Taiwan
for granting me financial support and two years of study leave. This support has enabled me
to work on my thesis at the Australian Catholic University during the last five years. Without
this financial help and study leave this study would not have been possible.
My special sincere thanks are also due to Dr Lee, President of the College and Dr
Mei-Hwa Chen, Head of the Academic Affairs Office in the College for their strong support
iii
in encouraging me conduct the research for this study. Without their support, my dream
would never have come true.
My sincere friends and colleagues at Wenzao Ursuline College of Language also
deserve special thanks for their review of the questionnaires and grammar tests, their moral
support, and many words of encouragement through phone calls and correspondences during
the years it took to complete my research study.
I should also thank all the students who participated in the study. The students gave
much of their time, and allowed me the freedom to probe the inner world of second language
learners.
I must also thank both my Australian and Taiwanese friends and families for sharing
my joys and sorrows during the last five years.
Last but not least, my warmest and heartfelt thanks go to my husband, Hon-Bor, my
daughter, Yi-Hsiu, and my son, Pin-Liang, for all their patience, support, affection and
understanding during the years of study which made the writing of this thesis possible. Their
love, strength and insight have carried me through many difficult times. To them I owe more
than words could express. I am sure they share an enormous sense of relief at this point of
completion. My husband deserves very special thanks for allowing his wife to be thousands
of miles away for many years.
Without the support, assistance and encouragement, given me by all these people,
this thesis would have not been completed.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract............................................................................................................ ..i
Declaration List of Figures..........................................................................ii
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................... iii
Table of Content ................................................................................................v
List of Tables.................................................................................................... .x
List of Figures ................................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................. .1
1.1 Background of the study ......................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives and Significance of the Study ............................................................5
1.3 Outline of the Study ............................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................... .7

2.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................7
2.1 Main Issues of this Study.....................................................................................7
2.2 The Nature of Grammar .......................................................................................9
2.3 The Role of Grammar in Language Learning and Teaching ..............................12
2.4 Approaches to Grammar Instruction..................................................................16
2.4.1 Focus-on-Forms ......................................................................................16
2.4.2 Focus-on-Meaning ..................................................................................19
2.4.3 The Combination of Focus-on-Forms and Focus-on-Meaning Instruction
................................................................................................................24
2.5 Games: Conceptual Framework and Characteristics .........................................27
2.6 Definition of Game ........................................................................................33
2.7 Type of Language Games ..................................................................................35
2.8 Advantages of Learning through Games in the Language Classroom...............39

2.8.1 Active Learning in games39
2.8.2 Interaction through Games and a Formal Linguistic Environment .......41
2.8.3 Flexibility of Games versus Variety of Students Learning Styles. ........43
2.8.4 Games as Motivator ...............................................................................46
2.8.5 Interactive and Supportive Classroom Atmosphere for Learning an L2 50
2.9 Summary, Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................53
CHAPTER 3: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........................ 56

3.0 Introduction........................................................................................................56
3.1 Research Design ................................................................................................56
3.1.1 Controlled Variables................................................................................57
3.1.2 Independent Variables.............................................................................62
3.1.3 Dependent Variables ...............................................................................63
3.1.4 Statistical Control....................................................................................63
3.2 Data Collection ..................................................................................................64
3.3 Procedures of Data Collection ...........................................................................73
3.4 Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................74
3.5 Description of the Teaching Program ................................................................75
3.5.1 Stage1: Focus on Forms........................................................................76
3.5.2 Stage 2: Form-based Exercise for Control Group..................................76
Game-based Tasks for the Experimental Group ......................76
3.6 Summary of Chapter 3 .......................................................................................84
vi
CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .................85

4.0 Introduction..85
4.1 Pre-tests85
4.2 Post-Tests on Grammatical Accuracy ..............................................................91
4.2.1 Discussion of the Results on Students Grammatical Accuracy97
4.3 Results of the Game-based Practice on Students Motivation ...........................101
4.3.1 Intra-group Comparison of Motivation Change in
the Experimental Group and in the Control Group ...............................101
4.3.2 Inter-group of the Motivation between the Experimental Group
and the Control Group.............................................................................113
4.3.3 Discussion of the Results on Students Motivation ................................118
4.4 Results on the Students Perception of the Classroom Atmosphere...123
4.4.1 Intra-group Comparison of the Students Perception of the Classroom
Atmosphere in the Experimental Group and in the Control Group ........123
4.4.2 Intra-group Comparison of the Students Perception of the Classroom
Atmosphere in the Experimental Group and in the Control Group.136
4.4.3 Discussion on the Results on Students Perceptions of Classroom
Atmosphere .............................................................................................143
4.5 Results on the Two Types of Grammatical Practice .........................................149
4.5.1 Discussion and Summary of the Results on the Questionnaire on
the Two Types of the Grammatical Practice ...........................................156
4.6 Results on the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction...158
4.6.1 Discussion or the Responses on the Questionnaire on the Role of
Grammar and Grammar Instruction ......................................................165
4.7 Summary ............................................................................................................167
vii
CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE RESULTS...................................................169

5.0 Introduction........................................................................................................169
5.1 The Experimental Groups Positive Responses to Grammar Classes Where
Games were Used...............................................................................................171
5.2 Unfavourable Responses of the Experimental Group to Grammar Classes
Where Games were Used ...................................................................................182
5.3 Experimental Students Attitude Towards the Role of Grammar in a
Second Language ...............................................................................................186
5.4 The Control Groups Positive Responses to the Grammar Classes ...................190
5.5 Unfavourable Responses of the Control Group to the Grammar Classes..........194
5.6 Control Students Attitude towards the Role of Grammar in Learning a Second
Language ............................................................................................................202
5.7 Summary.209
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS,

LIMITATION AND FURTHER RESEARCH...................210
6.0 Introduction........................................................................................................210
6.1 Aims and Procedure of the Study.......................................................................210
6.2 Summary of the Main Findings..211
6.3 Pedagogical Implications ...................................................................................216
6.4 Limitations of this Study....................................................................................219
6.5 Recommendations for the Further Research......................................................220
REFERENCES................................................................................................222
APPENDICES.................................................................................................241
viii
Appendix A
Individual Demographic Information .......................................
241
Appendix B
Questionnaire on Motivation.........................................................243
Appendix C
Questionnaire on Classroom Atmosphere ....................................247
Appendix D
Questionnaire on the Two Types of Grammatical Practice ...........252
Appendix E
Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar and Grammar

Instruction.255
Appendix F
Focus Group Interview Questions ................................................258
Appendix G Teaching Program..........................................................................260

Appendix H
Language Games Used in the Study..267
Appendix I
Extra Students Comments from Focus Group Interviews.299
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
2.1
Studies of Language Games in L2 Acquisition..........................................................29
3.1
Students Demographic Information ...........................................................................60
3.2
Distribution of Students According to their Entrance Performance in English

as a Second Language........................................................................................62
3.3
Date Collection ..........................................................................................................64
3.4
Questionnaire on Motivation: Items Employed to Assess Three Factors of

Students Motivation to Learn............................................................................67
3.5
Classroom Atmosphere Scale: Items Employed to Assess Four Factors of

Students Perception on the Classroom Atmosphere ........................................68
3.6
Overview of Data Collection .....................................................................................73
3.6
Overview of Data Collection (Continued).74
3.7
The Games Used in the Study81
3.7
The Games Used in the Study (Continued) ...............................................................82
4.1
Mean Total Scores of Entrance Examination in the Experimental and

Control Groups ..................................................................................................86
4.2
Mean English Score of the Entrance Examination in the Experimental

and Control Groups............................................................................................86
4.3
Results for English as a Second Language in the Three language Levels of

the Experimental Group.....................................................................................88
4.4
ANOVA Results of Pre-test for English as a Second Language in the Three

Language Levels of the Experimental Group....88
4.5
Results for English as a Second Language in the Three Language Levels of

the Control Group . ....................................................................................89
4.6
ANOVA Results of Pre-test for English as a Foreign Language in the Three

Language Levels of the Experimental Group.......89
4.7
Mean Score of English in Entrance Examination among Three Language Level

Subgroups in the Experimental and Control Group 90
4.8
Two-way Mix Factor Model ANOVA Test of Main Effects ....................................... 90
4.9
Results of Post-Tests of the Experimental Language Levels...................................... 92
4.10
ANOVA Results of Post-Tests of the Experimental Language Levels ....................... 92
4.11
Results of Post-Test for the Control Levels ................................................................ 93
4.12
ANOVA Results of Post-Tests of the Control Levels ................................................. 93
4.13
Post-treatment t -Test for the Outcomes of both Groups ............................................ 94
4.14
ANOVA Results of the Post-Tests among the Three Language Levels in both
Groups. 95
4.15-1 Mean Scores for the Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for the Experimental Group....102
4.15-2 Paired t -Test for the Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for the Experimental Group ...102
4.16-1 Mean Scores for the Motivational Factor Effort in all Phases for the
Experimental Group...........................................................................................104
4.16-2 Paired t -Test for the Motivational Factor Effort in all Phases for the
4.17-1 Mean Scores for the Motivational Factor Capability in all Phases for the
4.17-2 Paired t -Test for the Motivational Factor Capability in all Phases for the
4.18-1 Mean Scores for the Overall Change in Motivation for all Phases for the
4.18-2 Paired t -Test for the Overall Change in Motivation for all Phases for the
4.19-1 Mean Scores for the Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for the Control Group .............108
4.19-2 Paired t -Test for the Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for the Control Group ............108
xi
4.20-1 Mean Scores for the Factor Effort in all Phases for the Control Group .....................109
4.20-2 Paired t - Test for the Factor Effort in all Phases for the Control Group....................109
4.21-1 Mean Scores for the Factor Capability in all Phases for the Control Group..............110
4.21-2 Paired t - Test for the Factor Capability in all Phases for the Control Group ............110
4.22-1 Mean Scores for the Overall Change in Motivation for all Phases for the
Control Groups .................................................................................................111
4.22-2 Paired t -Test for the Overall Change in Motivation for all Phases for the
Control Groups ..................................................................................................112
4.23
Independent t -Test for the Motivational Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for
both Groups........................................................................................................113
4.24
Independent t -Test for the Motivational Factor Effort in all Phases for
both Groups....115
4.25
Independent t -Test for the Motivational Factor Capability in all Phases for
both Groups........................................................................................................116
4.26
Independent t -Test for the Overall Motivation in all Phases for both Groups..........118
4.27-1 Mean Scores for Peer Support in all Phases for the Experimental Group..................124
4.27-2 Paired t -Test for Peer Support in all Phases for the Experimental Group .................124
4.28-1 Mean Scores of Teacher Support in all Phases for the Experimental Group .............125
4.28-2 Paired t -Test of Teacher Support in all Phases for the Experimental Group .............125
4.29-1 Mean Scores for Satisfaction in all Three Phases for the Experimental Group .........127
4.29-2 Paired t -Test for Satisfaction in all Three Phases for the Experimental Group.........127
4.30-1 Mean Scores for Class Cohesion in all Three Phases for the Experimental Group ...128
4.30-2 Paired t -Test for Class Cohesion in all Three Phases for the Experimental Group...128
4.31-1 Mean Scores for Classroom Atmosphere in all Phases for the Experimental Group .130
4.31-2 Paired t -Test for Classroom Atmosphere in all Phases for the Experimental Group 130
4.32-1 Mean Scores Peer Support in all Phases for the Control Group.................................131
4.32-2 Paired t -Test of Peer Support in all Phases for the Control Group............................131
xii
4.33-1 Mean Scores for Teacher Support in all Phases for the Control Group .....................132
4.33-2 Paired t -Test for Teacher Support in all Phases for the Control Group.....................132
4.34-1 Mean Scores for Satisfaction in all Phases for the Control Group.............................133
4.34-2 Paired t -Test for Satisfaction in all Phases for the Control Group ............................133
4.35-1 Mean Scores for Class Cohesion in all Phases for the Control Group.......................134
4.35-2 Paired t -Test for Class Cohesion in all Phases for the Control Group ......................134
4.36-1 Mean Scores for the Overall Change in Classroom Atmosphere for all
Phases for the Control Group.........................................................................135
4.36-2 Paired t -Test for the Overall Change in Classroom Atmosphere for all
Phases for the Control Group.........................................................................135
4.37
Independent t -Test for Peer Support in all Phases for both Groups..........................136
4.38
Independent t -Test for Teacher Support in all Phases for both Groups ....................138
4.39
Independent t -Test for Satisfaction in all Phases for both Groups ...........................139
4.40
Independent t -Test for Class Cohesion in all Phases for both Groups......................140
4.41
Independent t -Test for Classroom Atmosphere in all Phases for both Groups .........142
4.42
Students Reponses towards the Type of Grammar-Practice .....................................151
4.42
Students Reponses towards the Type of Grammar-Practice (Continued).................152
4.43
Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction ................159
4.43
Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction (Continued)

........................................................................................................................160
4.43
Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction

(Continued) ....................................................................................................161
4.43
Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction

(Continued).162
5.1
Summary of the Interviews with the Experimental Group and the Control Group207
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
2.1
A Three-Dimensional Grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 2001, p.252)..11
2.2
Language games, Learning Theory and Learning Outcomes32
3.1
Research Design of the Experiment...58
3.2
Teaching Program..75
4.1
Group Means on the Grammar Accuracy by the Three Language Levels in

Both Groups ...................................................................................................................96
4.2
The Development of the Motivation Factor Enjoyment in both Groups .....................103
4.3
The Development of the Motivational Factor Effort in Both Groups..........................104
4.4
The Development of the Motivation Factor Capability in both Groups......................106
4.5
Overall Changes in Motivation in both Groups ..........................................................107
4.6
The Change of the Motivational Factor Enjoyment in both Groups ..........................114
4.7
The Change of the Motivational Factor Effort in both Groups ...................................115
4.8
The Change of the Motivational Factor Capability in both Groups ............................116
4.9
Motivational Changes in the Experimental Group and Control Group .......................118
4.10 The Development of Peer Support in both Groups......................................................124

4.11 The Change of Teacher Support in both Groups..........................................................126
4.12 The Change of Satisfaction in both Groups.................................................................127
4.13 The Change of Cohesion in both Groups.....................................................................129
4.14 The Change of Classroom Atmosphere in both Groups ..............................................130
4.15 The Comparison of Peer Support between Two Groups .............................................137
4.16 The Comparison of Teacher Support between Two Groups ........................................138
xiv
4.17 The Comparison of Satisfaction between Two Groups................................................139

4.18 The Comparison of Class Cohesion between Two Groups..........................................141
4.19 The Comparison of Classroom Atmosphere between Two Groups .............................142
xv
Chapter 1: Introduction
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The issues which are examined in this study are linked to the effects that the use of
games has on three aspects of classroom-based acquisition of L2 German: the accuracy level
of selected grammatical features, the level of students motivation, and the state of the
classroom atmosphere.
These issues are closely linked to my experience as a second language learner of
English and German, as well as to my long experience as a practising teacher of German as a
second language in Taiwan.
For many years, I have been nurturing the wish to study the relationship between
what I have gained from my learning and teaching experience and the results of a more formal
investigation into the learning and teaching of grammatical rules. The aim of such an
investigation would be to establish whether research would match my personal
understandings and beliefs.
The following are the perceptions that I have built in the course of many years of
learning two second languages and of teaching German as a second language. As a second
language (L2 henceforth) learner and L2 teacher, I believe that it is important to study L2
grammar, since the study of grammatical rules has been a definite and positive factor in my
L2 acquisition. However, the challenge of teaching L2 grammar to students is a difficult one,
for despite my efforts over many years I have not been entirely happy with the ways in which
I have taught German grammar to my students. Neither their grammatical accuracy nor their
motivation and classroom level of participation seem to have improved, even though I have
experimented with many different teaching strategies.
These experiences have led me to reflect on L2 grammar teaching, and to search for a
teaching approach which could enhance L2 grammar learning. Although I believe that
grammar is an important part of L2 acquisition, I am acutely aware that the learning of
grammar often has a bad reputation (Gao, 2001; Madylus, 2002). As Madylus (2002)
comments, grammar is a word that often freezes the hearts of students and teachers. Gao
(2001) has the same opinion, stating that grammar learning is a negative experience for many
L2 learners.
In spite of the fact that learners find grammar both daunting and boring, the
traditional grammar approach has dominated the teaching of second languages in my classes,
reflecting a general trend in Taiwan, to which I have felt bound. Actually, and in spite of the
new L2 approaches that have been developed and tried around the world, the only classroom
approach to teaching second languages in Taiwan has been, and still is, the traditional
grammar-translation one (Chio, 1999; Huang, 2004; Hsu, 2003; Lin, 1997).
The main justification for such an enduring practice may be the fact that in a typical
Taiwanese class there are about fifty students. Language teachers feel they cannot afford to
offer communication-based practice and so they concentrate on teaching grammatical rules.
Although they try their best to explain the rules, these explanations are usually not made as
part of a contextualised framework. Teachers use grammar exercises and practice drills
which often have little or no meaning for their students. Students repeat after their teachers or
engage in choral reading and responding. Such activities require only minimal participation
and are essentially passive.
With this approach there are usually few interactions between the teacher and the
students, or between the students themselves. Teachers are active speakers; students passive
listeners or repeaters. When students are asked to do some oral exercises relevant to the
learned grammar, they feel anxious and uncomfortable. They prefer to keep silent because
they are not used to speaking German in front of the whole class and are afraid of losing
face, due to their likely errors (Gary, Marrone & Boyles, 1998). It is hard to find out
whether students have understood what teachers have taught them. As a result, our students
feel that grammar is not meaningful and memorable, reflecting what researchers have found
(Engel & Myles, 1996; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Madylus, 2002). Students are frustrated, so
they can easily lose interest and motivation to learn. I believe that our students usually
practise what may be termed the three S principles: 1) keep silent in order to hide boredom or
anxiety; 2) smile in order to hide embarrassment for not being able to answer any questions;
3) sleep because of lack of interest and lack of motivation to learn. It becomes then obvious
that, as a result of our students passivity, teachers become easily discouraged.
The Taiwanese College of the students who participated in this study provides L2
German courses to students aged between 15 to 22 years. They undertake the study of
German for five years, nine hours per week during the first three years. Of these nine hours in
the first three years, five focus on the teaching of grammar, three on conversation, and one on
pronunciation drilling. This allocation highlights the importance of grammar in our L2
program. However, in spite of the prominence given to grammar, the overall learning
outcomes are limited. The college language teachers agree that it does not appear that our
method of teaching grammar, as well as that of teaching L2 in general, is effective.
As a result of a mainly grammatical focus, delivered in a traditional way, our L2
learners develop only limited grammatical competence and very little communicative ability.
It is obvious that our traditional teacher-centred and grammatical-focused method is lacking
in effective teaching strategies and does not motivate our students to develop grammar or
communicative competence in German. This approach has encouraged our students to adopt
a learn-the-rules-only attitude to the studying of German, which has resulted in their
inability to apply grammar rules in any meaningfully communicative context.
This situation has led me to reflect on how grammar could be taught and studied more
effectively. I have become aware that the focus on forms needs to be incorporated into
communicative practice, as supported by much recent research, in a balanced integration of
both aspects, each with its own clearly defined space, but with constant and protracted
opportunities for their implementation within relevant communicative contexts (Ellis, 1997;
Lando, 1996, 1999; Li, 2003; Lightbown, 1998; Musumeci, 1997; Savignon, 1972, 2000;
Sysoyev, 1999; Yen, 2002).
Some of the most useful tasks that have been recommended for practising both
grammar and communication are language games (Hassaji, 2000). Many language
researchers and teachers such as Gaudart (1999), Hadfield (1996 ), Rinvolucri and Davis
(1995), and Ur (1988, 1999), have recognized the pedagogic value of language games,
arguing that their value also consists in their ability to enhance students motivation and
participation in general.
In brief, the main intent of this research was born out of my wish to validate through
research my pedagogical perceptions about the usefulness of games in the L2 classroom,
given the fact that there exists a major gap in the L2 literature regarding this issue. There also
exists a major gap in research into the effectiveness of different methodological approaches to
German language teaching in Taiwanese Higher Education. Thus, I felt that it was crucial for
me as a practitioner to find out both the advantages and limitations of using games with
regard to the acquisition of grammatical rules and in relation to the raising of my students
motivation and the improvement of the classroom atmosphere. This wish has contributed to
the setting out of the aspects to be investigated and of the research questions and hypotheses
for this study.
1.2 Objectives and Significance of the Study

The main objective is to examine the effects of the use of games on the students
level of grammatical accuracy.
The second objective is whether game-based grammar practice increases students
motivation towards language learning.
The third objective is to look at the impact of the use of games on the students
perceptions of classroom atmosphere.
The fourth objective is to explore the students experiences and perceptions of the
role of grammar itself within their overall language program.
The significance of this experiment lies in the hypothesized possibility that the use of
games in practising grammatical features may improve the students rate of accuracy, as well
as create a more positive class atmosphere and a more positive learning experience overall.
Any positive results on the suitability of language games as a teaching/learning strategy will
have implications for developing curriculum design, textual materials and the teacher training
of foreign language instructors.
1.3 Outline of the Study
The thesis is composed of six chapters. Chapter one provides a general introduction
to the background, the purposes, and significance of this study.
The second chapter contains the review of the relevant literature which is divided into
two sections. The first part reviews the literature relating to the role of grammar in the second
language classroom; the second part explores the role of games and their function in
education, particularly in the second language classroom. This chapter also outlines the
research questions and hypotheses of this study.
Chapter 3 introduces the methodology and procedures and provides a description of
the research setting, of the participants, of the data gathering instruments, and the method of
data analysis. This chapter also describes the experimental instructional program, including a
description of the games that were used and of the grammatical features taught and practised.
In chapter 4, all quantitative data from tests, examinations and questionnaires are
reported and discussed with reference to the research questions and hypotheses.
Chapter 5 is a natural extension of Chapter 4, as it provides extra supportive
qualitative data from two sources: focus group interviews and my field notes on the aspects of
student motivation, classroom atmosphere and the role of grammar in language study.
Chapter 6 deals with the overall conclusions to be drawn from this study, together
with its limitations, implications for second language teachers and recommendations for
future research.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
In this chapter, the literature on the major issues associated with L2 grammar
teaching and learning is reviewed, in order to set up a theoretical framework for the current
study. The first part of this chapter examines the areas which relate to the research questions
in terms of the definition of grammar, its role in language teaching and learning. This section
also brings out the controversy between the form-orientated and the meaning-orientated
approaches, as well as an alternative: a combination of form-orientation and meaningorientation in teaching second languages. Both empirical and theoretical aspects of second
language learning are addressed. The second part of this chapter describes the conceptual
framework of language games, their taxonomy and characteristics, their relevance to various
learning styles and their perceived influence on students learning outcomes, on their
motivation, and on classroom atmosphere. Based on the literature reviewed, the research
questions and hypotheses are then proposed. It is noted that I am aware of the difference that
some teachers of languages and researchers see in the two terms second and foreign
language the term second language (L2) is used in the course of this study in the sense
defined by UNESCO: a language acquired by a person in addition to his mother tongue (as
quoted by Cook, 2001, p. 13).
2.1 Main Issues of this Study
In the field of second language acquisition, the role of grammar has undergone major
changes and heated debates. The issue of whether and how to facilitate the acquisition of
grammar in the L2 classroom has been extensively discussed in the theoretical and
pedagogical literature (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 1990, 1997, 2001; Hinkel & Fotos,
2002; Krashen & Terrell, 1988; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Lightbown & Spada, 1990;
1991, 1993, 1994; Robinson, 2001; Rutherford, 1987).
Language educators and applied linguists have argued for the effectiveness of various
approaches for the teaching of L2 grammar. However, not all are in agreement about which
approach is essential or even helpful in the learning of L2 grammar. There are researchers
who believe that formal grammar instruction is necessary (Hammerly, 1985; Gao, 2001; Lund
& Light, 2003; Valette, 1991), or that it can help to enhance the learning of a new language
(Doughty & Williams, 1998; Erlam, 2003; Hutchinson, McCavitt, Rude, & Vallow, 2002;
Lightbown, 1998; Long & Robinson, 1998; Lyster, Lightbown & Spada, 1999); and there are
those who see limited value in devoting classroom time to the practice of particular
grammatical patterns (Krashen, 1985; Terrell, 1977). For these latter researchers,
comprehensible input and the meaningful use of a target language constitute the main
elements of a second language.
Over the last decades, researchers and educators have argued over the controversy
between form-based and meaning-based instruction, without reaching agreement.
Nevertheless, a number of researchers, such as Fotos and Ellis (1991), Ellis (1997), Larsen
Freeman and Long (1991), Lightbown (1998), Norris and Ortega (2000), Savignon (1972) reexamined the value of both the focus-on forms and focus-on meaning approach. Based on
empirical studies conducted in classrooms, these researchers found that the impact of
instruction on acquisition is often indirect, and suggested that optimal classroom instruction in
L2 grammar seems to allow students to learn explicit grammar rules while providing
opportunities to practise them for communication in authentic or simulation tasks. In other
words, the integrated use of Form-Focused Instruction and Communicative Language
Learning works better than the communicative approach alone or the focus-on-forms alone.
A series of studies investigated the effects of the focus-on-forms approach in

communicative language programs. Some of them revealed positive findings (Hutchinson,
McCavitt, Rude, & Vallow, 2002; Klapper & Rees, 2003; Lando 1996, 1996; Muranoi, 2000;
Norris & Ortega, 2000; White, Spada, Lightbown & Ranta, 1991). However, a number of
studies have also demonstrated difficulties with this approach (Long, Inagaki & Ortega, 1998;
Salaberry, 1997; Toth, 2004). Toth (2004) noted that learners might not accurately
understand what the instructor intends by designing activities around a particular grammar
structure. That could lead to a negative instructional result. Methodologists, hence, argued
that the approach focus-on-forms might work effectively only if the provision of
comprehensible input and the contextualization of L2 grammatical forms, reflecting authentic
communication tasks, reach a balance (Lee & VanPatten, 2003; Omaggio-Hadley & Terry,
2000).
Much has been written, on both theoretical and empirical levels, about the ideas on
how to integrate or contextualize grammar instruction within meaningful interaction and
authentic communicative contexts. However, much less has been written about how to foster
this objective in classroom contexts. For many teachers, this is still a challenge.
The results and recommendations of studies conducted on this issue have encouraged
me to integrate explanations of grammatical rules with practice that included games, in order
to attend both to focus-on-forms and to meaningful, contextualised interaction.
The next sections of this chapter explore in some depth the aspects about grammar
raised so far, starting with the nature and role of grammar in L2 teaching and learning, and
including the main grammar-teaching approaches.
2.2 The Nature of Grammar
There are different points of view on the nature of grammar. The literature available
on this indicates that many students and teachers of L2 have operated under a static and
10
limited conception of grammar. In this traditional view, grammar is often understood as a set
of rules, as the features of a language (sounds, words, formation and arrangement of words,
etc) considered systematically as a whole, especially with reference to their mutual contrasts
and relations (Macquarie Dictionary, 1997, p. 925), or defined as the rules by which words
change their forms and are combined into sentences (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English, 2003, p. 705). Many people associate grammar with verb paradigms and rules about
linguistic form, and understand grammar as written language governed by a set of sentence
structures.
Moving away from the traditionally prescriptive grammar of written sentences, Ur
(1988) explores the dimension of meaningfulness of grammar and defines grammar as a way
a language manipulates and combines words (or bits of words) in order to form longer units of
meaning (p. 4). As well as grammatical features, the connections between grammar and
meaning and grammar and social context (de Silva, 1999, p. 17), have been taken into
account. Pennington (1995), sees grammar as situated grammar (p. v), Gurrey (1962) views
grammar as living grammar from a functional perspective, and commenting that,
The grammar of language, however, to a grammarian is a description of the
form structures and grammatical functions of common occurrence, and of the
way that these play their part in various situations in real life one of their
main purposes being to express meaning. The study of grammar, therefore,
should mean the study of forms, grammatical functions and structures of
language in close association with the meaning they express. (p. 45)
Celce-Murica (1991) also stresses that grammar should never be taught as an end in
itself but always with reference to meaning, social factors, or discourse or a combination of
these factors (Celce-Murcia, 1991, pp. 466-7). Larsen-Freeman (1997, 2001) supported
these views and argued that grammar is not only a set of grammatical forms, but also it
includes grammatical meaning and use as a whole. It is not helpful to view grammar as a
discrete set of meaningless, decontextualized, static structures or prescriptive rules about
11
linguistic form (Larsen-Freeman, 2001, p. 252). Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999)

view grammar teaching as a communicative end and as consisting of three interrelated or
intertwined dimensions of form, meaning and use (p. 4). Grammatical structures not only
have (morphosyntactic) form, they are also used to express meaning (semantics) in contextappropriate use (pragmatics). Larsen- Freeman (2001) has offered a pie chart showing the
three-dimensional grammar: morphosyntax (form), semantics (meaning) and appropriateness
(use). These three elements are represented by the pie chart in Figure 2.1.
FORM/
STRUCTURE
Morphosyntactic and
lexical patterns
Phonemic/graphpemic
patterns
MEANING/
SEMANTICS
Lexical meaning
Grammatical meaning
USE/
PRAGMATICS
Social context
Linguistic discourse context
Presuppositions about context
Figure 2.1 A Three-Dimensional Grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 2001, p. 252)
According to this view, grammar has a range of flexible frames with interchangeable
components that can be organized and manipulated in different ways. By manipulating
12
linguistic components within a grammatical frame, speakers should be able to produce a wide
variety of constructions to express themselves in what would be considered an acceptable
language form. This polysystemic orientation implies that there is not, in fact, only one
correct form of the grammar of a language but rather a range of options useful for different
purposes and appropriate in different situations.
In short, it is not appropriate to view the grammar of a language as a set of absolute
rules. Rather, grammar can be seen as having the three dimensions of form, meaningfulness
and use as a whole. L2 students must master all three dimensions, if the acquisition is to take
place (Larsen-Freeman 1997, 2001). The objectives of grammar teaching should not be so
much knowledge transmission as skill in development. It is better to think of teaching
grammaring (Larsen-Freeman, 2001, p. 255), rather than grammar, so that students are
able to use grammatical structures accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. It is to this
view of grammar that this experiment is close, as it aimed at combining explanations of rules
with meaningful and contextualised practice through the inclusion of games.
2.3 The Role of Grammar in Language Learning and Teaching
Grammar is one of the most ancient intellectual pursuits (Dykeman, 1961). Hudson
(1992) points out that people have studied grammar for over 2000 years since the time of the
Ancient Greeks. However, the questions whether and how to include grammar in L2
instruction have been controversial issues.
Although traditionally grammar has been an important and integral part of language
programs, during the last three decades grammar has lost its popularity because some
educators have become uncertain about its value. Many schools have ceased to teach it, or
they have taught it only in parts.
The arguments for giving the teaching of grammar only limited attention were
13
developed in the 1970s and 1980s, and continue nowadays when a number of studies on the
second language acquisition of English grammatical morphology have been published (Dulay
& Burt, 1973, 1974; Elley, Barham, Lamb & Wyllie, 1975; Hillocks, 1986; Krashen, 1985;
Makino, 1980; Pienemann, 1989). These studies have shown that grammar teaching had a
limited or negative effect on grammatical accuracy. As a result, some second language
professionals do not consider grammar to be an important element in second language
learning and teaching. They believe that language can be learned holistically through context
without explicit instruction in grammar. For example, Krashen (1985), in his Input
Hypothesis, argued that exposing learners to communicatively meaningful situations is more
natural and more motivating than teaching them grammar. Krashen (1992), moreover,
claimed that the effect of grammar is peripheral and fragile and that direct instruction of
specific rules has a measurable impact on tests that focus the performer on form, but the effect
is shortlived (p. 410).
Perhaps as a result of less focus on grammar teaching, a strong feeling has developed
amongst teachers of second languages that the ability of students to understand grammatical
concepts and to use grammatical constructions accurately has been declining (Lando, 1999;
Metcalfe, Laurillard & Mason, 1995; MacRae, 2003). The resultant poor level of linguistic
accuracy has been found in their oral and written work (Lando, 1999). Metcalfe, Laurillard
and Mason (1995) also found in their research that pupils written accuracy in their use of
French verbs has declined in recent years. Newspapers criticised the lack of teaching of
grammar in schools and complained, Were not teaching our children well: students suffer
when the school system neglects grammar and spelling (MacRae, 2003, p. A12).
Moreover, these kinds of results might even influence students proficiency as a
whole (Gao, 2001; Li, 2003). Lund and Light (2003), supporting other researchers concern,
pointed out that an individuals inability to write grammatically can have deleterious effects
14
on his or her educational and vocational achievement (p. 1111).

Therefore, SLA researchers, such as, Foto and Ellis (1991), Lightbown and Spada
(1991, 1999), Sharwood-Smith (1993) and Savignon (2000), have argued that learners need to
pay more attention to language forms, if acquisition is to take place. Evans and Durie (cited
in Williams, 1995) and Schiff (2004) stressed the importance of reintroducing grammar into
the school curriculum. State departments of education in the United States, for example West
Virginias, took steps such as adding a Grammar Tips feature to the departments web site
in an effort to build awareness and correct grammar usage among all West Virginians (West
Virginia Department of Education, 2002, para. 1). On the basis of their classroom experience,
many language teachers and researchers have also continued to believe that an understanding
of the linguistic structures is a necessary part of the study of another language (Gao, 2001;
Manley & Calk, 1997; Petruzzella, 1996; Schultz, 2002). Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman
(1999) conclude that grammar is a necessary component of second language instruction and
views linguistic competence as a tool for the development of communicative competence.
Gao (2001), furthermore, stresses that grammar is a catalyst for second language accuracy
and fluency (p. 326).
In Taiwan, students and language teachers in recent years have also agreed that
grammar learning contributes to language learning (Lai, 2004; Yen, 2002; Yu, 2003). Yen
(2002) conducted her research on Taiwanese high school students attitudes toward the effect
of grammar instruction on their English skills. The results showed that most students in her
English classes surveyed believed that grammar study was useful to their English learning.
Yu (2003) investigated students perception of the role of L2 German grammar and concluded
that most students view grammar as an important element for the acquisition of the German
language. The questionnaire and interview data collected in a high school English program in
Taiwan (Lai, 2004) reaffirmed teachers belief in the necessity of grammar instruction.
15
Since the mid 1990s, the belief that grammar is important in literacy teaching has
continued to gain much ground (Batstone, 1994; Engel & Myles, 1996; McCarthy, 2002;
Schiff, 2004). McCarthy (2002) comments
Almost every piece of spoken and written language presented to the
students is grammar. And the mastery of grammar is not a thing that can
be considered good or bad; it is not an optional ingredient it is very
difficult indeed to conceive of a grammar-free language activity. (p. 17)
It has also been found that it is possible to accelerate students learning of grammar
through instruction. Research findings can be brought to bear on this question from a variety
of sources (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Recent studies have established that instruction
does make a difference to accuracy (Doughty, 1991; Long, 1983; Schultz, 2002) while
Pienemann (1984) demonstrated that subjects who received grammar instruction progressed
to the next stage after a two-week period, a passage normally taking several months in
untutored development.
With regard to whether instruction can help learners acquire accuracy, most research
points to the value of form-focused instruction to improve learners accuracy over what
normally transpires when there is no focus on forms (Larsen-Freeman, 1995; Lando, 1996,
1999).
From many supporting studies on the role of grammar in language learning and
teaching, it seems accepted that a focus on grammar should be part of language teaching.
SLA researchers are now shifting their concern towards the way in which grammar should be
taught (Benati, 2001; Crystal, 1995; Nunan, 2005; Patterson, 2001).
Crystal (1995) points out that some native speakers of English have limited grammar
knowledge because the potential fascination of this task has been stifled by poor teaching
methods (p. 191). It should be the same with L2 learners. Therefore, he claims that the task
of finding appropriate ways of developing a persons knowledge about grammar, which are
16
both enlivening and rewarding (p. 191) is, and continues to be, an important goal of
contemporary education linguistics (p. 191). Likewise, SLA educators, such as Benati
(2001), Nunan (2005) and Patterson (2001), remind us that the issue should never be whether
or not grammar is taught. Rather, it should be about how grammar is taught. Moreover,
Macedonica (2005) asserts that the problem of non-fluency and accurate speech is attributed
primarily to the type of exercises employed to process second language input. Therefore, they
call for an investigation, or search for, more effective ways of providing effective grammar
instruction.
As a result, it is valuable to have an overview of L2 grammar teaching and learning in
terms of the various methods of instruction. The main focus of the next section is to address
the controversy between form-orientation and meaning-orientation in teaching foreign
languages, and an alternative approach the combination of form-orientation and meaningorientation.
2.4 Approaches to Grammar Instruction
2.4.1 Focus-on-Forms
Focus-on-forms is a traditional and still common approach used in the classroom
(Chio, 1999; Cook, 2001; Huang, 2004; Lin, 1997; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999). It is noted
here that the notion of focus-on-forms adopted in this study is the following: deliberate
discussion of grammar without reference to meaning in the classroom. This definition is an
adoption of Cooks (2001, p. 39) notion of both focus-on-forms and focus-on-form. He
defines focus-on-forms as deliberate discussion of grammar without reference to meaning
and focus-on-form as incidental discussion of grammar arising from meaningful language
in the classroom.
From the structural view of language acquisition, this approach implies that language
17
learning consists of, to a great extent, the mastery of the rules (Doughty, 1991). According to
this approach, language is broken down into morphemes, words and their collocations.
Special focus is placed on grammatical rules, phonemes, intonation, and stress patterns. The
learners role is to synthesize the pieces for use in communication. This approach includes
transformation exercises, continuous error correction, drilling and repetition of models,
explicit negative feedback, often in isolation from context or from communicative use of the
language (Long & Robinson, 1998). As Stern (1990) points out, focus-on-forms instruction
has the following characteristics:
1.
Focus on specific language features which are isolated and given more instructional
attention. This applies also to features that might otherwise be overlooked, like
pronouns, word order, affixes, intonation patterns, and sociolinguistic distinction;
2.
Decontextualisation of linguistic features;
3.
Attention to the lawfulness of language, as language items become objects of study

and are therefore examined, observed, explained, compared, and placed into some
order within a system;
4.
Provision of practice, in order to give an opportunity for the learner to come to terms
with a specific feature, and to try out a language feature safely outside the pressure of
a real communicative situation;
5.
Attention to accuracy and error correction to an extent deemed appropriate for a

given group of learners.
The widely used grammar-translation (1890-1930) and audio-lingual (1950-1970)
approaches were based on these principles, which engaged the learner in activities especially
designed to teach specific grammatical features.
There have been many research studies looking at the teaching of grammar in the
language classroom (Braddock, Lloyd-Jones & Schoer, 1963; Elley, Barham, Lamb & Wyllie;
18
1975; Harris, 1962; Hillocks, 1986). The results show that the traditional study of grammar
provides little or no evidence for the argument that isolated grammar studies improve student
writing. Harris (1962) investigated grammar instruction with middle school students in
London, England, by comparing two groups of students- those who received heavy doses of
traditional grammar and those who learned grammatical concepts within the context of
language use. In their summary of the Harris study, Elley, Barhan, Lamb, and Wyllie (1975)
wrote:
After a period of two years, five classes of high school students who had
studied formal grammar performed significantly worse than a matched group
of five non-grammar groups on several objective criteria of sentence
complexity and the number of errors in their essays. (p. 6)
In other words, the study by Harris found that the formal teaching of grammar
actually had an adverse effect on students abilities to write well.
Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer (1963) conducted a meta-study, an examination
of previous research studies, and concluded that there is no evidence that the teaching of
grammar improves writing:
In view of the widespread agreement of research studies based upon many
types of students and teachers, the conclusion can be stated in strong and
unqualified terms: the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible or,
because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual
composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing. (pp. 37-38)
Hillocks (1986) conducted a research study on written composition and concluded
that isolated grammar lessons could have a negative effect on students writing by stating:
The study of traditional school grammar (i.e., the definition of parts of speech,
the parsing of sentences, etc.) has no effect on raising the quality of student
writing. Every other focus of instruction examined in this review is
stronger. Taught in certain ways, grammar and mechanics instruction has a
deleterious effect on student writing. In some studies a heavy emphasis on
mechanics and usage (e.g., marking every error) resulted in significant losses
in overall quality. (p. 248)
19
Macedonia (2005) has the same opinion, stating that

The traditional transmission of morphology and syntax by way of rules, and
practicing such rules via written exercises, does not lead to spoken language,
for with this type of practice the retrieval of learned material is too slow and
often incomplete to enable successful speech. (p. 135)
In summary, the results of these research studies show that the isolated teaching of
school grammar did not result in the outcomes that teachers expected. Moreover, isolated
grammar drills are unlikely to lead to effective communicative use of the language, because
learners may not have any way of transferring their knowledge of grammatical structure
appropriately to a range of communicative situations, and learning grammar in isolation
detaches the grammatical aspects from the meaning-making aspects of language (de Silva &
Burns, 1999; Krashen, 1985; Macedonia, 2005; Nunan, 2005; Petruzzella, 1996; Smitherman,
1977).
Many researchers, such as Krashen (1985) and Smitherman (1977), point out the need
for developing students communicative competence. Smitherman (1977) writes:
Communicative competence, quite simply, refers to the ability to
communicate effectively. At this point, however, all simplicity ends. For to
be able to speak or write with power is a very complex business, involving a
universe of linguistic choices and alternatives. Such a speaker or writer must
use language that is appropriate to the situation and the audience. (p. 229)
Following the disappointing results of studies of teaching grammatical features in
isolation, researchers and teachers began to explore the effectiveness of a more meaningbased and contextualised approach to the teaching of grammar.
2.4.2 Focus-on-Meaning
Following on the pedagogical experience and second language acquisition research,
that deals with decontextualized grammatical features and that does not necessarily lead to the
ability to use the language in context, there has been a shift of research and practice from the
20
audio-lingual and grammar-translation methods to the exploration of communicative language

teaching. Scholars have stressed the importance of communicating in the target language and
have focused on global and integrative tasks, rather than on discrete structures.
Some language practitioners have interpreted this to mean that teaching grammar may
be detrimental to learners progress. Dulay and Burt (1973), Krashen (1982) and Prabhu
(1987) claimed that grammar instruction should be abandoned in favour of creating
opportunities for natural language use of the kind found in untutored setting. Prabhu (1987),
for instance, justified the Communicational Teaching Project (CTP) in southern India on the
grounds that:
The development of competence in a second language requires not
systematization of language inputs or maximization of planned practice, but
rather the creation of conditions in which learners engage in an effort to cope
with communication. (p. 1)
Such a perspective means that form can best be learnt when the learners attention is
focused on meaning (Beretta 1989, p. 233). Stern (1990) explores the following
characteristics of a focus-on-meaning approach:
1.
Focus of the classroom activities on a substantive topic or theme which is not

arbitrary or trivial, but motivated by identified educational or personal needs;
2.
The existence of some purposeful enterprise, like projects, inquiries, games, problem
solving tasks, scenarios, where the focus of attention is the planning, carrying out
and completing the enterprise itself, involving communication, decision making and
execution;
3.
Real language use and true conversation. Real talk includes use of target language,
information gap, sustained speech, reaction to message, incorporation of preceding
utterances, discourse initiation, and relatively unrestricted use of linguistic forms and
of all four language macro-skills;
4.
21
Emphasis on meaning and fluency - i.e., on making sense of written and spoken texts
and on language production, without too much worrying about absolute correctness;
5.
Creation of a diversified social climate conducive to social interaction, where

students are not afraid, inhibited, or aggressive. This calls for a language class that
operates with a socially flexible arrangement, including individualized work, pair
work, and work in small groups, apart from some whole-class, teacher-led activities.
Objectives of meaning-focused instruction are set in terms of students ability to
perform certain communicative functions. Therefore, this form of instruction emphasizes

communicative interaction, often in the context of task-based or information-gap activities.
It engages the learner in communication where the primary effort involves the exchange of
meaning and where there is no conscious effort to achieve grammatical correctness.
As a consequence, a range of teaching methods which exclude grammar teaching in
principle has been developed since the 1970s, for example the Total Physical Response
(Asher, 1969), Suggestopaedia (Lozanov, 1979), the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terell,
1988), Immersion programs (Harley, 1991; Baker, 1993), some context-based ESL instruction
and numerous other variants.
Communicative language teaching (CLT) has been adopted by courses and L2
textbooks all over the world, including ESL in Taiwan. The South Korean educational
authorities published the so-called Communicative Curricula for secondary schools, which
were to guide English teaching from 1995 to 2010 (Li, 1998). In Hong Kong and Singapore,
the standards of the curriculum are based on CLT (Shih, 2001). In China, there have been
attempts to introduce CLT into English language teaching recently (Rao, 2002). In 1992, the
State Education Development Commission (SEDC) of China replaced the structure-based
national unified syllabus with a new one which set communication as the teaching aim (Yu,
2001).
22
Such trends have also been reflected in Taiwan. In Taiwan, the Ministry of
Education has initiated a series of reforms in the English curriculum. One of the most
important moves in this direction is the incorporation of CLT into the standards of the English
curriculum for junior high schools and senior high schools in 1994 and 1995 respectively
(Shih, 2001). The ultimate aim of the new curriculum and textbooks is to develop students
linguistic repertoire and communicative ability (Chang & Huang, 2001; Wang, 2001,2002).
CLT has apparently turned out to be the mainstream in English language teaching in Taiwan
(Chang & Huang, 2001; Shih, 2001). All such initiatives have been outlined in a current
Taiwanese policy document (Ministry of Education, Taiwan, 2005).
Despite the popularity and prevalence of CLT in Asian countries, this approach is by
no means applied and practised without any impediments or constraints. A large number of
teachers perceive the implementation of CLT to be difficult (Anderson, 1993; Chang, 2001;
Hsu, 2003; Li, 1998). Some English teachers think students receiving CLT are unable to
develop good language knowledge (Chang & Huang, 2001). In spite of most teachers
positive attitudes towards the notions of the communicative approach, their classroom
practice has remained unchanged in Taiwan (Huang, 2004).
A review of many research studies starting from the 1970s (Ellis, 1997) shows that
communicative L2 teaching was perceived as a departure from the teaching of grammar, in
favour of focusing on meaning only. Lightbown and Spada (1998) observed that there is
increasing evidence that learners continue to have difficulty with basic structures in programs
where no form-focused instruction is offered. Prabhu (cited by Beretta & Davies, 1985)
conducted an experiment in communicative language teaching and found that the
experimental group, which received focus-on meaning instruction, did well on the meaningbased test, but showed low results on the discrete-point test. The control group, on the other
hand, having received structural instruction, performed better on the grammar structure tasks,
23
rather than on the meaning-based test.

Similar to Prabhus research, Lin (2002) introduced communicative language
teaching and the audio-lingual methods in English courses in elementary school and examined
the immediate effects and retention effects on language learning, learning motivation, teacherand-student interaction, and classroom climate. Best outcomes were obtained by the
communicative language teaching approach on the childrens listening, speaking, and reading
skills in the aspects of English learning.
Chang (2002) tested the following three approaches in his study of the English whquestion with three groups of high school students in Taiwan: the Form-Focused instruction
(FFI) combined with the Communicative Language Teaching approach (FFI+CLT); the
Communicative Language Teaching approach (CLT); and the traditional GrammarTranslation Method (GTM). The best results were those by the students that were taught
through the combination of FFI+CLT both in the short and long term.
Therefore, Savignon (2000) makes it clear that communication cannot take place in
the absence of structure, or grammar, of a set of shared assumptions about how language
works (p. 53). Fotos (1993) also found that a formal grammatical focus is important in
improving the accurate use of structures in communicative production. Some research,
although not unequivocally, points to the value of form-focused instruction to improve
learners accuracy in the language used for communication (Larsen-Freeman, 1995; Lando,
1996).
It seems that each form of instruction has its own limitations. Comparisons of
meaning-based instruction with form-based instruction in L2 teaching show that
communicative language teaching enables students to perform spontaneously, but does not
guarantee linguistic accuracy of their utterances. On the other hand, form-based instruction
focuses on the linguistic and grammatical structures, which makes the speech grammatically
24
accurate. But accuracy is observed in prepared speech only, and students lack the ability to
produce spontaneous speech. In order to find a solution to the use of either of these two
approaches, some studies have investigated the effectiveness of combining them.
2.4.3 The Combination of Focus-on-Forms and Focus-on-Meaning Instruction
Many SLA researchers now support the value of some focus-on-forms combined
with communicative activities, because empirical studies have generally found it inadequate
to use one approach to the exclusion of the other (Ellis, 2001; Fotos & Ellis, 1991; Musumeci,
1997). Fotos and Ellis (1991) stress that providing learners with grammar problems they
must solve interactively, integrates grammar instruction with opportunities for meaningful
communication (p. 605). Stern (1990), Engel and Myles (1996) and Sysoyev (1999)
advocate that, in order to gain the highest degree of effectiveness from the language
classroom, the two approaches should be integrated and regarded as complementary.
Lightbown and Spada (1991) have also argued that form focused instruction and corrective
feedback, provided within the context of communicative interaction, can contribute
positively to second language development in both the short and long term (p. 205).
Musumeci (1997) states that the idea of connecting forms and meaning in grammar teaching
is a developing trend in reference to the proficiency-oriented curriculum. She points out that
students should be able to learn explicit grammar rules as well as have a chance to practise
them in communication in authentic or simulation tasks. Gover and Stay (1995), point out
that
the development of grammatical understanding enables a student to build a
paradigm through which to view the world and act in it through language, a
paradigm that a student can apply in a variety of contexts. By extension,
approaching grammar as a way of thinking, as a style of inquiry, and as a way
of seeing the work, means approaching grammatical questions within the
larger context of audience and purpose. (p. 131)
25
Results of a series of studies have showed that teachers who focus students attention
on linguistic forms during communicative interactions are more effective than those who
never focus on forms or who only do so in decontextualized grammar lessons (Klapper &
Rees, 2003; Li, 2003; Lando, 1996, 1999; Lightbown 1998; Savignon, 1972; Yen, 2002).
Savignon (1972), whose study was one of the earliest and provided empirical
supports for the combination of the two approaches, compared college students grammatical
and communicative skills in regular audio-lingual (form-focused) French L2 classes for 4
hours a week. In this study, subjects were divided into three groups: control, FFI, and
FFI+CLT. The last experimental group, with an additional hour devoted to communicative
tasks, outperformed the other two groups on the communicative measures, while
performing no differently on the linguistic measures. The study showed the effectiveness
of spontaneous communicative interaction and suggested the adoption of spontaneous
communicative activities in a form-focused classroom.
Lando (1996, 1999) found that optimal instruction in L2 grammar seems to allow
students to learn explicit grammar rules as well as have a chance to practise them in
communication in authentic or simulation tasks. He conducted a study of the effects of direct
grammatical instruction on the accuracy rate in the written work of advanced learners of
Italian. The instructional program, and its short and long term effects, focused on the
standard and non-standard use of the Italian past tense system in the free writing of 100
learners of Italian, undertaking a major sequence of study at tertiary level. The major findings
of the study were, first, that the 60 experimental learners registered significant short and long
term benefits from an instruction input which comprised regular meaning-focused and formfocused use of the targeted features; second, that the 40 control learners, who did not receive
direct instruction in the same features, did not record any significant progress as a result of
months of contextualised use of them.
26
Yen (2002) implemented a communicative approach to grammar instruction in an

EFL vocational high school classroom in Taiwan. The results of this study showed positive
outcomes.
Similar to Yens research, Li (2003) included a focus on grammar in L2 immersion
programs with second year high school students in Taiwan. Her findings indicated that the
experimental group showed a significant advantage over the control group in the written and
oral tasks on the immediate post-test measure.
As well as others, Klapper and Rees (2003) obtained similar research results. They
investigated grammar instruction with undergraduate learners of German as a second
language at a major UK university for a four-year longitudinal study. The two experimental
groups were exposed to different instructional approaches: one group received substantial
explicit teaching of grammatical forms, while the other received more meaning-focused
instruction in German with occasional and, generally, more incidental attention to linguistic
form. This study suggests that there is still a substantial need for a focus-on-form approach to
language instruction. It would appear that foreign languages are taught more efficiently and
effectively when meaning-based classroom interaction in L2 is linked to focus-on-form, rather
than just focus-on-meaning instruction.
A large number of ESL researchers and experienced language teachers claimed that
games are optimal activities to use in this teaching and learning approach where form and
meaning are combined (Deesri, 2002; Gary, Marrone & Boyles, 1998; Gaudart, 1999; Graetz,
2001; Hassaji, 2000; Jones, Mungai & Wong, 2002; Macedonia, 2005; Pennington, 1995;
Schweckendiek, 2001; Shie, 2003; Stern, 1990; Ur, 1999). Gary, Marrone and Boyles (1998)
stated that games facilitate positive interaction among different, and often competing,
communication patterns and learning styles (para. 2). Deesri (2002) claims that games give
students opportunities to take part in real communication (para. 9). Gaudart (1999)
27
supports these statement with her 20 years experience by saying that games are the most
effective techniques in that they allow second language learners to practise in the target
language the grammatical structures that they have learned, participating in the
communicative process throughout the games (para. 49). Macedonia (2005) asserts that
language games serve the function of redundant oral repetition of grammar structures
(morphological, syntactic and vocabulary in a playful way (p. 138). These SLA researchers
and educators argue that games, because they combine fun with challenging activities, can
motivate teenage language learners and can encourage active student participation and
practice in a non-threatening environment.
The present study links up with the now perceived usefulness of combining focus-onforms with focus-on-meaning, by integrating the use of games into L2 practice.
The following section presents an overview of the current literature related to the
nature of games, types of language games and the promotion of learning through games.
2.5 Games: Conceptual Framework and Characteristics
The use of games as a teaching strategy has been widely adopted in different subject
areas of the curriculum, such as the social sciences (Steele, 1995), mathematics (Downton,
2004; Markey, 1997), physics (Chandler, 1996), biology (Nemerow, 1996) and medicine and
nursing (Anderson, 1998; Gary, Marrone & Boyles, 1998; Ogershok & Cottrell, 2004).
There has also been a tendency toward a greater use of games in the language
classroom. Many innovative language teaching methods, such as the Natural Approach
(Terell, 1982), and Suggestopedia (Lozanov, 1979), - make use of language games. Several
German course books, for example, Ping Pong 1 (Kopp & Frhlich, 1997), Passwort
Deutsch 1 (Albrecht, Dane, Fandrych, Grhaber, Henningsen, Kilimann & Schfer, 2001),
and Sowieso (Hermann & Knig, 1995) have incorporated German language games into
28
their suggested activities. Furthermore, a number of language learning games has been
included in the many German teaching resource books commercially available, e.g. Lernen
mit Spielen, Lernspiele fr den Unterricht mit auslndischen Arbeitern (Goebel, 1979); Mit
Spielen Deutsch lernen. Spiele und spielerische bungsformen fr den Unterricht mit
auslndischen Kindern, Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen (Spier, 1984); 66 Grammatik-Spiele,
Deutsch als Fremdsprache (Rinvolucri & Davis, 1999), and Spiele im Deutschunterricht
(Dauvillier & Hillerich, 2004). The Goethe Institute in Taipei in May 2005 offered a
professional development course for German teachers with a focus on the use of games in
German classes.
Much has been written on the use of language games (Deesri, 2002; Gaudart, 1999;
Hong, 2002; Macedonia, 2005; Schweckendiek, 2001; Shie, 2003). Despite the growing
interest in, and increasingly common use of games, relatively few empirical studies on the
educational effectiveness of games have been conducted. Bohn and Schreiter (1994), Cortez
(1974) and Gardner (1987), and Shie (2003) point out that most of the literature which
discusses the value of using games in language classrooms has not been based on empirical
research. Some studies of language games in L2 acquisition are listed in Table 2.1.
29
Studies of Language Games in L2 Acquisition

Study
Cortez
(1974)
Issacs
(1979)
Gardner
(1987)
Research
Games for second language learning: A comparison
of two approaches for teaching English to Puerto
Rican children
Affective and cognitive changes in using Hebrew
language games with thirteen and fourteen year old
students: an exploratory study
Communication games: do we know what were
talking about?
Matheidesz Communication games Are they really effective?

(1988)
Miller
Two experimental studies of the effectives of
(1992)
interactive game-playing in the acquisition of
Japanese by Americans
Subjects
Non-English-speaking 3rd graders
ESL in Puerto Rica
High school students Hebrew
language in the U. S. A.
23 pairs of university pre-sessional
students
ESL students
Three classes of Japanese language
uni-students in America.
WruckeNelson
(1992)
An investigation into the development of oral

English in concept formation through the use of
group games in the bilingual/ESL classroom
36 Bilingual/ESL kindergarten
students
Hajdus
(2000)
A journey in language teaching and learning
German as L2 Year 7 and Year 10

students in Melbourne, Australia
Data collected
Results
Spanish test, reading
A significant difference between the
test, vocabulary test,
control and experimental group in
English test
acquisition of vocabulary
ListeningA significant difference between the
comprehension test & control and experimental group in
attitude test
listening-comprehension and attitude
Questionnaire
Students had positive attitude toward the
Pronunciation, structure use of games. However, the effects of
error counting
games on the communication were not as
effective as expected.
Questionnaire
Teachers and students had positive attitude
observation
towards the use of games.
A Cloze, an oral
No significant differences among two
interview, a written
game groups and one traditional control
essay test, interview & group on any of the three tests after four
ethnographic
semesters.
observation
The game classes outperformed the control
class on all three tests by the fourth
semester.
Iowa test of Basic
A significant difference between the
Skills (LAS) &
control and experimental groups on the
Language Assessment posttests to the LAS, the ITBS.
Scales (ITBS)
Group games can facilitate bilingual/ESL
kindergarten students acquisition of oral
English.
Learning strategy
Students liked to have games as their
inventory, worksheet
learning strategy in German class.
Table 2.1
29
30
Generally, though, it can be argued that there is a gap in the research in this important
area. Most of the studies on games have come out in favour of the usefulness of games.
Among the very few to find no significant differences in the students performance were those
by Gardner (1987) and Miller (1992). Thus, it seems beneficial to test the widely accepted,
but mainly untested, belief in the usefulness of games, also because it seems widely accepted
that games increase the level of student motivation in the language classroom. Anecdotal
evidence of the language teachers belief in the implicit benefit of games can be gathered, for
example, from the fact that 200 books on language games are to be found in my colleges
library.
However, Loucks (Loucks, as cited in Cortez, 1974) assessment on the value of
games remains accurate today:
Little has been written in regard to the game approach to teaching foreign
languages to elementary school children. To the best of the experimenters
knowledge, no published research is available at the present time concerning
the teaching of Spanish or any other foreign language through the use of a
method based on games. (pp. 7-8)
Cortez (1974) and Shie (2003) also call attention to the need to investigate the effects
of language games in language classrooms. These writers suggest that research be undertaken
to answer the following questions:
1.
What changes in learners attitudes occur when language games are used frequently?
(Cortez, 1974)
2.
Which language games would be effective with older children? (Cortez, 1974)
3.
Do weaker students benefit from the use of games as much as other students? (Shie,
2003)
These questions reveal that there is minimal documented research that demonstrates
the relationship between language games and the promotion of improved student outcomes in
language acquisition. It needs to be noted that the importance of this study is particularly
31
relevant for the teaching of languages in the Chinese context. My contacts with many
Chinese teachers of second languages have convinced me that generally they think that games
connote fun and are not therefore considered serious enough to be used in the classroom.
They are afraid that using games would trivialize their subject matter and their profession.
They do not believe that students can learn anything through playing. This belief may have
been caused by the fact that games always imply one element: fun (Deesri, 2002).
However, SLA educators, many authors of language games and experienced language
teachers admit that the games they have included are meant to provide only examples, and
suggest that teachers should select and develop their own games since not all games are
suitable everywhere (Hong, 2002). Hong (2002) has stated that many games require
modification in order to meet students needs. He has also commented that teachers need to
consider which games to use, when to use them, how to link them up with the syllabus,
textbook or program and how, more specifically, different games will benefit students in
different ways.
The most relevant aspects of language games discussed above are summarised in the
following graphic model (see Figure 2.2). The model places language games at the centre to
indicate their central role in the learning process as generally perceived by researchers and
practising teachers. The next section will focus on the definition and characteristics of
language games.
32
Improved
Learning outcomes
Improved
Retention
Change of
Classroom Atmosphere
Improved
Retention
Interaction
Non threatening
Class Climate
Active
Participation
Enjoyment
Language games
Students
Educator
Facilator
Learning theory
Figure 2.2 Language Games, Learning Theory and Learning Outcomes
33
2.6 Definition of Game

A single definition of the word game is difficult to find. All available definitions
seem to be descriptions of the most common characteristics of games. It seems that as long as
a certain activity is felt to be interesting, amusing, or entertaining, it is likely to be referred to
as a game.
In the Macquarie Dictionary (1997), a game is defined as amusement or pastime;
diversion; contest with rules, the result being determined by skill, strength, or chance (p.
871).
Griffiths and Clyne (1995) state that the word diversion implies that a game is to be
enjoyed. A game may be defined as an enjoyable diversion in which we test our skill,
strength or chance, according to a set of rules.
Allery (2004) defined a game as a competitive activity with a prescribed setting,
constrained by rules and procedures. The learning results from playing the game (for
example, interactions and behaviours exhibited) and not from the academic content or
specialist subject matter (p. 504).
According to Hunt and Cain (1950) a game is:
A way of behaving in play which tends to conform to a pattern that is generally

formed and shared by several individuals;
The game pattern is emphasized by the elements of organization which bring about a
definite and often repeated climax;
In a game, individuals do not lose their identity, for the game itself is a situation in
which the elements of success and failure are so equally balanced that only players by
their own efforts, practice, and application of self can swing the balance to succeed
(pp. 31-32).
34
Harvey and Bright (1985) define an instructional game by the following

characteristics:
A game involves a challenge against either a task or an opponent;
A game is governed by a definite set of rules;
A game is freely engaged in;
Psychologically, a game is an arbitrary situation clearly separate from real-life;
Socially, the events of a game situation are considered, in and of themselves, to be of

minimal importance;
A game has a definite number of possible solutions; that is, only a finite number of
things can happen during play;
A game must always end, although the end may come simply because time has run out;
Summing up, the basic characteristics of games in general are:
A game is fun and interesting.
A game is rule-governed.
A game is goal defined.
A game is engaging.
A game is competitive.
A game has a closure.

The perception of what constitutes a language game is that it shares some common
aspects with games in general, but also has specific traits.

Language games is a general term used to cover a variety of language activities.
Language games are used for practicing specific language items such as grammar, sentence
structures, vocabulary, and spelling; and for developing language skills, such as listening,
speaking, writing and reading.
Another specific trait of language games is that they seem to be task-oriented. The
35
goals of language games may fall into three categories: linguistic structure, communication
and a mixture of the two. Structural games emphasize accuracy of language use;
communication games stress fluency of language use. Between the polarities of structure and
communication there is a wide spectrum of structural and communicative goals. In some
games the accent is more structural than communicative; in others it is more communicative
than structural. The games with mixed goals provide the participants with the opportunities to
use particular language structure points in various communicative contexts. In this study, all
three types of games will be introduced according to set objectives.
Like games in general, language games are rule governed. Their rules distinguish
language games from other classroom activities such as discussion, songs, and role-plays.
The rules of language games describe the pattern of activity meant to take place. The rules
lay out the game organization, the procedure of the game, the behavioural restrictions and the
scoring method.
In brief, language games encourage active participation and generate fun, are rulegoverned, have specific linguistic language outcomes to achieve, are based on competitive
and challenging interaction.
2.7 Types of Language Games
In the field of language teaching, the word game has been a rather vague umbrella
term for all kinds of activities considered to be fun. Research conducted by Shie (2003)
confirms Klepping (1980) initial findings that it is difficult to group language games. Every
author or practitioner classifies games according to different aspects, such as functions,
language skills, techniques and organization.
In this study, I am using the distinction by Littlewood (1981) and Hadfield (1996),
who divide language games in two main types: communicative and pre-communicative games.
36
The following section describes these two types of games.

Communication games are those where the emphasis is on successful communication,
rather than on grammatical correctness. Communication games cover such communicative
functions as greeting, invitation, request, description, and narration, where the output is openended, unprescribed, or unpredictable. There are many examples to be found in books such as
those by Lohfert (1996), Altenmller (1987), and Benito, Dreke and Oberberger (1997).
Games that stress accuracy of language use are called pre-communicative games. As
this type of games emphasize accuracy of language use, they have explicit definitions, such as
structural games (Hadfield, 1996), or more direct grammar games (Ur, 1988; Steinberg,
1992; Rinvolucri & Davis, 1995). The aim of structure-aimed games is to foster the linguistic
ability for certain syntactic patterns, some vocabulary areas and idiomatic expressions,
spelling and pronunciation skills and new vocabulary. In pre-communicative games, the
participants output is close-ended to ensure the correctness of language use. Both precommunication and communication games are included in this study (see Chapter 3).
A further subdivision of language games, both communicative and precommunicative, can be made on the basis of specific aspects such as (a) cooperation and
competitiveness (b) techniques.
(a)
Cooperation and competitiveness

As the name indicates, in this type of game the main action is organised into team-
based activities which encourage cooperation. The participants have to work together
towards a common goal. Increasing number of game designers, such as Hadfield (1996), and
Wright, Betteridge and Buckby (1989), have emphasized the cooperative element of the
language learning games. Rinvolucri and Davis (1995) divide games into two major
categories in his collection: competitive games and cooperative games.
37
The latter type of games is excellent for encouraging shy students, since they require
the participation of all the members of a team, group or pair. Some typical activities may
include the completion of drawings, putting things in order, grouping things, finding a pair or
finding hidden things. Students are involved in the exchange of information in order to
complete a task and in the giving or following of instructions.
Bruffee (1993) describes collaborative learning as a process which enables students to
practise working together in low risk situations, in preparation for effective working group
relationships when the stakes are high. Students learn to depend on one another rather than
depending exclusively on the authority of the teacher. Collaborative learning promotes the
craft of interdependence where collaboration, consultation, and teamwork are essential
components inherent in the employment arena. Games encompass the theoretical foundations
of collaborative learning.
According to Krashens Input Hypothesis (1985), second language acquisition is a
highly collaborative and interactive process. He also claims that a small-group approach
enables learners to attain greater language competence than a teaching methodology that
stresses the memorization of grammar, vocabulary and drill exercises in isolation. Therefore,
he asserted that cooperative learning could help to create a healthy learning environment that
makes language learning meaningful.
Research on cooperative learning has been conducted in many ways and has shown
benefits for the learners. Lacey and Walker (1991) conducted a cooperative learning study in
a secondary classroom, and concluded that students appeared to participate in the learning
process more and generate creative ideas more frequently when they worked together with
their peers towards a common goal. Liang (2002) conducted a research study to examine the
effects of cooperative learning on teaching English as a second language to senior high school
students. She found that the students in the experimental group outperformed the students in
38
the control group in their language skills.

The cooperative nature of most language games naturally encourages student
interaction. Vygotsky (1997) stated that play, in providing interaction creates a zone of
proximal development, which provides an opportunity for learning. Games can be seen as a
means of enhancing learning outcomes by creating more interactive opportunities for learners.
Grammar games, especially communication-oriented ones, seem to be perceived as good for
bringing about natural, meaningful and low-anxiety interaction in a formal linguistic
environment, because they require pair or group work and are by their very nature informal
tasks.
(b)
Technique
Games make use of a variety of techniques. Variety is important in language
teaching: a succession of games based on the same principles, though exciting and novel at
first, can cause boredom. Techniques include information-gap, problem-solving, guessing,
search, matching, exchanging and collecting, combining card games, puzzles and simulation.
Because of the importance of variety in games, Hewitt (1999), Hlscher (1991), Ramor and
Wetz (1984), and Wright, Betteridge and Buckby (1989) group their games as Puzzle games,
Crosswords games, Bingo games, Domino games, matching games, board games, cards
games, picture games, Quartett and Lotto.
The games adopted for the experiment of this study can be classified as
communicative grammar games, because they include the components of accuracy and
communication, according to the division adopted by Rinvolucri and Davis (1995), Benito,
Dreke and Oberberger (1997). Each game will present one or more of the characteristics
described above. These will be indicated in their description. This choice was inspired by my
wish to sustain students learning interest and to cater for the learning styles of different
students.
39
2.8 Advantages of Learning through Games in the Language Classroom

This section highlights some of the main advantages of using language games, as they
emerge from the literature, i.e. active learning, improved retention, collaborative learning,
catering for learning styles, change of classroom atmosphere, and improved level of
motivation. Most of these are perceived advantages: they are often stated, are based on
anecdotal evidence, but are mainly untested by empirical studies.
While acknowledging the risks associated with the use of games, such as noise and
lack of discipline (Kuo, 1990), Richard-Amato (1996) advises teachers not to lose sight of the
pedagogical value of games, particularly in second language teaching. Games are effective
for helping students learn. Games make practice more effective as students become active
participants in the learning process (Allery, 2004; Ruben, 1999; Thatcher, 1990; Wesson,
Wilson, & Mandlebaum, 1988). In addition to the improvement of learning outcomes, games
are effective because they can lower students stress, increase students interest and
motivation and give them the opportunity for effective communication (Allery, 2004; Ruben,
1999; Garcial-Carbonell, Rising, Montero & Watts, 2001; Gaudart, 1999; Straus, 1986).
These are all very positive reasons for playing games in the language classroom. This section
presents the advantages of games, as they have been pointed out in the literature on their
usefulness: active learning, improvement in retention, interaction, flexibility, motivation and
supportive atmosphere.
2.8.1 Active Learning in Games
Games provide unique learning opportunities to meet students needs while engaging
in an active learning process (Allery, 2004; Anderson, 1998; Thatcher, 1990). These
advantages seem to be summarised in the following quotation, attributed to Confucius
40
(Silberman, 1996):
I hear and I forget
I see and I remember
I do and I understand.
Silberman (1996) emphasizes the need for students to be given a more active role in
the learning process because merely hearing something, or seeing something, is not enough to
learn it.
Thatcher (1990) promotes games as a significant form of experiential learning.
Allery (2004) also states that games ensure all participants are winners in that all have the
opportunity for involvement and to engage with experiential learning the role of the
participant as an active processor of information (p. 504). During a game, the learner is
actually engaged in an experience in which resolutions or decisions must be made.
Evaluation, discussion, reflection, and application all occur during playing games and all
promote learning.
Ruben (1999) states that active participation is the chief advantage of games. Games
accommodated more complex and divers approaches to the learning processes and outcomes;
allowed for interactivity; perhaps most important, fostered active learning (p. 500).
Games allow the students to have active control of the learning process and also promote
prompt feedback from their peers (Allery, 2004). Reinforcing and augmenting prior
knowledge, while obtaining new information for basic problem solving, allows students the
opportunity to use and apply newly acquired course material (Jones, Mungai & Wong, 2002).
Also Holler (1996) explored the relation between retention and learning method. His
findings agreed with the above writers. He also found that games are a valuable tool for
enhancing learning. He stated that we remember only 10% of what we read, 20% of what we
hear, 30% of what we see, 50% of what we both hear and see, 70% of what we say, but 90%
of what we do. Traditionally, students have listened to explanations from their teachers and
41
have completed homework exercises. If Hollers work is taken seriously, it is possible to

conclude that students cannot retain grammar rules for a long time, and so learning outcomes
will be limited. Games provide more opportunities for students to practise in a meaningful
linguistic situation. This contributes to greater retention and more satisfactory learning
outcomes.
There is some evidence that games may improve the retention of what is learned
(Pierfy, 1977; Jacobs & Dempsey, 1993). Pierfy (1977) reviewed twenty-two comparative
studies of simulation games. On the basis of this work, Pierfy concluded that games
encouraged greater retention over time than conventional classroom instruction, with students
reporting more interest in the game activities. In their research, Cortez (1974), Issacs (1979)
and Wrucke-Nelson (1993) also confirmed the effectiveness of the use of games on their
students language skills (see Table 2.1).
2.8.2 Interaction through Games and a Formal Linguistic Environment
In Taiwan a traditional German grammar class is a typically formal linguistic
environment, where the overwhelming majority of learners' achievements result from far
more language learning than language acquisition, in Krashen's (1982) terms. In such a
formal linguistic environment, the teacher often explains overtly and the learner supplies
various strategies memorization, searching for connections, and conscious study of
grammar.
Aware of the limitation of a traditional grammar course, it will not be a surprise to
hear that German learners who have received several years of formal German grammar
training still cannot actually use the language. The root of the problem is to be found in the
learning environment, which lacks in interaction among learners, and in opportunities to
communicate.
42
To improve the learning setting, Pietro (1987) proposes that we break away from the
traditional idea of the teacher-dominated classroom and turn it into the locus of a
functioning speech community in which natural discourse is simulated (p. 13). Vygotsky
(1997) explained that external dialogues or interactions with people are necessary to develop
inner speech and awareness of ones thought process. He also believed that play, providing
interaction for developmental change, is an important source of development and that it
creates a zone of proximal development, which provides an opportunity for learning.
Games can be a means to enhance learning outcomes by creating more interactive
opportunities for learners to make up the deficiency in informal acquisition of language.
Allery (2004) also claims that games can provide insight into individuals behaviour and aid
self-awareness through interaction and feedback [they] aid skill development in a
relatively risk-free environment, for example, decision-making, negotiation, problem
solving, and initiative (p. 504). Grammar games, especially the communication-aimed
ones, are, under this view, one good option to bring about natural, meaningful and lowanxiety interaction in a formal linguistic environment (Macedonia, 2005).
A study to measure the different types of interaction patterns in second language
setting was carried out by Bailey (1985). In his study, differences in the quantity and quality
were investigated. He found that the students produced not only a greater quantity but also a
greater variety of speech in group work than in teacher-centered activities. By providing
greater intensity of involvement, group work will multiply the amount of talk the participants
engage in. The face-to-face interaction in a small group is a natural setting for conversation.
Long and Porter (1985) argue that in a small group:
Students can take on roles and adopt positions and can thus practice a range
of language functions associated with those roles and positions. While
solving a problem concerning the siting of new school in an imaginary town,
for example, they can suggest, infer, qualify, hypothesize, generalize, or
disagree. In terms of another dimension of conversational management, they
43
can develop such skills as topic-nomination, turn-allocation, focusing,

summarizing, and clarifying Finally, given appropriate materials to
work with and problems to solve, students can engage in the kind of
information exchange characteristics of communication outside classrooms
with all the creative language use and spontaneity this entails. (pp. 209-210)
A formal language class is a high-anxiety learning environment. As I have already
noted, it appears that the informal, pleasant atmosphere of a grammar game reduces the
learner's anxiety in a formal German class. The pleasurable tension generated by the
competitive activity of games maintains the learner's attention to and interest in the work at
hand. Therefore, in a formal linguistic environment games can help learners to communicate
effectively with one another in German.
Grammar games can constitute a major part of a strong communicative component in
a formal linguistic environment. A grammar communicative game offers not only a source of
hands-on experience of linguistic interaction but also a natural context in which the
participants can be exposed to realistic or even authentic communication. Significantly for
the learners, games can motivate them to become committed to sustaining the communication,
thus reaching also the goal of grammar learning.
2.8.3 Flexibility of Games versus Variety of Students Learning Styles
Recent educational theory has found that people learn in a variety of ways. Different
students learn in different ways and are motivated by different reasons. People have their own
preferred learning styles. Pithers and Mason (1992) define learning style as a relatively
consistent pattern of perception, interaction with response to stimuli in a particular learning
environment (p. 61). A learning style could be a person's general approach to learning and
problem solving. Ehrman (1996) states that a learning style can range from a mild
preference through to a strong need and to an out and out rigidity (p. 54).
Traditional lecture formats encourage passive learning and have been shown to be
44
less effective in meeting the needs of diverse student populations (Sprengel, 1994). Students
are engaged in participatory applications in addition to the visual and auditory components
that occur in the traditional lecture format (Specht & Sandlin, 1991).
Lightbown and Spada (1999), Oxford (1996), and Oxford, Ehrman and Lavine (1991)
explored the relationship between learning style and positive outcomes. Many successful
learners are aware of their preferences for learning styles. A student who has a strongly visual
learning style tends to use the strategies of taking notes and outlining, whereas an auditory
learner tends to use the strategies of recording lectures and listening to them after class ends.
Learners who have an analytic learning style often like to use strategies that involve breaking
material down into smaller pieces, whereas global learners prefer strategies that help them
grasp the main idea quickly without attending to details.
Recognizing individual differences and learning preferences provides an important
rationale for providing a flexible program to accommodate the learners. Ur (1999) argued
that it is necessary to provide a variety of activities to sustain student interest. A successful
learning activity, if continued too long without variation, may end up boring the learners. It is
widely accepted that a timely game offers a pleasant change of pace in the lesson. It can
revive learners' flagging interest. A game can also lengthen the students attention span.
Due to their flexibility, grammar games are more variable, versatile and adaptable
than other forms of classroom tasks, like exercises. Games may be combined with any other
form of language activities, including simulation, role play, pantomimes, songs, chants,
riddles, puzzles, quizzes, surveys, discussions, debates, strip stories, jigsaw readings, ranking
activities, problem solving, information-gap activities, and Total Physical Response Activities.
Besides, the teacher can set up games in all kinds of different formats individual work, pair
work, small group work, large group work, and whole-class work.
Grammar games are also versatile because of the comprehensive nature of their
45
pedagogical goals. They develop one, two, three, or even all the four language skills
listening, speaking, writing, and reading. They can provide intensive practice of language
points, ranging from vocabulary and pronunciation to grammar and culture. They can
promote interaction in the class, contextualize meaningful learning, provide opportunities for
real communication, and offer practice for such fundamental language functions as greeting,
invitation, request, and narration. They warm up, start, punctuate, or end a lesson; they
diagnose or spotlight areas of difficulties, reinforce or review the items previously taught.
Allery (2004) and Jones, Mungai and Wong (2002) comment that games can adapt to
different style of learners, as well as different learning styles. When constructed with
different learning styles in mind, games can often accelerate the learning process.
According to Gardner's (1993) model of multiple intelligences, there are seven
learning styles: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinaesthetic,
interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. There are games for different learning styles in
language learning:
Students who exhibit strengths in linguistic intelligence usually enjoy and may be good at
playing word game and puzzles;
Students with logical-mathematical intelligence enjoy ordering objects, categorizing,

finding out facts, playing word match games or dominoes;
Students who have a visual-spatial learning style tend to understand things presented
visually by video and pictures. They respond well to picture games, board games and card
games in language learning;
Students with a kinesthetic style respond well to active learning provided by games that
require physical movement. Activities, such as role- play are good for them;
Students with interpersonal intelligence like cooperative games involving groups;
Students with strengths in intrapersonal intelligence prefer individual games, such as
46
puzzles and crosswords.
Students with strengths in musical intelligence enjoy games that include music and
rhythm.
2.8.4 Games as Motivator
A widely perceived advantage of language games is also their ability to improve
student motivation (Deesri, 2002; Gaudart, 1999; Nemerow, 1996; Shie, 2003). Researchers
in social psychology and education have recognized the importance of motivation for
successful L2 learning (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Clement, 1990; Nemerow, 1996).
Nemerow (1996) points out the role of motivation by saying that lack of motivation
is probably the greatest obstacle to learning (p. 3). Gardners (1985) socioeducational model
of second language acquisition focuses on language learning taking place in the classroom
and stresses that motivation is one important variable important in second language
acquisition.
Under the framework of achievement, motivation is defined as a driving force for
students learning goals, for the activities they choose to engage in to reach those goals, and
for the intensity with which they engage in the activities.
According to Deci and Ryans self-determination theory (1985), there are two general
types of motivation: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Brown, 1994; Noels,
Clement & Pelletier, 1999, 2000). Intrinsic motivation, based on intrinsic interest in the
activity per se, refers to motivation to engage in an activity because that activity is enjoyable
and satisfying to do. These feelings of pleasure derive from fulfilling innate needs for
competence and self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan,
1991). People who are intrinsically motivated feel free to choose to perform an activity; they
will seek interesting situations where they can rise to the challenges that the activity presents.
By striving to meet these challenges, they develop a sense of competence in their abilities.
47
Ehrman (1996) noted that intrinsic motivation has been related to feeling of self-efficacy,
language use, grammar sensitivity, speaking and reading proficiency, and teacher ratings of
L2 competence.
In contrast to intrinsically motivated behaviours, extrinsically motivated behaviours
are performed not because of inherent interest in the activity, but in order to achieve some
instrumental end, such as earning a reward or avoiding a punishment.
Regarding motivation to learn an L2, Gardner (1985) in his earlier work defined
motivation to learn an L2 as
the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language
because of desire to do so and the satisfaction experience in this activity and
combination off effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language.
(p. 10)
The motivation that is applied specifically to language acquisition can be categorized
into five kinds. The first two kinds are called integrative motivation and instrumental
motivation by Gardner (1985). Integrative motivation reflects the learner's desire to identify
with the native speakers of the target language and to integrate with the culture of the target
language population. Instrumental motivation implies that the learner's interest in learning the
target language is associated with the pragmatic, utilitarian benefits of the target language,
such as a better paying job and a doctor's degree from a university in the country of the target
language. The third kind is the compulsory motivation (Shie, 2003, p. 111). Some learners
do not have an apparent interest in learning a language; but they have no choice but to do so.
Among these learners I can place the unwilling students taking a required German course at
my college because their parents want them to do so. The fourth kind of motivation is what
Deci and Ryan (1985) calls intrinsic motivation, associated with an interest in the target
language itself. Learners with motivation of this type are presumably those who have a strong
aptitude for language acquisition or those who want to achieve personal enrichment via
48
language study. Intrinsic motivation occurs when students engage in learning 'for its own
sake' and enjoy it.
The final type of motivation can be called methodological motivation (Shie, 2003,
p. 110). It can be seen in learners who are motivated to learn a language because they like the
teaching methodology itself. The methodological motivation relates to such aspects as the
materials and activities which have inherent interest, the teachers ability to inspire and
stimulate the learners, and the provision of reward for learning.
As Finocchiaro (1989) observes, in many instances the motivation to learn a target
language can be fostered and enhanced even in learners who do not have a strong initial
interest. It is particularly to this type of motivation that this study relates to, because at the
start of it I hypothesised that my L2 German students would begin to respond positively to
this fifth type of methodological motivation. It seems that games can act as sources of
learning motivation in each of these five kinds.
Based on his survey, Nemerow (1996) found that students are more highly motivated
when games are used in the classroom. More than 80% of the students surveyed used the
word "fun" in their evaluation of games. For them, games are a change of pace, something
different that makes learning easier. Because they make learning more fun, they are
encouraged to learn more. In this situation, students' affective filter (Krashen, 1982) is down
and it allows acquisition of more information. Games also seem to make remembering of the
information easier. As one student commented, I believe we remember events that make us
happy or sad for longer periods of time than those that do not affect us emotionally
(Nemerow, 1996). Therefore, Nemerow (1996) concluded that the emotions raised by games
stimulate the memory and so games are perceived as a good motivator to learn. However,
whether this positive perception translates to better acquisition remains untested.
By virtue of their integral engaging power, grammar games seem to provide a
49
possible cure for the bored language learner. Some linguists have pointed out that foreign
language anxiety often affects learner motivation negatively, like when they suffer from
communicative apprehension and fear of negative social evaluation (Horowitz et al., 1986).
Language games can promote the learners' motivation not only through their
changeable forms of activity and kaleidoscopic nature of engagedness, but also through their
positive effect on the level of anxiety.
Games can lower learners anxiety in the classroom and thus improve their learning.
In conventional classrooms, there is a lot of stress put on students trying to master the target
language. Schultz (1988) argues that
Stress is a major hindrance in language learning process. This process
[Learning language in traditional way] is by its nature time consuming and
stress provokingraises the stress level to a point at which it interferes with
student attention and efficiency and undermines motivation. [The use of
games] has been developed to make students forget that they are in class
they relax students by engaging them in stress-reducing task. (vii)
The overall findings on motivation show that it is related to success in L2 learning
(Gardner, 1985). Unfortunately, research cannot indicate precisely how motivation is related
to successful learning. Nor do we know whether both are affected by other factors, as noted
by Skehan (1989).
The current state of L2 motivation research does not bear witness to its importance.
In Kellers (1983) words, motivation is the neglected heart of our understanding of how to
design instruction. What teachers usually wish to know is how they can intervene, that is,
what they can actually do to motivate their learners. In other words, for classroom
practitioners the real area of interest is not so much the nature of motivation itself as the
various techniques or strategies that can be employed to motivate students. Nevertheless,
Drnyei (2001) reviewed the literature and found that until the mid-1990s there had been no
serious attempts in the L2 literature to design motivation strategies for classroom application.
50
Drnyei and Csizr (1998) point to several areas where educational research has reported
increased levels of motivation for students in relationship to pedagogical practice. They
report the following suggestions to increase students motivation via instruction: (1) setting a
personal example with the teachers own behavior, (2) creating a pleasant, relaxing
atmosphere in the classroom, (3) presenting the tasks properly, (4) developing a good
relationship with the learners, (5) increasing the learners linguistic self-confidence, (6)
making the language classes interesting, (7) promoting learner autonomy, (8) personalizing
the learning process, (9) increasing the learners goal-orientedeness, and (10) familiarizing
learners with the target language culture.
The games adopted in this experiment fit in with all ten of these suggestions: they
provide an initial incentive at the start of a lesson when the teacher announces that it will
contain a game; they offer a welcome variation on the usual lesson routine; and they count on
cooperative learning.
2.8.5 Interactive and Supportive Classroom Atmosphere for Learning an L2
Classroom climate was rank-ordered second among the motivational factors in a
Hungarian survey of teachers of English as a second language (Drnyei & Csizr, 1998). It is
acceptable that language learning is one of the most face-threatening school subjects because
of the pressure of having to operate using a rather limited language code. In a language class
students need to take considerable risk even to produce relatively simple answers because it is
all too easy to make a mistake when you have to pay attention to pronunciation, intonation,
grammar and content at the same time. MacIntrye (1999) and Young (1999) note that
language anxiety has been found to be a powerful factor hindering L2 learning achievement.
The solution, according to the general consensus among motivation researchers is: to
create a pleasant and supportive classroom atmosphere. Scheidecker and Freeman (1999)
51
have summarized very expressively the essences of the classroom with a motivational climate
for learning: When one teaches students enter such a classroom, one gets an overwhelming
sense that the students shed emotional baggage at the doorway. This is an emotional safe
zone (p. 138). That is to say, pleasant-and supportive-classroom atmosphere means that
there is not tension in the air; students are at ease; there are no sharp comments made to
ridicule each other. Research studies indicate that the most crucial factors responsible for a
positive class atmosphere are the teachers rapport with the students and the students
relationship with each other (Drnyei, 2001).
It is commonly accepted that almost everything a teacher does in the classroom has a
motivational influence on students. Chambers (1999) conducted a study among British
secondary school learners of German. The survey revealed that the learners considered the
teachers own behaviour to be the single most important motivational tool. Such behaviour
was described in terms of care for the students learning, warm interaction with students,
empathic manner, mutual trust and respect (Christophel, 1990). Clement, Drnyei and Noels
(1994) found that students evaluation of their teachers rapport with the class were associated
with students linguistic self-confidence and anxiety. Williams and Burden (1997) maintain
that the effective teacher communicates the goals of a learning task with a precise and clear
set of instruction, while emphasizing the activitys value to the students personally, now and
in the future. Schmidt, Boraie and Kassabgy (1996) argued that learners preferences for
certain kinds of learning strategies and instruction practices have been related to motivation
which was termed methodological motivation by Shie (2003).
In addition to the interaction between teachers and students, the relationship between
students and students is another key factor influencing classroom atmosphere. Raffini (1993)
states that while there are too few rewards in school teaching, one of the most satisfying is
the pride of accomplishment that comes from teaching in a classroom that has developed a
52
level of cohesiveness (p. 95): a cohesive class is described as one which is together; in
which there is a strong we feeling and where students are happy to belong; a cohesive class
refers to its members commitment to the group and to each other. Cohesiveness is often
manifested by members seeking each other out, providing mutual support and making each
other welcome in the group. Student motivation tends to increase in cohesive class groups.
This is due to the fact that in such groups students share an increased responsibility for
achieving the group goals, they pull each other along and the positive relations among them
make the learning process more enjoyable in general.
Drnyei (2001) provides some techniques to promote the development of group
cohesiveness (p. 45):
1.
Promote interaction, cooperation and sharing of genuine personal information

among the learners;
2.
Use ice-breakers at the beginning of a course;
3.
Regularly use small-group tasks when students can mix;
4.
Encourage and if possible organize extracurricular activities and outings;
5.
Prevent rigid seating patterns;
6.
Include activities that lead to the successful completion of whole-group tasks or that
involve small-group completion games.
Once again it seems that in creating a positive classroom atmosphere the use of
games is important as it fits the characteristics of a cohesive class. This experiment will
monitor any change in the class atmosphere which may be linked to the use of games through
the use of student questionnaires.
53
2.9 Summary, Research Questions and Hypotheses

From the literature review of issues relating to the teaching and learning of grammar
in L2 it is possible to conclude that grammar plays an important part. It is central to learning
a foreign language in the acquisition process. Interiorizing the grammar of a foreign language
is not simply an intelligent, cognitive act. It should also be a highly affective one. It is
important to make use of all the strategies that can be beneficial towards the mastering of it.
It seems commonly accepted that communicative activities need to be integrated
within grammatical explanations and exercises in the teaching programs. As Fotos and Ellis
(1991) stated
[Communicative grammar tasks] may contribute directly by providing
opportunities for the kind of communication which is believed to promote the
acquisition of implicit knowledge, and they may also contribute indirectly by
enabling learners to develop explicit knowledge of L2 rules which will later
facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge. (p. 622)
The results of many research studies have shown positive outcomes from
communicative grammar tasks. Among the communicative grammar tasks, games seem to
hold a privileged position, because they are commonly perceived as having a range of
considerable advantages and benefits in the foreign language learning process. They create a
meaningful context, provide interactive group work, and help to internalize vocabulary and
structures. Furthermore, the competition that is generated by games enhances student
motivation. They also reduce the stress in the classroom and improve the classroom
atmosphere. The Belgian businessman who came out to coffee after a grammar game saying
Ce n'est pas bete du tout, (Rinvolucri & Davis, 1995, p. 3) was expressing his surprise that a
game could be fun and serious at the same time.
However, in spite of what seems to be a widely spread belief in the value of language
54
games, the evidence in support of such a claim is mainly anecdotal, as little research has been
conducted to measure the real benefit of games in second language learning and teaching
(Gardner, 1987; Shie, 2003). Furthermore, the theoretical underpinnings of the usefulness of
games are provided by some research studies, mainly in terms of positive results on
motivation and classroom atmosphere, but not in terms of grammatical accuracy, and also by
the fact that games are always one of the tasks suggested as part of the communicative
approaches. This means that the positive role of games has been mainly assumed rather than
based on empirical evidence. This study is meant to begin to fill this gap. Its purpose is to
investigate the effects of game-based grammar practice on the accuracy level of selected
grammatical features by beginner students of German as a second language, their perception
of language games as a learning strategy, their attitude towards the role of grammar in
language learning, and the impact of the use of games on their motivation to learn and on
classroom atmosphere. This study focuses on the students written production of L2 German.
The research questions are as follows:
1.
Do the experimental students taught by the game-based grammatical practice

perform better in grammatical accuracy than those in the control group taught by the
traditionally exercise-based practice?
2.
Is the level of effectiveness of game-based grammatical practice comparable across

the language competence levels?
3.
Does game-based grammatical practice enhance the students learning motivation?
4.
Does game-based grammatical practice create a more positive classroom atmosphere

during language lessons?
5.
Will students in the game-based grammar practice perceive grammar learning as

being more interesting and effective than those in the traditional grammar practice?
6.
Do second language students believe that grammar ought to be taught at all in
55
language classes?
The hypotheses are as follows:
1.
The experimental students, taught by means of language games, will produce higher
scores on grammar tests and examinations than the students in the control group;
2.
Students of all three language competence levels (high, middle and low) of the
Experimental group, taught by means of language games, will produce higher scores
on grammatical accuracy tests and examinations than the students of all three
competence levels (high, middle and low) of the control group;
3.
Students in the experimental group will show a greater degree of motivation with
regard to grammar after having been exposed to language games;
4.
Students of the experimental group will record an improvement in the language class
atmosphere as a result of the use of language games, while the control students will
not;
5.
Students in the experimental group will provide more positive responses toward the
game-based practice in their learning of German grammar than the students of the
control group will toward the traditional grammar practice;
6.
Most students of both groups will indicate their belief that grammar needs to be
taught in a second language program.
56
CHAPTER 3
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
Chapter Three describes the research design and setting, the participants, the
data gathering instruments, the procedure of data collection, and the method of data
analysis. This chapter also describes the experimental instructional teaching program,
including a list of the games that were used and the grammatical features that each
game is related to.
3.1 Research Design
The research study utilizes a quasi-experimental design. It employs both
quantitative and qualitative elements. It is seeking both to quantify aspects of
students learning in L2 grammar, as a result of a game-based grammatical practice,
and to discuss some qualitative aspects. Some of the concerns of educational
researchers in the use of quantitative approaches are that education contexts are
complex and it is difficult to measure variables and to establish strict controls. In this
research, an attempt is made to consider the possible variables that may affect the
research outcomes and try to minimise their effect.
This research is also seeking to contribute to a theoretical perspective on the
use of game-based grammatical practice: if game-based grammatical practice does
contribute to learning, in what ways does it do this? This requires the use of
qualitative methods. Denzin & Lincoln (1994) suggest that qualitative researchers
stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the
researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry (p.
Chapter 3: Study Design and Methodology
57
4). Thus, the use of multiple methods has been recommended as a way of securing a
more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon studied.
In an attempt to explore how game-based grammatical practice affects the
learning of grammar, this study has collected students responses on their level of
motivation and classroom atmosphere. These were investigated by means of
appropriate questionnaires, focus group interviews, and field notes. A graphic
representation of the variables that were analyzed in this experiment appears in Figure
3.1.
3.1.1 Controlled Variables
There are often some potentially confounding variables that can threaten the
internal validity of an experiment. I have tried to control these in order to reach
causal conclusions. The controlled variables in this study were the teacher, the
students, and the teaching itself. They are controlled variables because everything
possible was done to ensure comparability, i.e. same teacher, same teaching approach
in relation to explanation of grammatical rules, and placement of students in the two
groups. Statistical control, discussed later in this section, was one of the strategies
used in this study to ensure comparability between the two groups and the different
language levels.
(a)
Research Setting
The setting for this study was a German Language Department, located in a
private college of languages in the south region of the Republic of Taiwan. The
college is the only college of languages in Taiwan that offers German language as a
second language to its five-year junior college students. Although the syllabus
58
Teachers
Controlled
Variables
Same
teacher
Students
Teaching
Learning
ability
Textbook
Teaching plan
Teaching
period
Measuring
instruments
Grammar Instruction
Independent
Variables
Focus-on-Forms - Traditional practice

Game-based practice
High Language Level

Middle Language Level
Across Levels
Low Language Level
Dependent
Variables
Learning
outcomes
Motivation
Classroom
atmosphere
Figure 3.1 Research Design of the Experiment
Students
responses
to the
teaching
practice
Students
perceptions
of the role
of
grammar
59
includes the study of German culture, German literature, politics, and economics; it
focuses on developing the learners knowledge of the German language, with special
emphasis on the grammatical structures.
(b)
The Teacher
The two classes were taught by me, the students regular teacher of German
and researcher. I have taught German in a junior college for fifteen years, using
mainly the traditional grammar approach. However, since 1998 and as a result of a
teaching training course I attended in Germany, I have wanted to introduce the use of
language games in my German classes. Specifically I have been thinking of
integrating language games into grammar practice to improve the level of my
students motivation and the atmosphere in the classroom, as well as to increase their
level of linguistic accuracy.
(c)
Selection of the Students

The students who participated in this experiment were in two of my German
classes (93 students in all). All students have studied English as a second language
for at least three years and have begun to study German as their major, after entering
college. They are 15 - 16 year-old beginners. The reason for the selection of this
sample was to examine second language acquisition in the early stages, as I was
assuming that these students would be more receptive to changes in teaching methods
than older students. Furthermore, beginners are often tricky to teach and tricky to
interest in grammar and the level was a very challenging and important for language
teaching.
The students were allocated to their classes according to the grades of their
entrance examination. The questionnaire Students Demographic Information (see
60
Appendix A) was administered in order to understand the students background (see

Table 3.1).
Table 3.1
Students Demographic Information
Variables
Experimental Group (N=46)

No
Mean
SD
Control Group (N=47)

No
Mean
SD
Gender
Male
Female
40
40
Total students
46
47
Yes
17
17
No
29
30
Yes
No
46
46
A lot
10
Some
31
26
None
13
German as 1st choice
Existing German knowledge
Exposure to games
Entrance examination scores
217.39
12.549
218.68
10.143
English as a second language

scores
51.98
3.873
52.40
3.965
Table 3.1 shows that there were 6 boys and 40 girls in the experimental group:
7 boys and 40 girls in the control group. Their distribution to the two classes was
consistent with the college academic policy that an equal number of students with a
similar general performance level is assigned to each class, in order to ensure
comparability between the two classes. The students general academic performance
was determined by their scores in the entrance examination, based on the results for
61
Chinese, English, Mathematics, Science, and History (Mean score 217.39+12.549 for
the experimental groups and 216.68+10.143 for the control groups). An Independent
t-test showed no statistically significant differences in the performance of the two
groups on the entrance examination and on the subject of English as a second
language in the entrance examination (also see Table 4.2 and 4.7).
With regard to the level of the students motivation to study German, in each
group there were 17 students who had selected German as their first choice rather than
English, Japanese, French, or Spanish. The remaining 29 students in the experimental
group, and 30 in the control group, were assigned to German classes because of their
lower entrance examination scores.
Of a total of 93 students, only one student in the control group had learned
some German previously, but only the alphabet, some phonetics and some sentence
structures, for one month before the Colleges semester began. For all practical
purposes, this student was also considered a beginner. All the other 92 students were
total beginners in German.
The two groups were judged by me and by other teachers to be very
comparable in terms of class performance and levels of motivation. In order to find
out whether the game-based grammatical practice would be effective for students
from different language levels, students of each group were divided into three
language levels, namely high, middle and low language level, based on their English
as a second language scores in the entrance examination. Table 3.2 illustrates the
distribution of the three language levels in both groups. A t-test and an ANOVA test
indicated that no significant differences were found in the language levels of the two
groups (see Table 4.7, p. 90).
62
Table 3.2
Distribution of Students According to their Entrance Performance in English
as a Second Language
Distribution of Students
Language Level Subgroups
(d)
Experimental Group
Control Group
All language levels
46
47
High language level
15
15
Middle language level
16
17
Low language level
15
15
Teaching Program
The two groups were taught following the same teaching plan. A detailed
description of the instructional program appears below (see 3.5, p. 75). Both groups
received an equal amount of instruction time over 18 weeks, for a total of 90 periods
(five lessons per week, each of 50 minutes duration). The experiment was conducted
from September 2003 to January 2004.
All instruments used to measure students learning outcomes; motivation,
classroom atmosphere, response toward grammar instruction, and students
perceptions of the role of grammar and grammar instruction were the same in each
group (see 3.2, p. 64).
3.1.2 Independent Variables
In this study, the effects of two different ways of practising grammatical rules
were investigated. While the presentation and explanations of grammatical features
were conducted in the same way in the experimental and control class, the reinforcing
and practising phases of such features were different: the experimental group used
63
language games, while the control group used only grammatical exercises. These two
different strategies constitute the independent variables.
3.1.3 Dependent Variables
The dependent variables were:
1.
Six tests, one mid-term and one final exam;
2.
A questionnaire on the level of students motivation to learn grammar;

measured by the factors of enjoyment, effort and capability;
3.
A questionnaire on the German classroom atmosphere, measured by the factors

of peer support, teacher support, student satisfaction and classroom cohesion;
4.
A questionnaire on the teaching strategies used during grammatical practice;
5.
A questionnaire on the role of grammar and grammar instruction.

3.1.4 Statistical Control
No pre-test was administered because the students had no previous
knowledge of German. However, to determine the subjects learning abilities in

German, the academic test scores of English as a second language in their entrance
examination, and the total scores from their entrance examination, were used. These
scores helped to establish the level of learning ability of students across the two
groups and to evaluate the effects of the use of games among students with
comparable levels of language learning ability.
The students scores in English were selected because previous academic
performance in another language is significantly related to a students future
performance in another language (Constantino, 1999). The purpose of including these
variables in the t-test and ANOVA was to reduce random error and to make any
differences resulting from the two types of learning experiences easier to detect. As
64
Specht and Sandlin (1991) stress, it is important to include covariates in comparative

studies. They point out that a significant source of variation in examination scores
may be due to the different academic abilities of the students in the various classes.
By removing this potentially serious source of performance variation, the internal
validity of the study was strengthened as the random error component was reduced,
providing more reliable statistical results.
3.2 Data Collection
Information from a variety of sources was collected in order to highlight the
effects of the two types of grammatical practice. Both quantitative and qualitative
data are listed in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3
Data Collection
Quantitative data:
a. Student demographic information form
b. Questionnaire on motivation
c. Questionnaire on classroom atmosphere
d. Questionnaire on the two types of grammatical practice
e. Questionnaire on the role of grammar and grammar instruction
f. Tests on grammar accuracy: six grammar tests, a mid-term exam
and a final exam
Qualitative data:
g. Focus group interviews
h. Field notes
i. Suggestions and comments made in students questionnaires
(a)
65
Student Demographic Information Form

Student demographic information was collected using the students
background form (see Appendix A). It included student numbers, gender, scores of
all subjects from their entrance examination, including English as a second language,
whether the students had experience with language games, whether German was their
choice, and their experience with German.
(b)
Questionnaire on Motivation
The Questionnaires on Motivation and on Classroom Atmosphere (see
Appendix B and C) were prepared by me, drawing upon some proven

motivation/attitude scales and classroom atmosphere scales (Lee, 2001; Lin, 2002).
These scales have demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability and were
successfully used in a variety of studies in Taiwan, including those conducted in
language education settings (Lin, 2002), as well as in cross-cultural contexts (Lee,
2001). For example, the scales developed by Lee (2001), have been found to be
internally consistent (alpha = .942 for the Motivation scale; alpha = .950 for the
classroom atmosphere scale).
After designing the questionnaire, I organised for two professors and two
experienced teachers of German to check them, to ensure that testees could
understand and complete all the questions.
In order to verify whether the questionnaires adopted in this study were
sufficiently reliable, I used them first with pilot subjects. The 94 subjects for the pilot
study were in a class of the English Department and in another class of the German
Department. They were not to be involved with either the experimental or the control
66
groups. These students were following a similar German syllabus to those of the
experimental and control group, and were therefore in a comparable situation as far as
their study and attitude to German were concerned.
Both questionnaires on motivation and classroom atmosphere were
administered to the pilot subjects twice (see Pilot Study Questionnaires in Appendices
B and C). They were asked to respond using a 4-point Likert scale (1= Strongly
Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3=Agree, 4= Strongly Agree). Students scoring high on the
scales were considered highly motivated and having a positive attitude to classroom
atmosphere.
The first time the questionnaires were administered to the pilot subjects was
on September 18, 2003. In the process of filling out the questionnaires, many subjects
stated that they found it difficult to indicate the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed with statements. Their own German grammar teachers and class teachers
also noticed that students had difficulties in making a decision between agree and
disagree. They suggested that I revise the questionnaires. I then introduced a 5point Likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Undecided, 4=Agree, 5=
Strongly Agree) and administered the questionnaires again on September 25, 2003.
After this, the final questionnaires were devised and administered 3 times to
the experimental and control groups: at the beginning of semester as a pre-test, before
the grammar instruction was introduced; during the semester, after the mid-term
examination as a post-test; at the end of the semester, as a delayed post-test after the
grammar practice was finished. The question numbers for the factors of each scale,
with the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients, are presented in Table 3.4.
67
Table 3.4
Questionnaire on Motivation: Items Employed to Assess Three Factors of
Students Motivation to Learn
Factors
Enjoyment
Effort
Capability
Items
Total
Alpha
1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, 18
0.7459
3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19
0.8101
7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 20, 21
0.8046
21
0.9030
Total questions
The questionnaire on the students motivation was composed of three scales

of 21 items that measured variables that have been shown to be related to motivation,
including the three variable motivational factors of enjoyment, motivational effort
and capability.
Seven items were used to assess students enjoyment of learning German,
where a high score indicated a very positive attitude toward learning German
grammar. Seven items assessed students motivational effort when learning German.
Students chose one of five alternatives of varying intensity to describe the extent of
their effort when learning Germany grammar in class. A high mean score indicated a
high level of motivational effort. Self-evaluation of the students capability to learn
German was also determined through the use of seven items. The students indicated
the level to which they felt they could perform. A high score was indicative of a high
degree of perceived competence. Overall, a total mean score of the three motivational
factors was used to assess the students motivation to learn German grammar. A high
mean score indicated a high level of motivation.
(c)
68
Questionnaire on Classroom Atmosphere

The Questionnaire on Classroom Atmosphere measured four aspects of class
interaction: peer support, teacher support, level of satisfaction and class cohesion (see
Table 3.5).
Table 3.5
Classroom Atmosphere Scale: Items Employed to Assess Four Factors of
Students Perception on the Classroom Atmosphere
Factors
Items
Total
Alpha
Peer support
1 - 11
11
0.8754
Satisfaction
12 - 20
0.7997
Teacher support
21 - 28
0.8857
Classroom cohesion
29 - 35
0.8051
35
35
0.9387
Total questions
Peer support was measured through 11 items. A high score reflected a high
level of supportive interaction between students when called upon to study grammar
in the German classroom. Students perception of satisfaction was measured through
nine items. A high score indicated a positive evaluation toward the German grammar
course. Eight items were used to collect the students perception about their German
teacher support to students. A high score indicated a positive evaluation of the level
of such support. The students feeling of belonging (class cohesion) was measured
through seven items. A high score indicated a stronger feeling of belonging. Overall,
a total mean score of these four aspects was used to assess the students responses on
classroom atmosphere. A high mean score indicated a high level of positive
responses.
(d)
69
Questionnaire on the Two Types of Grammatical Practice

To check the students perceptions on the two methods of grammar practice,
i.e. focus-on-forms for the Control Group and game-based grammatical practice for
the Experimental Group, a questionnaire was also devised (see Appendix D). The
questionnaire consisted of fourteen questions, eliciting students opinions about the
way they learn grammar, about their perceptions of the game-based activities
integrated into grammar practice, and if this way of grammar practice would help
them to improve their acquisition of German. The questionnaire was administered
and collected at the end of the experiment. The validity of the questionnaire was
checked by two experienced teachers of German grammar and by one professor who
has expert knowledge in the content area of our German programs.
In an effort to encourage the students to respond honestly, I informed them
that the results of their answers would not affect their grades. I also urged the
students to answer the questions in terms of their own opinions, attitudes and
situations, and not according to what they thought or what is generally believed or
expected by others. All students were asked to answer the questionnaires carefully
and completely.
(e)
Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction

To obtain an understanding of students opinions about the value of grammar
in their language-learning program, the study used a questionnaire concerning the role
of grammar and grammar instruction (see Appendix E). The questionnaire consisted
of sixteen specific questions (Items 1-16) and four open-ended questions (Items 1720). The twenty questions included perception of how important grammar was in
their learning of German (Items 1-9), their difficulties in grammar learning the
70
students were experiencing in dealing with grammatical rules (Items 10-13) and their
preference of the ways that grammar is taught (Items 14-20). Three negative items
(Items 11, 12 and 13) were included in the questionnaire to check the reliability. The
open-ended questions had three to five items for students to choose from. They asked
students opinions about the best way for their teachers to teach grammar and about
the best way for students to learn grammar. Explanations or why they thought so
were also invited.
The validity of the questionnaire was checked by two experienced teachers of
German grammar and by one professor who has expert knowledge in the content area
of our German programs.
(f)
Tests on Grammatical Accuracy

Lightbown and Spada (1999) questioned the meaning of a significant
difference between two groups if such difference is determined only by one written
grammar test. Therefore, in the course of this experiment, a variety of tests was
administered. They took the following formats:
1.
Written tests (6 in all), designed to assess students knowledge of selected

grammatical features;
2.
A midterm written examination on the selected grammatical features taught

and practised during the first half of the course;
3.
A final written examination of all the grammatical features covered during the
second part of the course.
The preparation of all tests and examinations was conducted with the
contribution of two other teachers of German and of one professor of German and it
was approved by the chairperson of the German Department.
71
All questionnaires were administered in Chinese, my students first language.

The English versions that appear in the Appendices were prepared by me.
(g)
Focus Group Interviews

Many researchers, such as Chvez (1984), Dupuy and Krashen (1998), and
Tse (2000) recognized the value of students perception of their foreign language
classroom experiences because of their theoretical, pedagogical and programmatic
implications and because of their bearing on linguistic outcomes. From a theoretical
perspective, certain attitudes and beliefs derived from student perceptions can have a
profound impact on the learners affective state. This affective disposition has been
hypothesized to play a central role in the processes of language acquisition
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). Pedagogically, student opinions and attitudes toward
specific classroom activities, or teacher-student interactions, can affect decisions on
how best to modify and employ various techniques and methods in the classroom
(Chvez, 1984). Programmatic decisions are also linked to student perceptions, in
that attributions of success and failure and the level of success students want to attain
determine the popularity of courses (Dupuy & Krashen, 1998).
In order to gather a deeper understanding of my students response toward
grammar practice, two focus groups were set up and interviewed at the end of the
teaching program. A focus group allows discussion to take place during group
interaction on specific issues, or concerns, and is a carefully planned discussion
designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non
threatening environment (Krueger, 1994, p. 16). The aim of the focus groups was to
encourage the students to offer honest opinions on the way grammar was taught in a
non-threatening environment (Murphy, 2001).
72
The focus groups consisted of some high, some middle, some low achievers,
and some students who were willing to voice their opinions on their teachers way of
teaching. The first focus groups had 12 students from the experimental group; the
second focus group had 13 students from the control group.
The topics that came up for discussion centered on the following aspects: the
students perceptions of the course, their teacher, the teaching materials, the use of
language games and the place of grammar learning (see Appendix F for a full list of
these aspects).
The focus group discussions were conducted at the end of the experiment. I
met the students during their self-study hours. I acted as discussion leader and made
an effort to keep the discussion on an informal level, because Krueger (1994) and
Murphy (2001) pointed out that focus groups work in an informal atmosphere. In
order to protect the students identities, they were reassured that no names would
appear in the report, although they were glad to be able to volunteer for the discussion
and expressed no objection to their names appearing in a report.
In the focus group discussions, the students were encouraged to choose their
preferred topics to start with; stimulus questions were provided. I took notes on what
students had to say. Each focus group sessions lasted approximately 90 minutes. The
focus group discussions occurred in Chinese and were recorded on audiotape and
transcribed for analysis.
Although it could be argued that the results of the interviews were influenced
by the students wish to please the teacher, it seemed this was not the case. I had to be
absent soon after the interviews were conducted and the students knew that I would
not be teaching them the next semester. Therefore, it can be stated with a fair degree
of reliability that they answered freely and honestly.
(h)
73
Field Notes
Murphy (2001) views retrospective field notes as a less intrusive way than
questionnaires and focus groups discussions, and values them as a valuable source for
gathering information about the teachers own understandings and explanations of
teaching. In order to gain a deeper understanding and awareness of the teaching and
learning process, I reflected on my teaching and my students learning by taking field
notes. I wrote these notes soon after the end of a class, as the events were fresh in my
mind. Sometimes, I observed and took notes while students were playing language
games. I focused on the course-related and research-related events; for example, how
students responded towards the teaching materials and grammar practice.
3.3 Procedures of Data Collection
Data were collected over 18 weeks from the middle of September 2003 to the
middle of January 2004. The procedures of data collection are all recorded in the
Table 3.6.
Table 3.6
Overview of Data Collection
Week 1
First pilot study:

Student Demographic Information;
Questionnaire On Motivation;
Questionnaire On Classroom Atmosphere;
Week 2
Second pilot study:

Individual Demographic Information;
Pre-test with both the Experimental and Control group:
Student Demographic Information;
74
Table 3.6 (Continued)

Overview of Data Collection
Week 3
Start of grammatical teaching using games with the Experimental Group,

and traditional grammatical practice with the Control Group;
Week 4
Continuation of teaching experiment;
Week 5
First grammar test conducted with both groups;
Week 6
Wenzao Week (no class);
Weeks 7-8 :
Second grammar test conducted with both groups;
Week 9
Mid-term Examination with both groups;
Week 10
Post-test with both the Experimental and control Group:

Administration of the Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar and
Grammar Instruction;
Third grammar test conducted with both groups;
Week 11
Week 12
Fourth grammar test conducted with both groups;
Weeks 13-14:
Week 15
Fifth grammar test conducted with both groups;
Week 16
Week 17
Sixth grammar test conducted with both groups;

Delayed post-test for both the Experimental and Control Groups:
Administration of the Questionnaire on the Grammatical Practice;
Week 18
Final examination;
The end of the experiment.
3.4 Statistical Analysis

The data analysis was divided into two parts - a quantitative and a qualitative
part. The statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC 11.0) was used for
statistical analysis, and the 0.05 level (p< 0.05) was used to determine any significant
differences for all results.
The statistical analyses employed for data processing included percentages,
75
means, standard deviations, one-way analysis of variance, t- test, pair t-test and Chitest.
3.5 Description of the Teaching Program
The following is a general framework of the grammar-teaching program of
this study (Figure 3.2).
Control Group
Experimental Group
3.5.1 Stage 1: Focus on Form
Stage1
Direct and in-depth rule

explanation with examples
Practice
Stage 2
Traditional practice
Text
book exercises
e 3.1 Teaching
Framework
and teaching materials
Game-based practice
Language games based
on textbook exercises
and teaching materials
Figure 3.2 Teaching Program
76
3.5.1 Stage 1: Focus-on-Forms

At the first stage of the teaching program both in the control group and in the
experimental group, the teaching focused on the forms of the language. In this study,
I used both inductive and deductive teaching approaches for form-focused instruction
(Norris & Ortega, 2000) and the 3Ps approach (Presentation Practice Production)
as suggested by Ur (1999).
At times I moved from the context and focused only temporarily on the
grammatical features, alerting students to the rules involved: using an inductive
approach, the students were to look for the rule, verbalise it, and then grammatical
rules were explained by me. Alternatively, the students were given an in-depth rule
explanation by me at the beginning of the lesson. I made sure to state the grammatical
rules at the beginning or at the end of the lesson, so that the students had an overview
of the explicit information about the rules, before they began to work on a series of
exercises. In some classes, I made extensive use of the students native language to
explain, translate, and make generalizations. Appendix G contains the teaching
program, as well as a table of all the functions, grammatical features and tasks that
were part of it.
3.5.2 Stage 2: Form-based Exercises for the Control Group;
Game-based Tasks for the Experimental Group
Stage Two was the practice stage of the teaching program. This stage
consisted of a series of form-based exercises for the control group and of game-based
tasks for the experimental group. These tasks were communication-oriented.
However, the main aim of this stage was the same for both groups: a consolidation of
the taught grammatical features in order to facilitate the transfer from short-term to
77
long-term memory.
(a)
Form-based Exercises for the Control Group

The students of the control group were expected to practise formal rules
through exercises provided by the textbooks, which consisted of words, phrases and
sentences in no particular communicative context or text-type. Some common
exercises of this type were:
(1) Fill in the blanks
Example 1:
bung 3 Wer ? Fragen und antworten Sie. (Passwort Deutsch 1, p. 91)
1. (spielen) Wer ______________ Karten? Lisa und Tobias _______ Karten.
(to play) Who _____________ cards? Lisa and Tobias _______ cards.
2. (schlafen) Wer ____________?
Frau Schmidt _____________.
(to sleep) Who __________ ?
Mrs. Schmidt _____________.
3. (fahren) Wer ___ nach Italien ? Frau Schmidt, Lisa und Tobias ______ nach
Italien.
(to go) Who ____ to Italy?
Mrs. Schmidt, Lisa and Tobias _____to Italy.
4. (wohnen) Wer _____in Bremen?

(to live) Who ____ in Bremen?
Thomas und Anna _______ in Bremen.

Thomas and Anna ______ in Bremen.
Example 2:
Transformation (the students change the structure in some prescribed manner)
e.g. Der Kaffee ist kalt. (put into negative)
bung 3 Nicht kalt heiss. Bitte schreiben Sie. (Passwort Deutsch 1, p. 105)
langsam voll gut rechts heiss klein kurz
(slow full good right hot small short)
1. Der Kaffee ist kalt. Nein, der Kaffee ist nicht kalt! Er ist heiss.
(The coffee is cold. No, this coffee is not cold! It is hot).
2. Der Mann ist gross. Nein,

(The man is tall.
78
! _________
No,____________________! _________)
3. Das Bier ist schlecht. Nein,
! _________
(The beer is not good. No,________________! _________)

4. Der Bus ist schnell. Nein,
(The bus is fast.
5. Der Zug ist lang.
(The train is long.
! _________
No,___________________! _________)
Nein,_____________________ ! ________
No,_____________________! _________)
6. Die Kirche ist links. Nein,_____________________ ! ________

(The church is on the left side. No,________________! _________)
Other types of practice exercises aiming at the practice of correct forms, but
involving meanings as well, were:
(2) Multiple-choice
Example 3:
bung 1 Was ist richtig? (Passwort Deutsch 1, p. 88)
1. Wo fhrt
der Zug? (Where does the train go?)
ist (is)
kommt (does come)
2. Wo
kommt der Zug? (Where does the train come from?)
Woher (Where)
Wohin (Where)
3. Wohin
fhrt
der Zug ? (Where does the train go to?)
ist (is)
kommt (does come)
4. Deutschland kommt (comes)
liegt ( is located )
wohnt (lives)
mitten in Europa. (Germany ___

in the middle of Europe.)
79
(3) Fill in the gaps

Example 4:
bung ein der er Ergnzen Sie bitte. (Passwort Deutsch 1, p.103)
1. Das ist ein Mann. Der Mann wartet im Cafe. Er trinkt Kaffee.
(This is a man. The man waits in the coffee shop. He drinks coffee.)
2. Das ist ______ Frau. ______ Frau wartet nicht. ________ schlft.
(This is _____ woman. _____ women doesnt wait. ______ sleeps.
3. Das sind Kinder. _________ Kinder sind noch klein. _____ spielen Fussball.
(They are children. _________ children are young. ______ play football.)
(4) Matching
Example 5:
bung 2 Was passt zusamen? (Matching Exercise) (Passwort Deutsch 1, p. 118)
Tennis
essen
Urlaub
hren
Musik
fahren
Grammatik
spielen
ins Kino
machen
Zug
gehen
Torte
lernen
tennis
to eat
holiday
to listen to
music
to drive
grammar
to play
a movie
to go to
train
to go to see
cake
to learn
80
The students of the control group received a selection of exercises taken

directly from the textbook and worked on the exercises with me, applying the
grammar rules that they had learned in the past few periods. I gave either the correct
answers and explained my choices, or elicited answers from the students while
explaining and correcting any errors that arose during this feedback session. Though
some of the excises were based on meaning, the whole practice stage was still focused
on the forms of the language and was teacher-centered.
(b)
Game-based Tasks for the Experimental Group

This sub-section contains a detailed description of the game-based tasks I
developed for my experimental group, alongside the grammatical features that were
involved, the language skills to be developed, the sentence structures called for and
the topics they were part of. A list of games used in this experiment is presented in
Table 3.7.
81
The Games Used in the Study
Games
1
Card and Board game

(Snakes and Ladders)
Interview
(Kennenlernspiel)
Picture and board game
Who wrote what about me?
Matching Game
Quartet
(Happy families)
Grammar Feature
Sentence Structure
Pronouns;
Regular verbs and
verb endings;
Question words
Pronouns;
Regular verbs and
verb ending;
Question words
Irregular verbs;
Verb forms
Sentences structure;
Questions:
1. Who are you?
2. Who is it?
Enquiring and Responding
Listening, speaking,
reading, writing
Questions:
Who are you?
Introducing oneself
Introducing your friends
reading, writing.
Yes/no questions structures
Enquiring and answering

about what people do
reading,
Irregular verbs;
Verb forms
Definite article: der,
die, das
Nouns ,
Singular and plural forms of
nouns
Definite article: der,
die, das
Singular and plural
forms of nouns
Functions
Language skills
Yes/no questions structures Checking statements
reading, writing
Structures of description
relating to: familymembers, occupation
Furniture, stationery
Naming objects and people
writing
Structures of requesting
Naming objects
Listening,
speaking,
reading
Table 3.7
81
82
The Games Used in the Study

Games
Grammar Feature
Sentence Structure
Memory game
indefinite articles: ein, eine (a.

an)
What is it?
This is a(n)......
They are...
Picture game
Negation : nicht, kein, keine
Yes/no questions structures

Negative sentences
Functions
Language skills
Describing objects
writing
Asking and answering
reading, writing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Definite articles: der, die ,das

1. Questions with question
Nouns
words and answers
Singular and plural
Describing a picture
Indefinite articles (a, an)
2. Yes/no questions structures
Negative words: nicht, kein, 3. Negative sentences
keine
Ordering, putting the
Sentence structure with
Separable verb prefixes
words in the correct
separable verbs
order
reading, writing
Describing game
10
Domino
(DIY word order)
11
Finding a time to meet
Separable verb prefixes

timetable
Sentence structure with time

adverbs
Gathering information Listening, speaking,

Making appointments reading, writing
12
Detectives
Possessive adjectives
1. Yes/no questions structures

2. Negative sentences
Stating possession
13
Grammar letters
Possessive adjectives
All sentence structures taught

in the semester
Asking and answering; Listening, speaking,

Describing family
reading, writing
reading, writing
reading,
writing
82
83
The following is a detailed example of one of the games used in the practice phase of
grammatical features. The detailed descriptions of all the other games are to be found in
Appendix H.
Game 1
Grammar:
Snakes and Ladder

To reinforce the usage of subject pronouns, the present tense of verbs
and the sentence structure for questions and answers.
The German pronoun and verb ending of regular verb forms; e.g.
ich komme (I come), du kommst (you come), er kommt (he
comes), sie kommt (she comes), wir kommen (we come), ihr
kommt (you come), sie kommen (they come)
Sentence structure: subject + verb + object
Gabi lernt hier Englisch. (Gabi learns English here.)
Er heisst Willi. (His name is Willi.)
W-questions: question words and structure:
wie, woher, wo, was + verb + subject ? e. g.
Wie heissen Sie? (What is your name?)
Woher kommst du ? (Where do you come from?)
Wo wohnt ihr? (Where do you live?)
Was macht Gabi hier? (What are you doing here?)
Wer ist das? (Who is it?)
Prepositions: in (in), aus (from)
Gabi kommt aus Hamburg und wohnt jetzt in Bonn.
(Gabi comes from Hamburg and lives now in Bonn.)
Function:
To enquire and respond
Skills:
Speaking and writing, partly reading and listening
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
50 minutes
Preparation:
A SNAKES AND LADDERS board (Appendix H)

A dice and 4 markers
A deck of playing word-cards (Appendix H):
The white cards have fill-in exercises with correct verb endings.
84
The blue cards have fill-in exercises with correct prepositions.

The orange cards have fill-in exercises with correct question words.
The green cards have exercises to build correct questions.
Procedure:
Students take turn placing a marker on the starting place and tossing
the die.
The students then move their marker the appropriate number of
spaces. The colour on the spaces where they land decides which
playing cards students choose.
Students are permitted to move by giving a correct answer to the
question. If a student lands at the base of a ladder and gives the right
answer, he may climb up to the top of the ladder and continue from
there to the next turn; if the answer is not correct, he just does not
proceed any further.
If a student lands on the tail of a snake and gives the right answer, he
is not permitted to move forward. If the answer is incorrect, he moves
three spaces back. If he lands on the head of snake and gives the right
answer, he may stay on the same spot; otherwise, he has to slide down
to the tail of the snake and continue from there on the next turn.
The first person to reach the endpoint, wins.
3.6 Summary of Chapter 3

This chapter has presented the experimental design for this study. The participants
background, the teaching program, the material used in the study, and the procedure
employed for data collection were explained. Statistical analysis issues and the transcription
of the interviews were also considered.
The next chapter will present and discuss the results of the statistical analyses
performed to address the research questions and the hypotheses, as has been outlined at the
end of Chapter 2.
85
CHAPTER 4
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents and discusses all results from grammar tests and exams including
the pre-tests, as well as all findings from questionnaires, as they relate to the research questions
and hypotheses (see 2.9, pp. 53-54). Section 4.1 deals with the rationale of the pre-tests and
with their results. In section 4.2 the results relating to the research question on the students
level of grammatical accuracy are presented and discussed. Section 4.3 presents the results
relating to the research question on students motivation, while the results relating to the
question on classroom atmosphere are discussed in section 4.4. Section 4.5 presents the results
relating to the research question on students responses towards the grammatical practice.
Section 4.6 contains the results regarding the students reaction to the role of grammar in
learning and teaching a second language. Section 4.7, finally, summarized the results and
finding of Chapter 4.
4.1 Pre-tests
Before investigating the results of the grammar achievement tests, the comparability of
all students in the two groups was ensured by analyzing the students total scores on the
entrance examination, as well as their English scores in order to provide an indication of their
performance in a second language.
The results of the t-test in Table 4.1 indicate that the two groups obtained comparable
total scores in their entrance examination: the mean total score of the experimental group was
217.39 and the mean total score of the control group was 218.68. There was no statistically
Chapter 4: Quantitative Results, Analysis, and Discussion
86
significant difference between the two groups (t = - 0.546, p>0.05).

Table 4.1
Mean Total Scores of Entrance Examination in the Experimental and Control
Groups (n=93)
Total Scores of Entrance Examination
Group
n
Mean
SD
Experimental Group
46
217.39
12.549
Control Group
47
218.68
10.143
- 0.546
0.176
The mean difference is not significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 4.2 shows that the mean English score of the experimental group was 51.98 and
the mean English score of the control group was 52.40. No statistically significant difference
between the two groups was found (t = - .524, p>0.05).
Table 4.2
Mean English Score of the Entrance Examination in the Experimental and
Control Groups (n=93)
English Score of the Entrance Examination
Group
n
Mean
SD
Experimental Group
46
51.98
3.873
Control Group
47
52.40
3.965
- 0.524 0.834
The mean difference is not significant at the 0.05 level.
The t results (Tables 4.1 and 4.2) show that the two groups were comparable in two
important aspects, i.e. entrance examination and English as L2.
These results also indicate
that the basic ability, both in general performance and in a second language, was similar
between the two groups.
This fact allowed me to refer differences in their performance
during this study to the different instruction treatment with a good level of plausibility.
87
It is worth reiterating that, apart from analyzing the students general learning
performance (as evidenced in their entrance examination scores on Chinese, Mathematics,
Science, and History), the English as a second language scores were analyzed in order to gain an
idea of the students performance in a second language (given the fact that none of them had
studied another second language previously).
In order to better evaluate the students performance in another language, the students
were divided into 3 groups according to their L2 English scores in the entrance examination:
1. High-Level Subgroup (HL): students with scores in the upper third (33%, scores 55 to 60).
2. Middle-Level Subgroup (ML): students with scores in the middle third (34%, scores 52 to
55).
3. Low-Level Subgroup (LL): students with scores in the lower third (33%, scores 42 to 52).
There were 15 students in each of the High- and Low-Level subgroups in both the
experimental and control groups; there were 16 and 17 students in the Middle-Level subgroups
of the experimental and control group, respectively.
First, a within-group difference test was carried out to compare the between-group
difference among the students language levels in each group. Comparing their performance in
English, the students in the high language level performed better than the middle language level
and low language level students, while the middle language level performed better than the low
language level students in each group (Table 4.3 and 4.5).
One-Way ANOVA tests were also carried out to compare the inter-group differences
among the students language levels in each group. As Table 4.4 indicates, there were
statistically significant differences between the three language levels of students in the
experimental group in their English scores (F=100.999, p< 0.05). Also the results of the
ANOVA test shown in Table 4.6 revealed that there were statistically significant differences
among the three language levels of the control group (F=72.437, p< 0.05).
88
Tables 4.3 to 4.6 show that the students belonging to the same level in both the control
and experimental groups had comparable performance. Moreover, the results from Tables 4.4
and 4.6 reveal that students from different language levels in both groups performed differently.
Table 4.3
Results for English as a Second Language in the Three Language Levels of the
Experimental Group (n=46)
Language Level
Subgroup
High Level

Mean
MD
15
56.13
3.881
Middle Level
16
52.25
4.722
Low Level
15
47.53
8.603
MD = Mean Difference between the different language levels.

MD1 is calculated from the mean of the High language level minus the mean of the Middle language level
MD2 is calculated from the mean of the Middle language level minus the mean of the Low language level.
MD3 is calculated from the mean of the High language level minus the mean of the Low language level.
Table 4.4
ANOVA Results of Pre-test for English as a Second Language in the Three
Language Levels of the Experimental Group (n=46)
English
Scores
Sources
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Between
Group Within
Groups Total
556.512
118.467
674.978
2
43
45
278.256
2.755
The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
100.999
Sig.
0.000*
89
Table 4.5
Results for English as a Second Language in the Three Language Levels of the
Control Group (n=47)
Language Level
Subgroup
High Level

Mean
MD
15
56.67
4.201
Middle Level
17
52.47
4.402
Low Level
15
48.07
8.603

MD1 is calculated from the mean of the High language level minus the mean of the Middle language level.
Table 4.6
ANOVA Results of Pre-test for English as a Foreign Language in the Three
Language Levels of the Control Group (n=47)
English
Scores
Sources
Sum of
Squares
Between
Group Within
Groups Total
554.817
168.502
723.319
df
2
44
46
Mean
Square
277.409
3.830
Sig.
72.438
0.000*
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Then, the t-tests were conducted to compare the intra-group differences between all
three levels of both groups (Table 4.7). The mean score of the HL subgroup was 56.13 and
56.67 in the experimental and control groups, respectively. The mean score of the ML
subgroup was 52.25 and 52.47 in the experimental and control groups, respectively. The mean
score of the LL subgroup was 47.53 and 48.07 in the experimental and control groups,
respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with
regard to the basic language level (Table 4.7).
90
Table 4.7
Mean Score of English in Entrance Examination among Three Language Level
Subgroups in the Experimental and Control Group
English Score in Entrance Examination
Language Level
Experimental Group
Subgroup
Control Group
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
All
46
51.98
3.873
47
52.40
3.965
0.843
High (HL)
15
56.13
2.066
15
56.67
2.044
0.133
Middle (ML)
16
52.25
0.683
17
52.47
1.068
0.129
Low (LL)
15
47.53
1.922
15
48.07
2.187
0.354
A two-way mixed model factorial ANOVA test of the raw scores for all post-tests was
conducted in order to find out whether the differences in the post-test results could be attributed
to the interaction of the two different approaches. Table 4.8 shows that there was no
statistically significant interaction between these two factors (F = 1.010, p = 0.369). This
means that the differences in the post-test can be safely attributed to the different teaching
approaches.
Table 4.8
Two-way Mix Factorial Model ANOVA Test of Main Effects
Source
Type III Sum
df
Mean Square
Sig.
of Squares
Teaching Approaches
317.148
317.148
3.621
0.060
Achievement Levels
408.513
204.256
2.332
0.103
176.890
88.445
1.010
0.369
Teaching Approaches
* Achievement Levels
Interaction
91
To sum up, the results from Tables 4.3 to 4.6 show that the students from different
language levels in the experimental group, as well as in the control group, performed differently.
Moreover, the results also indicate that students of each language level in both groups were from
a homogeneous population and their performance in a second language was similar. Table 4.7
and 4.8 also indicate that the mean score of English in entrance examination among the three
language level subgroups in the experimental and control group were comparable. The results
make plausible my conclusion that any differences among different levels on the post-tests
could not be attributed to different learning ability or to prior knowledge of another language,
but probably to different instructional approaches.
4. 2 Post-Tests on Grammatical Accuracy
(Research Questions 1 and 2 and Hypotheses 1 and 2)
In order to find out whether the game-based practice was making any significant
difference during the 18-week treatment period, the results of a total of six grammar tests, a
mid-term examination and a final examination were collected from the two groups. First, the
intra-group comparison was made, to see whether there were any differences between the
different language levels in the both groups. Then, the inter-group differences were analyzed.
The first intra-group analysis was made on the experimental group. As shown in
Tables 4.9, the experimental students of the high level performed to an overall higher accuracy
level, but the students of the middle and low levels progressed at a higher growth rate (without,
however, reaching the accuracy performance of the students of the high level). There was a
1.47 mean difference between the high and the middle language level while a 0.22 mean
difference was found between the middle and the low language levels. The ANOVA results in
Table 4.10 also show that there was no significant difference between the three levels (F=0.314,
p>0.05). The middle and low level students in the experimental group grew at their own pace,
92
made improvement, and performed as well as the high level students did. That means that the
three levels were not homogeneous before the study (Table 4.5), but became homogeneous after
the study (Table 4.10). This indicates that the game-based practice benefited the middle and
low levels more than the high levels in terms of growth rate in the post-tests.
Table 4.9
Results of Post-Tests of the Experimental Language Levels (n=46)
Language Level
Subgroup
Grammar Achievement
Mean
MD
High Level
15
86.81
1.471
Middle Level
16
85.34
0.222
Low Level
16
85.12
1.693

Table 4.10
ANOVA Results of Post-Tests of the Experimental Language Levels (n=46)
Grammar
Achievements
Sources
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
Between
Group Within
Groups Total
25.560
4096.595
4211.155
2 12.780
43 95.270
45
0.134
0.875
In contrast to the improvement of middle and low language levels in the experimental
group (Table 4.10), the students from the middle and low language levels of the control group
performed similarly to their pre-tests (Table 4.11).
The mean difference between the high
and middle language levels of the control group was 5.40, while the mean difference between
the middle and low language levels was 3.13.

language levels reached 8.53.
93
The mean difference between the high and low
The ANOVA result in Table 4.12 also shows that there was a
statistically significant difference between the three levels (F=3.497, p=0.039).
This means
that the three levels remained heteronymous, as they were before the study (Table 4.5 and
Table 4.6). The results reveal that the high language level students performed best among
the three language levels.
The big mean differences were the evidence of the gap between
the three language levels (Table 4.11).

Table 4.11
Results of Post-Test for the Control Levels (n=47)
Language Level
Subgroup
Grammar Achievement
n
Mean
MD
High Level
15
86.70
5.401
Middle Level
17
81.30
3.132
Low Level
15
78.17
8.533

Table 4.12
ANOVA Results of Post-Tests of the Control Levels (n=47)
Sources
Sum of
df
Squares
Grammar
Achievements
p <0.05
Mean
Sig.
Square
Between Group
560.035
2 280.017
Within Groups
3523.485
44
Total
4083.520
46
80.079
3.497
0.039*
94
In addition to the intra-group analysis presented above, also the comparisons of

inter-group were made on the gain scores of each language level in both groups. The t-tests
were carried out to determine whether the two different grammar instructions had a positive
effect on the different groups.
The results in Table 4.13 show that there was no statistically significant difference
between the two groups (t=1.889, p=0.062). However, the experimental groups had a higher
mean post-test score than the control group (85.75 + 9.751 versus 82.02 + 9.422). This finding
indicates that the experimental group outperformed the control group (MD=3.70). In other
words, the game-based practice gave the experimental group some advantage over the control
group, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Table 4.13 also shows that the students of the high language levels in the experimental
group and in the control group outperformed the best scores of the other two levels.
Table 4.13
Post-treatment t-Tests for the Outcomes of both Groups (n=93)
Grammar Achievement
Language
Level
Subgroup
Experimental Group
n
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
MD
All
46
85.75
9.751
47
82.02
9.422
3.70
1.889 0.062
High (HL)
15
86.81
6.361
15
86.70
5.891
0.11
0.048 0.932
Middle (ML)
16
85.34
9.265
17
81.30 10.279
4.04
1.182 0.963
Low (LL)
15
85.12 12.656
15
78.17
6.95
0.691 0.413
Control Group
9.809
MD = Mean Difference between the experimental and control groups.

The MD is calculated from the mean of the experimental group minus the mean of the control group.
There was only 0.11 mean difference between the high language levels of the two
groups. However, there was 4.04 mean difference between the middle levels of the two groups,
while the mean difference between the two low language levels was bigger (MD=6.95). These
95
findings indicate that the students of the middle and low levels of the experimental group
performed better than the equivalent students of the control group. However, the ANOVA
results in Table 4.14 reveal that such mean difference between the three language levels in both
groups did not reach a statistically significant difference (p= 0.875).
To sum up, the average scores of the post-tests on grammatical accuracy show an
overall higher performance of the Experimental Group over the Control Groups (Figure 4.1).
They also reveal that the students in the high levels in both groups performed better than the
other two levels. It is noted that the progress of the students from middle language level and
low language level of the experimental group was obvious. However, the difference between
the experimental levels and the control levels was not statistically significant (Tables 4.13,
4.14).
Table 4.14
ANOVA Results of the Post-tests among the Three Language Levels in both Groups
(n=93)
Sources
Sum of
df
Mean
Squares
High L/L
Middle L/L
Low L/L
0.088
Within Groups
1052.458
28
37.588
Total
1052.546
29
134.161
134.161
Within Groups
2978.212
31
90.071
Total
3112.373
32
362.269
362.269
Within Groups
3589.410
28
128.193
Total
3951.679
29
410.891
205.445
90.184
Between Groups
Between Groups
Sig.
0.008
0.962
1.396
0.246
2.826
0.104
2.278
0.108
Square
0.088
Between Group
Total mean
Between Groups
scores
Within Groups
8116.599
90
Total
8527.489
92
96
88
86
84
82
Experimental Group
80
Control Group
78
76
74
72
1
Total Mean Scores
2
High L/L
3
Middle L/L
4
Low L/L
Figure 4.1 Group Means on the Grammar Accuracy by the Three Language
Levels in Both Groups
The first hypothesis stated that the experimental students taught by the game-based
practice would perform better in the use of German grammar than those in the control group
taught by the traditional practice. The results of the statistical analysis reported that the
experimental students performed better overall over the control group. However, there was no
statistically significant difference between the two groups. Therefore, the first hypothesis was
not supported by the results.
The second hypothesis was that students of all three language competence levels (high,
middle and low) of the experimental group, who have been taught by means of language games,
would produce higher scores on grammatical accuracy tests and examinations than the students
of all three competence levels (high, middle and low) of the control group. The results of the
statistical analysis reported that the students in the high levels in both groups, performed better
than the other two levels; the progress of the students from middle language level and low
language level of the experimental group was obvious. However, the difference between the
experimental levels and the control levels was not statistically significant. Therefore, the
second hypothesis was not supported by the results, although the trends of the scores were in the
97
direction predicted by this hypothesis.

4.2.1 Discussion of the Results on Students Grammatical Accuracy
These results relate to the first research question of this study: (Do the experimental
students taught by the game-based grammatical practice perform better in grammatical accuracy
than those in the control group taught by the traditionally exercise-based practice?) and to the
second research question: (Is the level of effectiveness of games-based grammatical practice
comparable across the language competence levels?).
The most noteworthy finding of the use of games with the experimental students is that
there was no significant difference between the two groups as a result of the use of games, as
shown in six grammar tests and two examinations. The results were consistent with the
findings obtained with EFL university pre-sessional students by Gardner (1987) and Miller
(1992). However, this main findings does not support the common perception on the validity
of games as a recommended learning and teaching strategy that emerged from most of the
literature review in chapter 2 (for example, Deesri, 2002; Garcia-Carbonell, Rising, Montero &
Watts, 2001; Gaudart, 1999; Hong, 2002; Shie, 2003). It does not reflect the outcome from the
studies conducted with L2 students by Cortes (1974), Issacs (1979), and Wrucke-Nelson (1992).
However, the experimental students obtained a higher grammatical accuracy level than
the control students, indicating some positive advantage as a result of using games; it also
emerged that the middle and low levels of the experimental students gained more in
grammatical accuracy than the high level did (Table 4.13, p. 94, Figure 4.1, p. 96).
The main result on the use of games with the experimental students was disappointing
to me, as one of my strongest hypotheses was that games would make a substantially positive
difference. In spite of this, however, the small advantage recorded within the experimental
students can, with a fair degree of reliability, be attributed to the use of games. This
98
interpretation is strongly supported by both the experimental students comments, my field

notes (see 5.1 for detailed comments from these two sources, pp. 171-182 and Appendix I, pp.
300-301) and the positive responses of the experimental students in the Questionnaire on the
Two Types of Grammatical Practice (Table 4.42).
The failure, however, to obtain a significant difference in grammatical accuracy
through the use of games requires some interpretation. Firstly, I believe that the introduction of
a way of teaching grammar which was very different to what students were expecting, and also
different from the way all other subjects in the students curriculum were taught, was a big
change for most students, particularly because this new method required them to be much more
active in class, to use a lot more language than in other language classes they had experienced.
Actually some students complained about the organisation of games (see 5.2 for detailed
comments, pp. 182-184 and Appendix I, p. 302) because it was hard for them to work with
some students they were unfamiliar with. Generally students were accustomed to
teacher-fronted lessons. They did not wish to become involved with games at the beginning of
the study. I also found out that most students were not familiar with the rules of the games.
Toth (2004) noted that learners might not accurately understand what the instructor intends by
designing activities around a particular grammar structure. That could lead to a negative
instruction results. The new method they were exposed to ran against a deeply ingrained
pedagogical approach, which proved too alien to my students for them to be able to benefit from
in the short period of this experiment.
Once again, as shown in other tables in this chapter, there was no statistically significant
improvement on overall motivation and classroom atmosphere between the pre-test and the
post-test. Statistically significant improvement in overall motivation and classroom
atmosphere, however, was found between the pre-test and the delayed post-test. This shows a
delayed change in the students perception of motivation and classroom atmosphere in the
99
delayed post-test, supporting my interpretation that it is not realistic to expect changes to occur
within a short time framework.
Secondly, I am now convinced that the size of the experimental class was too large to
allow an appropriately extended use of games, though the students were divided into small
groups. The sheer number of 46 students did not provide enough practice time to allow a
substantial change to occur in these students accuracy rate, as compared to those of the control
group. This interpretation is supported by the results from students interview (see 5.2, pp.
184-186 and Appendix I, p. 302). Some students pointed out that it was too hard to keep up
with all the information they had to know in playing games. They wished to have more time to
play games or more games to play. Lee and VanPatten (2003) and Omaggio-Harley and Terry
(2000) also argued that the approach focus on form might work effectively only if the
provision of comprehensible input and the contextualization of L2 grammatical form, reflecting
authentic communication tasks, reach a balance. However, I had to keep up with the tight class
schedules, which had to be the same as those of the control group. Moreover, when it was clear
that students were using more German during language games, the high number of students
made it difficult for me to check their level of accuracy. This meant that the obviously higher
approval for the use of games was not necessarily translated into a higher level of grammatical
accuracy, because of high student numbers.
Thirdly, all the grammar tests and the mid-term and final examinations were only
paper-and-pencil tests, in strict accordance with the requirements of the course that I was not
permitted to change. The tests dealt only with the reading and writing skills, with no speaking
component. The speaking practice that this study focused on, through the use of games, was
meant all along to improve the students writing and reading accuracy. However, many
students noted during their focus group interviews and in their answers to the questionnaire on
teaching method (see 4.5, p. 149, 5.1, p. 171 and Appendix I, pp. 300-301), that the use of
100
games, apart from giving them a better understanding of grammar, had improved also their
speaking ability, their confidence and their willingness to be active during classes. They were,
therefore, disappointed that test did not offer the opportunity to demonstrate these other
changes.
The small advantage, however, that the experimental students obtained over the control
students on grammatical accuracy in the post-test, can be interpreted as a noteworthy result, for
the simple reason that it was an improvement (even if not significant) on the control groups.
The much less traditional grammatical exercise practice of the control students, replaced by
the more communicative practice of the experimental students proved effective enough not only
to allow a similar level of accuracy in exercise-based tests, but also to improve on it. This
result strikes at the weakness of the traditional rule + exercise only approach of the control
students, while pointing to the strength of the rule + communicative practice approach, which
proved more effective, to some extent, not only in raising the level of participation and oral
ability, but also the level of grammatical accuracy. These results are consistent with the
positive findings obtained by Doughty and Varela (1998), Klapper and Rees (2003), and Norris
and Ortega (2000).
It is acknowledged again here that, in spite of the reasons proposed above to explain the
failure to achieve a statistically significant outcome in favour of games, such failure was quite a
major disappointment to me, as I was expecting a clear advantage of the experimental students,
as indicated in my first hypothesis.
I am not certain to what extent the reasons above can account for the disappointing
result. I feel that they do not fully explain it and that the real impact of games in the teaching
and learning of grammatical features of a second language needs to be further explored, in order
to either confirm its limited value or to indicate a greater degree of usefulness than this study has
provided. All that this experiment was able to do was to point towards a likely more positive
101
result under a more favourable teaching and learning environment, in which games constitute
one of the main strategies.
The following section is going to explore the effects of the game-based practice on the
students motivation to learn. This is the main focus of the third research question and research
hypothesis three, according to which I was expecting a significant difference between the two
groups of students using different types of grammatical practice.
4.3 Results of the Game- based Practice on Students Motivation
(Research Question 3 and Hypothesis 3)
As indicated in chapter 3, this study has monitored the effects of the game-based
practice on the students motivation to learn German grammar before, during and after the
experiment. The specially devised motivation questionnaire (see Appendix B) was
administered three times: once before the experiment and twice after, and it covered both the
inter- and the intra-group comparisons. In addition to the total motivational scores of the two
groups, the inter- and intra-group motivational subscales were also investigated. The three
subscales included: (a) Enjoyment, (b) Effort, and (c) Capability (see 3.2 for the meaning of
these terms, p. 64).
Paired t-tests were carried out in order to monitor the changes in each of these three
motivational factors, as well as the overall changes in motivation with both groups. The first
comparison of motivational change was on the intra-group motivational factors in both the
experimental and control group.
4.3.1 Intra-group Comparison of Motivation Change in
the Experimental Group and in the Control Group
(a)
Motivational Factor Enjoyment of the Experimental Group

The results of the motivational factor Enjoyment in the pre-test, post-test and the
102
delayed post-test phases are displayed in Table 4.15-1 and 4.15-2.

pre-test phase was 24.826.
The mean score of the
The experimental group scored similarly in the post-test phase
after the nine-week intervention of the game-based practice, with scores slightly higher than in
the pre-test (Mean=25.391, MD=0.565, p>0.05). However, a growth of the factor
Enjoyment was recorded between the post-test and the delayed post-test (25.391 versus
28.022, MD=-2.630, p<0.001), as well as between the pre-test and the delayed post-test
(24.826 versus 28.022, MD=-3.196, p<0.001). That is, the experimental group showed a
statistically significant improvement in the motivational factor Enjoyment after the
intervention of the game-based practice for a whole semester. The changes regarding
Enjoyment of the experimental group are shown in Figure 4.2.
Table 4.15-1
Mean Scores for the Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for the Experimental Group
(n=46)
Enjoyment
Mean
SD
Pre-test
24.826
3.427
Post-test
25.391
3.505
Delayed post-test
28.022
3.429
Table 4.15-2
Paired T-Test for the Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for the Experimental Group
(n=46)
Enjoyment
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
-0.565
-1.635
0.109
Post-test Delayed post-test
-2.630
-5.255
0.000*
Delayed post-test Pre-test
-3.196
-5.930
0.000*
The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
103
29
28
27
26
Experimental Group
25
Control Group
24
23
22
1
pre-test
2
post-test
3
delayed post-test
Figure 4.2 The Development of the Motivation Factor Enjoyment in both Groups
(b)
Motivational Factor Effort of the Experimental Group

The results of the motivational factor Effort in the pre-test, post-test and the delayed
post-test are displayed in Table 4.16-1 and 4.16-2. The mean score of the pre-test was 26.457.
The experimental group scored similarly in the post-test after the nine-week intervention of the
game-based practice, with scores slightly higher than in the pre-test (Mean=26.761, MD=0.304,
p>0.05). However, the growth patterns were found to be different between the post-test and the
delayed post-test (26.761 versus 28.696, MD=-1.935, p<0.05), as well as between the pre-test
and the delayed post-test (26.457 versus 28.696, MD=-2.239, p<0.001). That is, the
experimental group gained statistically significant improvement in their motivational factor
Effort after a one-semester intervention of the game-based practice. The changes in the
motivational factor Effort of the experimental group are shown in Figure 4.3.
Tables 4.16-1 and 4.16-2 and Figure 4.3 show the difference between the two groups
in relation to Effort.
Again, the experimental students scored a statistically significant
increase, while the control students did not (see also Tables 4.20-1 and 4.20-2 further on).
104
Table 4.16-1
Mean Scores for the Motivational Factor Effort in all Phases for the Experimental
Group (n=46)
Effort
Mean
SD
Pre-test
26.457
2.904
Post-test
26.761
4.089
Delayed post-test
28.696
3.457
Table 4.16-2
Paired t-Test for the Motivational Factor Effort in all Phases for the Experimental
Group (n=46)
Effort
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
-0.304
-0.674
0.504
-1.935
-3.107
0.003*
-2.239
-3.796
0.000*
29
28.5
28
27.5
Experimental Group
27
Control Group
26.5
26
25.5
25
1
pre-test
post-test
delayed post-test
Figure 4.3 The Development of the Motivational Factor Effort in both Groups
(c)
105
Motivational Factor Capability of the Experimental Group

As shown in Tables 4.17 -1 and 4.17- 2, the mean score on the motivational factor
Capability in the pre-test was 24.457. The experimental group scored almost identically in
the post-test after the nine-week intervention of the game-based practice, with scores slightly
lower than in the pre-test (Mean=24.283, MD=0.174, p>0.05). However, the scores improved
between the post-test and the delayed post-test (24.283 versus 27.326, MD=-3.304, p<0.001), as
well as between the pre-test and the delayed post-test (24.457 versus 27.326, MD=-4.952,
p<0.001). That is, the experimental group gained statistically significant improvement in their
motivational factor Capability after the intervention of the game-based practice for one semester.
The changes in the Capability factor of the experimental group are also shown in the Figure 4.4.
Tables 4.17 -1 and 4.17 -2 and Figure 4.4 reveal the improvement by the experimental students
on their perceived level of capability in learning grammatical features of German.
Table 4.17-1
Mean Scores for the Motivational Factor Capability in all Phases for the
Capability
Mean
SD
Pre-test
24.457
3.557
Post-test
24.283
3.931
Delayed post-test
27.326
3.627
106
Table 4.17-2
Paired t-Test for the Motivational Factor Capability in All Phases for the
Capability
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
-0.174
-0.363
0.718
-3.304
-5.937
0.000*
-4.952
-4.952
0.000*
28
27
26
25
Experimental Group
24
Control Group
23
22
21
1
pre-test
post-test
delayed post-test
Figure 4.4 The Development of the Motivation Factor Capability in both Groups
(d)
Overall Changes in Motivation of the Experimental Group

Paired t-tests were carried out to compare the students overall changes in motivation
between the pre-test, the post-test, and the delayed post-test in the experimental group. As
shown in Tables 4.18 -1 and 4.18 -2, the experimental group scored similarly in the post-test
after the nine-week intervention of the game-based practice, with the scores slightly higher than
in the pre-test (75.739 versus 76.435, MD= -0.696, p> 0.05). However, a higher growth pattern
was found between the post-test and the delayed post-test (76.435 versus 84.044, MD=-7.609,
p<0.001), as well as between the pre-test and the delayed post-test (75.739 versus 84.044,
MD=-8.304, p<0.001). The experimental group gained statistically significant improvement in
107
their motivation toward learning German after one semester intervention of the game- based
practice. The motivation change of the experimental group is shown in Figure 4.5.
Table 4.18-1
Mean Score for the Overall Change in Motivation for all Phases for the
Experimental Groups (n=46)
Motivation
Mean
SD
Pre-test
75.739
8.744
Post-test
76.435
10.909
Delayed post-test
84.044
9.984
Table 4.18-2
Paired T-Test for the Overall Change in Motivation for all Phases for the
Experimental Groups (n=46)
Motivation
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
-0.696
-0.651
0.519
-7.609
-5.118
0.000*
-8.304
-5.475
0.000*
86
84
82
80
78
Experimental Group
Control Group
76
74
72
70
1
pre-test
2
post-test
3
delayed post-test
Figure 4.5 Overall Changes in Motivation in both Groups
(e)
108
Motivational Factor Enjoyment for the Control Group

The results of the motivational factor Enjoyment in the pre-test, post-test and the
delayed post-test for the control group are displayed in Tables 4.19 -1 and 4.19 -2.
The mean score of the pre-test was 25.362. The control group scored lower in the
post-test after the nine-week intervention of the traditional grammar practice (25.362 versus
24.638, MD=0.723, p>0.05). The scores improved between the post-test and the delayed
post-test (24.638 versus 25.830, MD=-1.191, p<0.05). However, in comparison to the pre-test,
the control group did not make progress in the delayed post-test, and their scores on Enjoyment
went backwards from their original scores in the pre-test (25.830 versus 25.362, MD=-0.468,
p>0.05). That is to say, the control group did not gain significant improvement in their
motivational factor Enjoyment after one semester intervention with the traditional practice.
The changes in the Enjoyment of the control group are shown in Figure 4.2.
Table 4.19-1
Mean Scores for the Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Enjoyment
Mean
SD
Pre-test
25.362
3.510
Post-test
24.638
3.864
Delayed post-test
25.830
3.198
Table 4.19-2
Paired-T-Test for the Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for the Control Group
(n=47)
Enjoyment
Sig.
0.723
1.605
0.115
-1.191
-3.072
0.004*
-0.468
- 5.255
0.245
Pre-test Post-test
MD
(f)
109
Motivational Factor Effort for the Control Group

According to the results in Tables 4.20-1 and 4.20 -2, the mean score of the pre-test
was 26.975.
Nevertheless, the control group scored slightly lower in the post-test after the
nine-week intervention with the traditional practice (26.851 versus 26.975, MD=0.106,
p>0.05). No significant differences were found either between the post-test and the delayed
post-test (26.851 versus 27.553, MD=-0.702, p>0.05) or between the pre-test and the delayed
post-test (26.975 versus 27.553, MD=-0.596, p>0.05). It is noted that the control group did
make some progress in the delayed post-test, and their scores on the motivational factor
Effort were slightly higher than in the pre-test (26.975 versus 27.553, MD=-0.596, p>0.05).
However, such difference was not statistically significant. That is to say, the control group
did not gain significant improvement in their motivational factor Effort after one semester
intervention with the traditional approach.
The changes in Effort of the control group are
shown in Figure 4.3.

Table 4.20-1
Mean Scores for the Factor Effort in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Effort
Mean
SD
Pre-test
26.957
3.323
Post-test
26.851
3.244
Delayed post-test
27.553
2.955
Table 4.20-2
Paired t-Test for the Factor Effort in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Effort
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
0.106
0.262
0.794
-0.702
-1.707
0.095
-0.596
-1.255
0.216
(g)
110
Motivational Factor Capability for the Control Group

The development of the motivational factor Capability of the control group in the
pre-test, post-test and the delayed post-test is displayed in Table 4.21 -1 and 4.21 -2. The mean
score of the pre-test was 24.426. Nevertheless, the control group scored slightly lower in the
post-test after the intervention with the traditional practice for nine weeks (23.660 versus 24.426,
MD=0.766, p>0.05). No significant differences were found either between the post-test and
the delayed post-test (24.638 versus 25.830, MD=-1.191, p>0.05) or between the pre-test and
the delayed post-test (24.426 versus 24.383, MD=0.043, p>0.05). It is noted that the control
group did not make progress in the delayed post-test, and their scores on Capability was lower
than in the pre-test (24.426 versus 24.383, MD=0.043, p>0.05). That is to say, the control
group did not gain significant improvement in their motivational factor Capability after the
intervention with the traditional practice for one semester. The changes in the Capability of the
control group are shown in Figure 4.4.
Table 4.21-1
Mean Scores for the Factor Capability in All Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Capability
Mean
SD
Pre-test
24.256
2.998
Post-test
23.660
4.109
Delayed post-test
24.383
3.762
Table 4.21-2
Paired t-Test for the Factor Capability in All Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Capability
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
0.766
1.392
0.171
Post-test delayed post-test
-0.723
-1.287
0.205
0.043
0.086
0.931
(h)
111
Overall Changes in Motivation for the Control Group

Paired t-tests were carried out to compare the students overall change in motivation of the
control students between the pre-test, the post-test, and the delayed post-test in the control group.
As shown in Tables 4.22 -1 and 4.22 -2, the control group scored lower in the post-test after the
nine-week intervention with the traditional practice (75.149 versus 76.745, MD=1.596, p> 0.05).
It is noted that a higher growth pattern was found between the post-test and the delayed post-test
(75.149 versus 77.766, MD=-2.617, p<0.05). Nevertheless, in comparison to the pre-test, no
significant difference was found between the pre-test and the delayed post-test, though the
students motivation for learning German was higher in the delayed post-test (MD=1.021). The
mean difference of 1.021 did not reach a statistically significant difference. The control group
did not gain significant improvement in their motivation toward learning German after one
semester intervention with the traditional practice. The motivational change of the control
group is shown in Figure 4.5.
Table 4.22-1
Mean Scores for the Overall Change in Motivation for all Phases for the Control
Groups (n=47)
Motivation
Mean
SD
Pre-test
76.745
8.998
Post-test
75.149
10.274
Delayed post-test
77.766
9.013
112
Table 4.22-2
Paired t-Test for the Overall Change in Motivation for all Phases for the Control
Groups (n=47)
Motivation
MD
Sig.
1.596
1.267
0.211
-2.617
-2.149
0.037
-1.021
-5.118
0.405
Pre-test Post-test
In contrast to the significant motivational improvement in the experimental group (p<

0.001), there was no significant difference recorded in the control group in terms of
motivational change (p>0.05), as shown in Tables 4.22-1 and 4.22-2. As reviewed in Tables
4.19-1, 4.19-2, 4.20, 4.21-1, 4.21-2, 4.22-1 and 4.22-2, the control group had some regression in
the three motivational factors Enjoyment, Effort, Capability, and on the overall motivation
in the post-test after the nine-week intervention. Statistically significant differences in
Enjoyment and in the overall motivation were only found between the post-test and the
delayed post-test. However, in comparison with their own performance in the pre-test and the
delayed post-test, the students in the control group did not have a significantly different
motivational change between the two periods on all of the motivational factors and on the
overall motivation as well (Figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5).
(i)
Summary
This section has explored the motivational change in each group. The findings
indicated that there were significant differences between the pre-test and the delayed post-test
for the experimental students, after the intervention with the game-based practice for one
semester. However, the students in the control group did not have a significantly different
motivational change after the intervention with the traditional grammar teaching practice. In
113
the following section, a comparison of the motivational change between the two groups will be
examined.
4.3.2 Inter-group Comparison of the Motivation
between the Experimental Group and the Control Group
(a)
Comparison of the Motivational Factor Enjoyment between the Experimental Group

and the Control Group in all Three Phases
An independent t-test was performed to compare the inter-group differences in the
motivational factor Enjoyment. According to Table 4.23, the mean score of the pre-test in the
experimental group was 24.826 and it was 25.362 in the control group. The mean difference
between the two groups was not statistically significant (MD=0.536, p>0.05). After the
nine-week intervention with the two different grammar teaching practices, no significant
difference was found between the two groups in the post-test (25.3913.505 versus
24.6383.863, p>0.05). However, significant difference was found between the two groups in
the delayed post-test (28.0223.429 versus 25.8303.199, p<0.05), as shown in Table 4.23 and
Figure 4.6.
Table 4.23
Independent t-Tests for the Motivational Factor Enjoyment in all Phases for both
Groups (n=93)
Enjoyment
Three Phases
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pre-test
24.826
3.427
25.362
3.510
-0.744
0.459
Post-test
25.391
3.505
24.638
3.846
0.984 0.328
Delayed post-test
28.022
3.429
25.830
3.199
3.189
0.002*
114
29
28
27
26
Experimental Group
25
Control Group
24
23
22
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.6 The Change of the Motivational Factor Enjoyment in both Groups
(b)
Comparison of the Motivational Factor Effort between the Experimental Group

and the Control Group in all Three Phases
As Table 4.24 shows, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the
terms of Effort in the pre-test. The mean scores were 26.457 and 26.957, respectively. The
mean difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p>0.05). After the
nine-week intervention of the two different approaches, no significant difference was found
between the two groups in the post-test (26.7614.089 versus 26.8513.244, p>0.05).
Moreover, the mean difference between the two groups in the delayed post-test was 1.143: such
a mean difference was statistically non-significant (28.6963.429 versus 27.5532.955,
p>0.05), as shown in Table 4.24 and Figure 4.7.
115
Table 4.24
Independent t-Tests for the Motivational Factor Effort in all Phases for both
Groups (n=93)
Effort
Three Phases
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pre-test
26.457
2.904
26.957
3.323
-0.773
0.441
Post-test
26.761
4.089
26.851
3.244
-0.118
0.906
Delayed post-test
28.696
3.457
27.553
2.955
1.714
0.090
29
28.5
28
27.5
27
Experimental Group
Control Group
26.5
26
25.5
25
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.7 The Change of the Motivational Factor Effort in both Groups
(c)
Comparison of the Motivational Factor Capability between the Experimental

Group and the Control Group in all Three Phases
An independent t-test was conducted to compare differences in the motivational factor
Capability between the two groups. As Table 4.25 indicates, there was no significant
difference between the two groups in the terms of Capability in the pre-test (Mean= 24.457
116
versus 24.426, respectively). The mean difference between the two groups was not statistically
significant (p>0.05). After the nine-week intervention with the two different types of practice,
no significant difference was found between the two groups in the post-test (24.28313.391
versus 23.6604.109, p>0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was found in the
delayed post-test (27.3263.628 versus 24.3833.762, p<0.05), as shown in Table 4.25 and
Figure 4.8, in favor of the experimental groups.
Table 4.25
Independent t-Tests for the Motivational Factor Capability in all Phases for both
Groups (n=93)
Capability
Three Phases
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pre-test
24.457
3.557
24.426
2.998
0.045
0.964
Post-test
24.283
3.931
23.660
4.109
0.747
0.457
Delayed post-test
27.326
3.628
24.383
3.762
3.839
0.000*
28
27
26
25
Experimental Group
24
Control Group
23
22
21
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.8 The Change of the Motivational Factor Capability in both Groups
(d)
117
Comparison of the overall Motivation between the Experimental Group and the
Control Group in all Three Phases
As the Independent t-test results in Table 4.26 indicate, the mean score on the overall
motivation for the experimental group was 75.739 in the pre-test, while for the control group it
was 76.745. This shows no significant difference in the overall motivation between the two
groups in the pre-test (t=0.546, p>0.05). Likewise, after the intervention with the two different
types of grammar practice, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the
post-test (76.43510.909 versus 75.147 10.274, p>0.05). However, the mean difference
between the two groups in the delayed post-test was 6.271. Such a mean difference is
statistically significant (84.0449.984 versus 77.7660.103, p<0.05), as shown in Table 4.26
and Figure 4.9, in favor of the experimental group.
(e)
Summary
To sum up, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for
all three motivational factors as well as for overall motivation between the pre-test and the
post-test (Tables 4.23, 4.24, 4.25 and 4.26; Figures 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9). However, there was
a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the delayed post-test, in overall
motivation , and in two out of three motivational factors, namely Enjoyment, Capability.
No significant difference was found in the motivational factor Effort in the delayed post-test,
since both groups improved and made more effort to study. However, the experimental group
scored 1.143 higher on the Effort than the control group did. Nevertheless, the results of the
intra-group comparisons of the three motivational factors, and the overall motivation, indicated
that the experimental group improved significantly in all three motivational factors, Enjoyment,
Effort, and Capability.
118
Table 4.26
Independent t-Tests for the Overall Motivation in all Phases for both Groups (n=93)
Motivation
Three Phases
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pre-test
75.739
8.744
76.745
8.999
-0.546 0.586
Post-test
76.435
10.909
75.149
10.274
-0.585 0.560
Delayed post-test
84.044
9.984
77.766
9.013
3.184 0.002*
86
84
82
80
78
Experimental Group
Control Group
76
74
72
70
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.9 Motivational Changes in the Experimental Group and Control Group
4.3.3 Discussion of the Results on Students Motivation
These results relate to the third research question of this study: Does game-based
grammatical practice enhance the students learning motivation? Overall, the results from the
questionnaire on motivation showed a statistically significant improvement in the experimental
students (Table 4. 26, Figure 4. 9). These results confirmed my research hypothesis on the
effects of games on students motivation. The experimental students experienced more
119
enjoyment (Table 4. 23, Figure 4. 6), made higher motivational effort (Table 4. 24, Figure 4. 7),
felt more actively involved and more confident in language use (Table 4. 25, Figure 4. 8).
These findings were also consistent with most teachers intuition and experience
(Deesri, 2002; Gardner, 1987; Gaudart, 1999; Hong, 2002; Shie, 2003) and research results
obtained by Nemerow (1996) and Jocobs and Jempsey (1993).
Researchers in social psychology and education have recognized the importance of
motivation for successful L2 learning (Drynei, 2000; Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Clement,
1990; Krashen, 1985; Shie, 2003). Figure 4.2 reveals that the control students not only did not
score any improvement in their enjoyment level, but also regressed, while the experimental
students scored a statistically significant improvement as a result of the new type of
grammatical practice. This confirms my hypothesis, which predicted a positive outcome on the
enjoyment level after the use of games. The fact that a statistically significant improvement in
motivation occurred in the delayed post-test seems to indicate that such a change cannot be
expected in a relatively short period of time, but that it will be the result of protracted persistence
over an extended period of time.
The fact that the control students level of enjoyment actually regressed in the course of
the program also confirms my own perception that my German students level of enjoyment
decreased as the program ran its course. Some of my language colleagues have confirmed that
this is the case also with their students of German. They subscribe to the perception that it is
very hard to maintain their students enjoyment for the duration of a semester or a year, let alone
see an improvement in the students participation.
Given this situation, the positive outcome by the experimental students is very
encouraging and points to a causal relationship between the level of enjoyment and the use of
games in the practice phase of learning a foreign language. This result is in accordance with
Tremblays and Gardners (1995) research finding that achievement is directly influenced by
120
motivational behavior. This finding is also inline with Deci and Ryans self-determination
theory (1985). According to Deci and Ryans definition about motivation, intrinsic motivation
is based on intrinsic interest in the activity pre se, because that it is enjoyable and satisfying to
do (Noels, Clement & Pelletier, 1999, 2000).
The enjoyment aspect of learning a language through games is directly related to
motivational factors. Ruben (1999) views games as an attractive and novel alternative to
traditional classroom lectures and other one-way information-dispensing methods (p. 500).
Fun and interest are the main elements of games and these can improve students
motivation to learn (Desseri, 2002; Macedonia, 2005). Games break the simple monotony of
the traditional lecture method and bring the students into a happier mood in class time, as one of
my students commented. These factors made my students learning different and showed them
that learning could be enjoyed. They stated that they could learn and would like to learn more
through playing games (see chapter 5 for more comments from my students, p. 171-182 and
Appendix I, pp. 300-301). Hajdu (2000) and Macedonia (2005) experienced the enjoyment
from their students in the learning of second languages through games in the classroom.
In selecting my games, the learning environment that the experimental students were
exposed to become more pleasant and relaxing, students autonomy and familiarity with the
target language were enhanced. Gary, Marrone and Boyles (1988) and Gaudart (1999) state
that games allow second language learners to practise the target language, participating in the
communicative process. Allery (2004) offers similar suggestions, writing that games provide a
break from classroom routine, and that learning through games develops a non-threatening
classroom atmosphere in which the skills can be enhanced. Moreover, Macedonia (2005)
claims that games provide entertainment. Their entertainment aspect is a positive side effect,
and advantage over written exercises.
Thus language games serve the function of redundant
oral repetition of grammar structures (morphological, syntactic) and vocabulary in a playful
121
way. practice proves fun, repetition is not boring and declarative knowledge is converted into
procedural knowledge, that is, into spoken language, and stored in procedural memory (p.
138).
At this point it seems legitimate to establish a causal link between the use of games and
better effort for my experimental students, considering that games constituted the only aspect
missing in the program delivered to the control students, who did not improve on their
motivational effort. I can also make a link between my students improvement in their effort
and the learning flexibility of games, which allow students to learn according to their own
personal style more easily than other types of classroom tasks.
As Oxford (1996), Oxford, Ehrman and Lavine (1991) have suggested, different
students learn in different ways and are motivated by different factors; there is a positive
relationship between learning style and positive outcomes. Due to their flexibility, games are
more variable, versatile and adaptable than other forms of classroom tasks, as suggested by
Jones, Mungai and Wong (2002). Allery (2004) also offers a similar suggestion, claiming that
[games] provide versatility throughout the programme, , provide a change of pace or variety
to the teaching experience or can allow the facilitator to conclude the programme with a
memorable summary of the learning (p. 504). When constructed with different learning styles
in mind, games can often accelerate the learning process (Jones, Mungai & Wong, 2002). In
the focus group interviews, some students commented that learning through diverse language
games catered to their learning style and that helped them to remain on task in class (see chapter
5, pp. 180-181).
I can also see a link between my students improved level of motivation and the
engaging nature of games (Harvey & Bright, 1985). Language games encourage active
participation in the learning process (Allery, 2004; Anderson, 1998; Thatcher, 1990).
Silberman (1996) emphasized the need for students to be given a more active role in the learning
122
process because only hearing something, or seeing something, is not enough to learn it. During
a game, the students had active control of the learning process and received prompt feedback
from their peers. Silberman (1996) states that I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do
and I understand. Numerous comments by my students about the perceived benefits from
games such as their better exposure to and use of lexis and sentence structures, as well as their
enhanced sense of self-confidence support the statistical improvement of their motivation (see
chapter 5 for direct quotations from students focus group interview, pp. 171-182 and Appendix
I, pp. 300-301).
The positive results indicating a better level of overall motivation among the
experimental students, after they had been exposed to a partly new practice approach where
games were a substantial component, are very encouraging. As indicated earlier, the failure of
the experimental group to achieve a statistically significant improvement in grammatical
accuracy after treatment, disappointing as it is, is also understandable under the specific
circumstances of this experiment.
The small improvement, however, that was achieved in accuracy is to be noted, when it
is considered alongside the statistically significant improvement in student motivation. Even if
the relatively small improvement in accuracy had been the only positive result of this
experiment, it would have made the new type of practice worth introducing. It seems fairly
clear that a change in motivation normally precedes a change in a related study field, and that a
change in accuracy takes time and persistence. Looking at this experiment, the fact that a new
type of practice over a period of a few months has produced improvement in both motivation
level and grammatical accuracy constitutes a very positive result. I would expect, with good
reason that if I continued in the use of games, the statistically significant improvement in my
students motivation would translate into a similarly statistically significant improvement in
accuracy. The qualitative data cited in this chapter and expanded on in chapter 5, point to this
likely direction.
123
4.4 Results on Students Perception of the Classroom Atmosphere

The question of whether there were any differences in the classroom atmosphere
between the experimental and the control groups was also one of the main concerns of this study
(Research Question 4 and Hypothesis 4). The Questionnaire on Classroom Atmosphere was
administered three times, during the pre-test phase, during the post-test phase, and during the
delayed post-test phase. Students perceptions of atmosphere in the German grammar classes
were measured by four factors: (1) peer support, (2) teacher support, (3) satisfaction, and (4)
class cohesion. The first comparison was on the intra-group classroom atmosphere in the
experimental group and in the control group as well.
4.4.1 Intra-group Comparison of the Students Perception of the Classroom Atmosphere
in the Experimental Group and in the Control Group
(a)
Results of Within Group Peer Support in the Experimental Group

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the students perceptions of peer supports
between the pre-test, the post-test, and the delayed post-test. According to the results shown in
Tables 4.27-1, 4.27 -1 and Figure 4.10, Peer Support was not significantly different between
the pre-test and post-test in the experimental group (38.413 versus 39.304, MD=-0.891, p>0.05).
However, the results indicate a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and the
delayed post-test (38.413 versus 44.630, MD=-6.217, p<0.001). The findings indicated that
the students in the experimental recorded a higher level of peer support after a one-semester
intervention of the game-based practice.
124
Table 4.27-1
Mean Scores for Peer Support in all Phases for the Experimental Group (n=46)
Peer Support
Mean
SD
Pre-test
38.413
5.414
Post-test
39.304
4.201
Delayed post-test
44.630
4.887
Table 4.27-2
Paired t-Test for Peer Support in all Phases for the Experimental Group (n=46)
Peer Support
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
-0.891
-1.635
0.109
-5.326
-5.255
0.000*
-6.217
-5.930
0.000*
46
44
42
Experimental Group
Control Group
40
38
36
34
1
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.10 The Development of Peer Support in both Groups
(b)
125
Results of Within Group on Teacher Support in the Experimental Group
As shown in Tables 4.28-1, 4.28 -2 and Figure 4.11, there was no significant
differences on Teacher Support between the pre-test and the post-test (32.326 versus 32.304,
MD=0.002, p>0.05). However, the results of the statistical analysis show a significant
difference on teacher support between the pre-test and the delayed post-test (32.304 versus
37.196, MD=-3.107, p<0.05) as well as between the post-test and the delayed post-test (32.304
versus 37.196, MD=-3.796, p<0.05). The results revealed that the students perceived a
significantly higher level of teacher support after one-semester intervention with the
game-based practice.
Table 4.28-1
Mean Scores of Teacher Support in all Phases for the Experimental Group (n=46)
Teacher Support
Mean
SD
Pre-test
32.326
4.104
Post-test
32.304
3.723
Delayed post-test
37.196
4.339
Table 4.28-2
Paired t-test of Teacher Support in all Phases for the Experimental Group (n=46)
Teacher Support
MD
0.022
-0.674
0.504
-4.891
-3.107
0.003*
-4.869
-3.796
0.000*
Pre-test Post-test
126
38
37
36
35
34
33
Experimental Group
32
Control Group
31
30
29
28
27
1
Pre-test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.11 The Change of Teacher Support in both Groups
(c)
Results of Within Group Students Perception of Satisfaction in the Experimental

Group
The experimental students perception of satisfaction is displayed in Tables 4.29 -1,
4.29 - 2 and Figure 4.12. The experimental group scored almost similarly in the pre-test and
the post-test (31.544 versus 31.391, MD= -0.174); no significant difference between these two
periods was found (p>0.05). An increase in Satisfaction was, however, recorded between the
post-test and the delayed post-test (31.391 versus 34.565, MD=3.304, MD=-3.304, p<0.001), as
well as between the pre-test and the delayed post-test (31.544 versus 34.565, MD=-4.952,
p<0.001). The results reveal that the students in the experimental group had a statistically
significant higher level of satisfaction after one-semester intervention with the game-based
practice.
127
Table 4.29-1
Mean Scores for Satisfaction in all Three Phases for the Experimental Group
(n=46)
Satisfaction
Mean
SD
Pre-test
31.544
3.188
Post-test
31.391
3.574
Delayed post-test
34.565
3.686
Table 4.29-2
Paired t-Test for Satisfaction in all Three Phases for the Experimental Group
(n=46)
Satisfaction
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
-0.174
-0.363
0.118
-3.304
-5.937
0.000*
-4.952
-4.952
0.000*
35
34.5
34
33.5
33
32.5
Experimental Group
32
Control Group
31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
1
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.12 The Change of Satisfaction in both Groups
(d)
128
Results of Within Group Class Cohesion in the Experimental Group

The development of the experimental students perception of Class Cohesion is
displayed in Table 4.30 -1, 4.30 -2 and Figure 4.13. The experimental group scored almost
similarly in the pre-test and the post-test (25.435 versus 25.413, MD=-0.696); no significant
difference between these two periods was found (p>0.05).
The growth patterns, however,
were found to be different between the post-test and the delayed post-test (25.413 versus 29.152,
MD= -7.609, p<0.001), as well as between the pre-test and the delayed post-test (25.435
versus29.152, MD=-8.304, p<0.001). The results revealed the students in the experimental
group had significantly higher perception of class cohesion after one semester intervention with
the game-based practice.
Table 4.30-1
Mean Scores for Class Cohesion in all Three Phases for the Experimental Group
(n=46)
Class Cohesion
Mean
SD
Pre-test
25.435
3.124
Post-test
25.413
2.372
Delayed post-test
29.152
3.406
Table 4.30-2
Paired t-Test for Class Cohesion in all Three Phases for the Experimental Group
(n=46)
Class Cohesion
MD
Sig.
Pre-test
-0.696
-0.045
0.964
-7.609
-8.649
0.000*
-8.304
-6.387
0.000*
129
30
29
28
27
Experimental Group
26
Control Group
25
24
23
22
1
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.13 The Change of Class Cohesion in both Groups

(e)
Overall Change in Classroom Atmosphere for the Experimental Group

The scores for classroom atmosphere were derived from the aggregated scores of four
factors: peer support, teacher support, satisfaction, and class cohesion. As shown in Tables
4.31 1 and 4.31 -2, the experimental group scored slightly higher in the post-test than in the
pre-test (39.304 versus 38.413). The mean difference score of 0.891, however, indicates that
there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). But when the post-test and the
delayed post-test were compared, a statistically significant difference was found (39.304 versus
44.630, MD=-5.326, p<0.001). A significant difference was also found between the pre-test
and the delayed post-test (38.413 versus 44.630, MD=-6.217, p<0.001). These results reveal
that the experimental students perceived a more positive classroom atmosphere in their German
grammar classes at the delayed post-test time (Figure 4.14).
130
Table 4.31-1
Mean Scores for Classroom Atmosphere in all Phases for the Experimental Group
(n=46)
Mean
SD
Pre-test
127.717
13.114
Post-test
128.413
10.251
Delayed post-test
145.544
14.672
Table 4.31-2
Paired t-Test for Classroom Atmosphere in All Phases for the Experimental
Group (n=46)
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
-0.891
-1.635
0.109
-5.326
-5.255
0.000*
-6.217
-5.930
0.000*
150
145
140
135
Experimental Group
Control Group
130
125
120
115
1
pre-test
post-test
delayed post-test
Figure 4.14 The Change of Classroom Atmosphere in both Groups
(f)
131
Results of Within-Group Peer Support for the Control Group

Tables 4.32 -1, 4.32 -2 and Figure 4.10 display the development of students perception
of peer support in the control group. The control group scored almost similarly in the pre-test
and post-test (37.787 versus37.979, MD=-0.192); no significant difference between these two
periods was found (p>0.05). The growth patterns, however, were found to be different
between the post-test and the delayed post-test (37.979 versus 39.2143, MD=1.234, p<0.05). It
is also noted that the control students perception of peer support increased between the pre-test
and the delayed post-test (37.787 versus 39.213, MD=-1.426, p>0.05), although no statistically
significant difference was found. The results reveal that the students in the control group gave
no significantly higher reports of peer support after one semester with intervention of the
traditional type of practice (Figure 4.10).
Table 4.32-1
Mean Scores of Peer Support in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Peer Support
Mean
SD
Pre-test
37.787
4.491
Post-test
37.979
4.789
Delayed post-test
39.213
4.912
Table 4.32-2
Paired T-Test of Peer Support in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Peer Support
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
-0.192
-0.253
0.802
-1.234
-2.581
0.013*
-1.426
-1.935
0.059
(g)
132
Results of Within Group Teacher Support in the Control Group

Tables 4.33 -1, 4.33 -2 and Figure 4.11 display the development of the control students
perception of teacher support. The mean score on teacher support in the pre-test was 32.192.
However, the control group scored lower in the post-test (31.064 versus 32.192), and a
statistically significant difference was found between these two periods (p<0.05). It is also
noted, however, that the control students perception of teacher support increased between the
pre-test and the delayed post-test, to a statistically significant difference (33.681versus 31.064,
p<0.001). The results revealed that the students in the control group perceived higher teacher
support after one-semester intervention of traditional practice.
Table 4.33-1
Mean Scores for Teacher Support in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Teacher Support
Mean
SD
Pre-test
32.192
3.327
Post-test
31.064
4.316
Delayed post-test
33.681
3.951
Table 4.33-2
Paired t-Test for Teacher Support in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Teacher Support
Pre-test Post-test
MD
Sig.
1.128
2.104
0.041*
-2.617
-4.332
0.000*
-1.489
- 2.891
0.006*
(g)
133
Results of Within-Group Satisfaction in the Control Group

According to the data shown in Tables 4.34 -1, 4.34 -2 and Figure 4.12, there was a
significant difference between the pre-test and post-test (32.936 versus 31.553, MD=1.383,
p<0.05). The control group scored a significantly lower level of satisfaction after nine-week
intervention with the traditional type of practice. It is also noted that a growth pattern was
found between the post-test and the delayed post-test (31.553 versus 32.957, MD=-1.404,
p<0.05). Nevertheless, in comparison to the pre-test, no statistically significant difference was
found; the control students scored almost similarly in the delayed post-test (32.936 versus
32.957, MD=-0.021, p>0.05). The results revealed that the control group appeared to be
slightly less satisfied with their German grammar classes after one-semester intervention with
the traditional type of practice.
Table 4.34-1
Mean Scores for Satisfaction in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Satisfaction
Mean
SD
Pre-test
32.936
3.953
Post-test
31.553
3.308
Delayed post-test
32.957
3.303
Table 4.34-2
Paired t-Test for Satisfaction in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Satisfaction
MD
1.383
2.785
0.008*
-1.404
-2.615
0.012*
-0.021
-0.038
0.970
Pre-test Post-test
Sig.
(h)
134
Results of Within Group on Class Cohesion in the Control Group

The change in the students perception of class cohesion in the control group is
displayed in Tables 4.35 -1, 4.35 -2 and Figure 4.13. The control group scored similarly in the
pre-test and post-test with no difference (25.021 versus 25.149, MD=0.128, p>0.05). A
significant growth, however, was found between the post-test and the delayed post-test (25.021
versus 26.255, MD=1.234, p<0.05). Nevertheless no statistically significant difference
between the pre-test and the delayed post-test was found (p>0.05), though the scores were
higher than that of the pre-test (26.255 versus 25.149). The results reveal the control group did
not show significantly higher feelings of class cohesion or belonging after the intervention with
the traditional approach over one semester.
Table 3.35-1
Mean Scores for Class Cohesion in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Class Cohesion
Mean
SD
Pre-test
25.149
2.859
Post-test
25.021
3.220
Delayed post-test
26.255
3.287
Table 3.35-2
Paired t-Test for Class Cohesion in all Phases for the Control Group (n=47)
Class Cohesion
MD
Sig.
0.128
0.226
0.822
-1.234
-2.860
0.006*
-1.106
-1.938
0.059
Pre-test Post-test
(i)
135
Overall Change in Classroom Atmosphere for the Control Group

The scores on classroom atmosphere were composed of four factors: peer support,
teacher support, satisfaction, and class cohesion. As shown in Table 4.36 -1, 4.36 - 2, and
Figure 4.14, the control group scored lower in the post-test than in the pre-test (128.064 versus
125.617). The mean difference of 2.477 was not statistically different (p>0.05). However,
when the post-test and the delayed post-test were compared, a significant difference was found
(125.617 versus 132.106, p<0.001). The pattern was also found to be significantly different
between the pre-test and the delayed post-test (128.064 versus 132.106, MD=4.403, p<0.05).
The results revealed that the control students perceived a significant improvement in class
atmosphere.
Table 4.36-1
Mean Scores for the Overall Change in Classroom Atmosphere for all Phases for
the Control Group (n=47)
MD
SD
Pre-test
128.064
1.350
Post-test
125.617
-4.468
Delayed post-test
132.106
-2.311
Table 4.36-2
Paired t-Test for the Overall Change in Classroom Atmosphere for all Phases for
the Control Group (n=47)
MD
Sig.
Pre-test Post-test
2.447
1.350
0.184
-6.489
-4.468
0.000*
-4.043
-2.311
0.025*
136
4.4.2 Intra-group Comparison of the students perception of the classroom atmosphere in the
Experimental Group and in the Control Group
(a)
Comparison of Peer Support Between the Experimental Group and the Control Group
in All Three Phases
A t-test was used to analyze the students perception of peer support between the
experimental group and the control group in the pre-test, the post-test, and delayed post-test.
Table 4.37 shows each groups pre-test, post-test, and the delayed post-test mean scores,
standard deviation, t-value and p-value. There was no significant difference in peer support
between the two groups in the pre-test (38.4175.414 versus 37.7874.491, p>0.05). After the
intervention with the two different grammar types of grammatical practice for nine weeks, no
significant difference was also found between the two groups in the post-test (39.3044.210
versus 37.9794.789, p>0.05). However, the results revealed that a statistically significant
difference in peer support was found between the experimental group and the control group in
the delayed post-test (44.6304.887 versus 39.2134.912, p<0.001). Students in the
experimental group, who had experienced the game-based practice, perceived significantly
higher levels of peer support from their classmates in grammar classes than did the students in
the control group.
Table 4.37
Independent t-Test for Peer Support in all Phases for both Groups (n=93)
Peer Support
Three Phases
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pre-test
38.413
5.414
37.787
4.491
0.607
0.545
Post-test
39.304
4.210
37.979
4.789
1.417
0.160
Delayed post-test
44.630
4.887
39.213
4.912
5.331
0.000*
137
46
44
42
40
Expremental Group
Control Group
38
36
34
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.15 The Comparison of Peer Support between Two Groups
(b)
Comparison of Teacher Support Between the Experimental Group and the Control
Group in all Phases
A t-test was employed to examine the data in relation to teacher support to determine
the differences between the experimental group and the control group. The results are shown
in Table 4.38 and Figure 4.16. As displayed in Table 4.38, teacher support was not
significantly different in the pre-test between groups (p> 0.05). The results revealed that
students in both groups had similar perception of support from their teacher during the period
prior to the intervention. After the intervention had continued for nine weeks, there was still no
difference between the two groups in the post-test. However, when comparing these groups in
the delayed post-test, there was a statistically significant difference between the experimental
group and the control group in teacher support (37.1964.339 versus 33.6813.951, p<0.001).
The results indicate that the students in the experimental group experienced a significantly
higher level of support during interaction with their teacher than the students in the control
group.
138
Table 4.38
Independent t-Test for Teacher Support in all Phases for both Groups (n=93)
Teacher Support
Three Phases

Mean
SD

Mean
SD
Pre-test
32.326
4.104
32.192
3.327
0.174
0.862
Post-test
32.304
3.723
31.064
4.316
1.483
0.142
Delayed post-test
37.196
4.339
33.681
3.951
4.086
0.000*
38
37
36
35
34
33
Experimental Group
32
Control Group
31
30
29
28
27
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Post-Test Delayed
Figure 4.16 The Comparison of Teacher Support between Two Groups
(c)
Comparison of Satisfaction Between the Experimental Group and the Control

Group in all Three Phases
A t-test was conducted to examine the satisfaction level between the experimental
group and the control group. As shown in Table 4.39, there was no significant difference
between the two groups of students in terms of satisfaction in the pre-test, though the
experimental students indicated a slightly lower level of satisfaction (31.544 versus 32.936,
p>0.05). Both groups of students had a similar indication after nine-week intervention with the
139
two different type of practice (31.391 versus 31.553, p>0.05). Nevertheless, when comparing
these groups in the delayed post-test, the mean score of the experimental group was 34.565 and
32.957 for the control group. A mean difference of 1.608 is statistically significant (p<0.05), as
shown in Table 4.39 and Figure 4.17. In other words, after the intervention, the results
revealed significantly more satisfaction among the experimental group than in the control
group.
Table 4.39
Independent t-Test for Satisfaction in all Three Phases for both Groups (n=93)
Satisfaction
Three Phases
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pre-test
31.544
3.188
32.936
3.953
-1.868
0.065
Post-test
31.391
3.574
31.553
3.309
-0.227
0.821
Delayed post-test
34.565
3.686
32.957
3.303
2.216 0.029*
35
34.5
34
33.5
33
32.5
Experimental Group
32
Control Group
31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.17 The Comparison of Satisfaction between Two Groups
(d)
140
Comparison of Class Cohesion Between the Experimental Group and the Control
Group in all Three Phases
As Table 4.40 indicates, there was no significant difference about class cohesion
between the two groups of students in the pre-test (p=0.646). The score of the pre-test on class
cohesion of the experimental group was 25.435, while for the control group it was 25.149.
There was also no significant difference between the two groups in the post-test (25.4132.372
versus 25.0213.220, p=0.507). But in the delayed post-test the mean score of the
experimental group was 29.152, while for the control group it was 26.255. The mean
difference between the two groups was 2.897. Such a mean difference is statistically
significant (29.152 versus 26.255, p<0.001), as shown in Table 4.40 and Figure 4.18. At this
point the students in the experimental group showed significantly greater levels of class
cohesion than the students in the control group.
Once again, this shows a delayed change in student perception of another learning
aspect, pointing to the interpretation that it is not realistic to expect the same changes to occur
within a short time as occurred after the longer time involved in the delayed post test.
Table 4.40
Independent t-Test for Class Cohesion in all Phases for both Groups (n=93)
Class Cohesion
Three Phases
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pre-test
25.435
3.124
25.149
2.859
0.460
0.646
Post-test
25.413
2.372
25.021
3.220
0.667
0.507
Delayed post-test
29.152
3.406
26.255
3.287
4.174
0.000*
141
30
29
28
27
26
Experimental Group
25
Control Group
24
23
22
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.18 The Comparison of Class Cohesion between Two Groups
(e)
Comparison of Classroom Atmosphere Between the Experimental Group and the

Control Group in all Three Phases
A t-test was conducted on perceived atmosphere in the German grammar-learning
environment in order to compare differences between the experimental group and the control
group. Classroom atmosphere was accessed through the four above discussed aspects: peer
support, teacher support, satisfaction, and class cohesion. As shown in Table 4.41, perceived
classroom atmosphere was not significantly different between the two groups in the pre-test.
The results revealed that students in both groups had similar perceptions of classroom
atmosphere (127.717 versus 128.064, p>0.05). There was also no significant difference found
in the post-test (128.413 versus 125.617, p>0.05). However, there was a strong and
statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group in the
delayed post-test (145.54314.672 versus 132.10611.571, p<0.001). The results indicated
that the students in the experimental group expressed stronger levels of class cohesion and
belonging than the students in the control group. They became more comfortable to be part of
142
a group by participating in learning activities, working together in groups, helping and

supporting each other.
Table 4.41
Independent t-Test for Classroom Atmosphere in all Phases for both Groups (n=93)
Three Phases
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pre-test
127.717
13.114
128.064
11.119
-0.138
0.891
Post-test
128.413
10.251
125.617
12.543
1.176
0.243
Delayed post-test
145.543
14.672
132.106
11.571
4.910
0.000*
150
145
140
135
130
Experimental Group
125
Control Group
120
115
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Delayed Post-Test
Figure 4.19 The Comparison of Classroom Atmosphere between Two Groups
The fourth hypothesis in this study stated that students of the experimental group would
record an improvement in the language class atmosphere as a result of the use of language
games, while the control students would not. The results of the statistical analysis reported that
the experimental students had higher score on the all four factors, namely Peer Support,
143
Teacher Support, Satisfaction, and Class Cohesion as well as on overall classroom

atmosphere over the control group. Thus, my fourth hypothesis was confirmed.
4.4.3 Discussion on the Results on Students Perceptions of Classroom Atmosphere

These results relate to the fourth research question of this study: Does game-based
grammatical practice create a more positive classroom atmosphere during language lessons?
Overall, the results from the questionnaire on classroom atmosphere showed a statistically
significant improvement in the experimental students perceptions (Table 4.41, Figure 4.19):
they experienced a significantly higher level of support during interaction with their teacher
(Table 4.38, Figure 4.16) and registered a significantly greater level of satisfaction with their
participation in classes (Table 4.39, Figure 4.17). These students also experienced stronger
levels of cohesion and belonging (Table 4.40, Figure 4.18) and became more comfortable by
working together in groups, helping and supporting each other more and registered a
significantly greater level of peer support than the control students did (Table 4.37, Figure 4.15).
Such outcome can be explained through Drnyei and Csizrs (1998) ten ways for
ESL/EFL teachers to motivate their learners. The ten ways of motivating L2 students proposed
by Drnyei an d Csizr (1998) included (1) setting an example through the teachers own
behavior, (2) creating a pleasant, relaxing atmosphere in the classroom, (3) presenting the tasks
properly, (4) developing a good relationship with the learners, (5) increasing the learners
linguistic self-confidence, (6) making the language classes interesting, (7) promoting learner
autonomy, (8) personalizing the learning process, (9) increasing the learners
goal-orientedeness, and (10) familiarizing learners with the target language culture. The use of
language games in the experimental group seemed to echo most of the above-mentioned
principles.
Classroom atmosphere was rank-ordered second among the motivational factors in a
144
Hungarian survey of teachers of English as a second language (Drnyei & Csizr, 1998).
Other research studies indicate that the most crucial factors responsible for a positive classroom
atmosphere are the teachers rapport with the students and the students relationship with each
other (Drnyei, 2001; Shie, 2003).
The personal characteristics of teachers (such as commitment, warmth, empathy,
trustworthiness, competence) influence the rapport between teachers and students and are
largely responsible for the facilitating the learning process. As Shie (2003) points out
methodological motivation (p.110) generated by the teachers pleasant personality and
teaching enthusiasm can raise students motivation levels. In this study, both groups of
students registered a significantly higher level of teacher support (Tables 4.28-1 and 4.28-2,
Tables 4.33-1 and 4.33-2) and many commented that their teachers support contributed to their
progress and helped to improve their motivation in learning German. The experimental
students comments on this emerged also in their comments during focus group interviews (see
5.1, pp. 171-173, 5.4, pp. 190-193 and Appendix I, p. 300), when they said that they enjoyed
the German class and appreciated their teachers attention, understanding, willingness,
assistance, empathy, patience and encouragement.
In addition to the supportive personality of their teacher, most students said that they
appreciated her because she provided language games in her classes.
They said that games
gave them many opportunities to practise the learned grammatical rules in a communicative
way with classmates or helped them to reinforce the use German with peers in a less
threatening, sometimes cooperative small group (see Chapter 5 for details of these comments,
pp. 174-178 and Appendix I, pp. 300-301).
It seems legitimate to conclude that the use of
language games by the experimental group was the key reason why the experimental students
recorded a significantly higher level of support during interaction with their teacher than did the
control group.
145
The results in Tables 4.33-1 and 4.33-2 showed that the control students also recorded a
significantly higher level of teacher support after one-semesters intervention with the
traditional grammar practice. This result revealed that the control students had positive
responses toward their grammar teacher. During their focus group interviews their comments
focused on their impressions of their grammar teacher and on her teaching approach. They felt
that their teachers patience and efforts contributed to maintaining their motivation in learning
German. They appreciated her way of presenting all the grammatical features in handouts, of
explaining the grammatical rules clearly and systematically, and of sharing useful learning
strategies. They said that this process helped them to understand the grammatical rules and to
improve their learning of grammar.
Moreover, many control students felt that their teacher
interacted with them in a friendly, very welcoming and supportive manner. The control
students also expressed their disappointment that their teacher did not provide them with
interesting communicative activities, as she was doing with the experimental students. As a
result, the control students perceived a higher level of teacher supports.
In addition to the relationship between the teacher and the students, the experimental
students registered a significantly greater level of peer support than the control students did
(Table 4.37, Figure 4.15). The reason for this improvement was attributed by the students to
the student-student interaction during games.
The cooperative nature of most language games naturally encourages student-student
interaction. Games are perceived by teachers as excellent tasks for encouraging shy students,
since they require the participation of all the member of a team, group or pair (Hajdu, 2000; Lin,
2001; Rinvolucri, 1995; Shie, 2003). As Lacey and Walker (1991) concluded in their research,
students appear to participate in the learning process more and generate creative ideas more
frequently when they work together with their peers towards a common goal. Vygotsky (1997)
also stated that games, in providing interaction, create a zone of proximal development (ZPD),
146
which provides rich opportunities for learning. Hadju (2000) concluded in her research that
group work in games can foster increasing self-regulation in the students learning and an
increasing appreciation of German.
In this study, language games have helped to build up a more relaxed learning
environment, which allowed students to ask questions to their group members. As one student
explained in the focus group interview: (S stands for student and the page number refers to
the transcription folder of my students focus group comments)
If I have any problems, my group members would teach me or they would
correct my mistakes immediately. Beside, through games, we have more
opportunities to get to know each other, to learn together, and share learning
experiences, for example, Stefan taught and told me how to learn definite
articles (S7, p. 301).
Another student echoed the above comment by saying:
In small-group interaction time [games], I become more cooperative with
my classmates because they would encourage me to study. I can still
remember that time; they encouraged (in forced tone) me to raise my hand
to answer a teachers question in order to earn points for my group. And this
is the first time I spoke German in front of the whole class. I am happy to
get one point for my group. I wont be so scared to work with my
classmates as before. I appreciated my group members very much (S8, p.
300).
[When playing games] We have to try to help each other. I actively
participated in the game and encouraged my group members to work hard. I
wanted my group to be the best group. We worked together, not for
ourselves, but also for the group. (S4, p. 177)
This sort of peer support contributed to the more comfortable classroom atmosphere for
learning. As one student commented:
147
At first, I hated to attend German grammar class because my German is so

poor. But now I like German better because German classes are fun and I
have several nice, helpful group members who are really concerned about me.
Its good to have learning partners. (S2, p. 301)
In contrast to the experimental students, the control students complained about the lack
of student-student interaction. As a student commented The teacher talks and talks. I quite
understand she [the teacher] tries very hard to explain the rules and sentences as clearly as
possible. But she talks too much (S8, p. 306).
The control students complained that they felt alone since they could not get support
from their peers when they needed help from them. As a student explained
I would not ask my classmates next to me, either. I am afraid that the
teacher will think that we are chatting. Furthermore, the class is so quiet.
So we could do nothing, but sit still [listening]. (S10, p. 307)
For the control students, in a teacher-centred classroom, it was hard to get support from
peers, as one student commented I could not get support from my classmates. I asked my
classmates questions instead of the teacher, if I had questions. But they implied that we should
discuss these later on after classes, not in class (S4, p. 307).
Due to the fewer opportunities for interaction between students, the control students did
not have the opportunity to work together or to build up a sense of class cohesion. The control
group did not show significantly higher feelings of class belonging after the intervention with
the traditional approach over one semester (Tables 4.35-1 and 4.35-2).
It was the experimental students who had significantly greater levels of class cohesion
(Table 4.40, Figure 4.18). Games provided the learners with many opportunities to work
together and encouraged interaction between them. They got to know each other and supported
148
each other in the learning process, thus building up a sense of belonging in which there was a
strong we feeling; they were happy to belong (Hajdu, 2000; Raffini, 1993).
A student described this strong feeling of belonging and class cohesion in a focus group
interview: By playing games, I get to know students in class, who I did not know before.
Group members share happiness and sorrow together, and I like this sense of belonging (S7, p.
301). Another student explained
I like to play games in a group in order to learn German grammar We have
to try to help each other. I really did get a warm feeling from the sense of
the belonging I had in the group. I really enjoyed the atmosphere the
sense of the belonging and cohesion. I found many of my group members
had a similar sense of cohesion. (S4, p. 177)
This finding on the improvement of Class Cohesion contributing to Classroom
Atmosphere corresponds to Raffinis (1993) statement about the sense of belonging. Raffini
identified the need to belong, as one of the chief psychological needs of all people. This was
the need the students in this study sought to satisfy at school and elsewhere in their interactions
with others. Some students found the sense of belonging through involvement in the games.
Once they found that they could actually become involved and improve in class, their learning
motivation would be boosted, as indicated in the statistical analysis of the questionnaire and of
the students interviews.
Overall, the experimental students experienced a higher level of support during
interactions with their teacher, and had positive responses toward their teachers personality and
well-organized grammar teaching strategies. These factors contributed to their satisfaction
with the grammar classes. They also experienced stronger levels of cohesion and became more
comfortable to be part of their group by working together, helping and supporting each other in
a less threatening learning atmosphere. That made their learning enjoyable and interesting.
This explains why the experimental students registered a greater level of satisfaction with the
149
game-based grammar classes (Table 4.39 and Figure 4.17).

To create this kind of teaching atmosphere was not an easy task. It needed a lot of
thinking, restructuring and choosing the right materials as well as the right delivery instruments.
In order to produce learning climate orientated to arousing motivation, I tried to implement
Drnyei and Csizrs (1998) model of student motivation by emphasizing the importance of a
caring, supportive, and relaxing environment.
The findings from this study favour the game-based grammar practice as a powerful
instructional strategy as a replacement for the traditional Grammar Translation method teaching
a second language in Taiwan. Given that the use of language games achieved such positive
effects, especially in promoting a relaxing and supportive classroom atmosphere within such a
short period of time, more powerful effects could be expected if this strategy were to be
implemented over a longer time period, for example, one year, as suggested by Ortega and
Iberri-Shea (2005). The finding that the improvement of classroom atmosphere emerged only
during the delayed post-test supports what seems to be the realistic expectation that an extended
period of teaching and much persistence are needed for this to occur.
4.5 Results on the Two Types of Grammatical Practice
In this section, students responses toward the strategies used in practising grammar
among each group are presented (Table 4.42). The fourteen items addressing the responses of
both groups include those in favor of the type of grammatical practice used (Item 1, Item 2, Item
3, Item 4, Item 6, Item 7, Item 8, Item 9, Item 10, Item 11, Item 12, Item 13, and Item 14) and
those against it (Item 5 and Item 14).
It should be noted that the data were simplified by collapsing the 5-point scale used to
elicit responses (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree) into a 3-point
150
scale (agree/strongly, undecided, disagree/strongly), in order to facilitate comparison between

the two groups of students. In addition to a computer-generated frequency study for the student
data using Crosstab, also Chi-Square Tests of Independence (Fishers exact tests) were
conducted to determine whether the experimental students responses differed significantly
from those of the control students responses. The results were statistically significant for all
items at the 0.05 level of confidence.
Table 4.42 presents the statistical results of all the items of the Questionnaire on the two
types of grammatical practice. The rest of this section explains these results, which are then
discussed in section 4.5.1.
Looking at the two groups comparisons (Table 4.42), all fourteen items dealing with
responses towards the grammatical practices show a relatively high level of discrepancy in
agreement between the experimental and the control students, with the exception of Item 2 and
Item 9, where 91.3% of the experimental students versus 85.1% of the control students agreed
that the grammatical practice used by my teacher enables me to learn the correct German
grammar (Item 2).
practice by 6.2%.
groups (p = 0.145).
The experimental group was more in favor of their type of grammatical

However, no statically significant difference was found between the two
This result revealed that both grammatical practices were perceived as
being effective in helping students to learn German grammar.

Item 9 showed an 18% discrepancy rate between the experimental and the control
students and a sizeable majority in both groups (90.4% versus 72.3%) felt that their type of
grammatical practice could develop their writing ability. No significant difference was found
(p = 0.107). This result indicates that both the game-based grammatical practice of the
experimental students and the traditional exercise-based practice of the control students were
effective for developing students writing skills.
151
Students Responses towards the Type of Grammatical Practice (n=93)

[EG: Experimental Group; CG: Control Group. Comparisons are made using Chi Squared Tests with p<0.05 as the level of significance.]
ITEMS
1. The grammatical practice used by my teacher enables
Groups
1
(SDA)
[ n/%]
2
(DA)
[n/%]
3
(ND)
n/%]
4
(A)
[n/%]
5
( SA)
[n/%]
Sig
0.006*
EG
0/0.0
1/ 2.2
1/ 2.2
25/54.3
19/41.3
CG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
4/ 8.5
36/76.6
7/14.9
EG
0/0.0
1/ 2.2
3/ 6.5
28/60.9
14/30.4
CG
1/2.1
0/ 0.0
6/12.8
34/72.3
6/12.8
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
4/ 8.7
20/43.5
22/47.8
CG
1/2.1
6/ 6.5
15/31.9
19/40.4
6/12.8
4. I can use German fluently as a result of the practice my teacher EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
3/ 6.5
31/67.4
12/26.1
CG
0/0.0
6/12.8
15/31.9
25/53.2
1/2.19
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
2/30.0
30/65.2
14/30.4
CG
0/0.0
2/ 4.3
9/19.1
32/68.1
4/ 8.5
EG
0/0.0
1/ 2.2
11/23.9
24/52.2
10/21.7
CG
0/0.0
4/ 8.5
24/51.5
19/40.4
0/ 0.0
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
3/ 6.5
33/71.7
10/21.7
CG
1/2.1
6/12.8
25/53.2
14/29.8
1/ 2.1
me to understand the rules of German grammar.

2. The grammatical practice used by my teacher enables
me to learn the correct German grammar.
3. I would like my teacher to keep using the current grammatical
practice to teach us German grammar.
uses.
5. The grammatical practice my teacher uses reduces
my learning effectiveness.
6. The grammatical practice my teacher uses can improve
my listening comprehension.
7. The grammatical practice my teacher uses helps
my ability in oral German.
0.145
Table 4.42
0.000*
0.000*
0.004*
0.000*
0.000*
151
152
Students Responses towards the Type of Grammatical Practice (n=93)

ITEMS
Groups
1
(SDA)
[ n/%]
2
(DA)
[n/%]
EG
0/0.0
1/ 2.2
CG
1/2.1
EG
8. The grammatical practice my teacher uses helps

my German reading comprehension.
9. The grammatical practice my teacher currently uses
helps my German writing ability.
10. The grammatical practice my teacher uses enables me to
like German more and to raise my interest in learning German.
is an incentive to learn German.
12. The grammatical practice my teacher uses when
encouraging students interaction helps me to learn German.
13. The grammatical practice my teacher uses creates an
excellent atmosphere in class and it helps me to learn German.
brings no benefit to my German ability.
3
(ND)
[n/%]
4
(A)
[n/%]
5
(SA)
[n/%]
Sig
9/19.6
26/56.5
10/21.7
0.014*
6/12.8
17/36.2
20/42.6
3/ 6.4
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
9/19.6
25/54.3
12/26.1
CG
1/2.1
3/ 6.4
9/19.1
29/61.7
5/10.6
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
4/ 8.7
26/56.5
16/34.8
CG
0/0.0
4/ 9.8
16/34.0
12/25.5
5/10.6
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
3/ 6.5
27/58.7
16/34.8
CG
1/2.1
6/12.8
19/40.4
16/34.0
5/10.6
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
3/ 6.5
23/50.0
20/43.5
CG
1/2.1
2/ 4.3
16/34.0
28/59.6
0/ 0.0
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
2/ 4.3
30/65.2
14/30.4
CG
0/0.0
9/19.1
11/23.4
19/40.4
8/17.0
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
0/ 0.0
15/32.6
31/67.4
CG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
5/10.6
27/57.4
15/31.9
0.107
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
152
153
Item 1 (The grammatical practice used by my teacher enables me to understand the

rules of German grammar) showed little discrepancy between the two groups. A large
majority of both the experimental and the control students (95.6% versus 91.5 %, respectively)
perceived their game-based and exercise-based practice as an effective way to understand the
rules of German grammar. However, 41.3% out of 95.6% versus only 14.9% out of 91.5%
indicated that they strongly agree with this statement: Table 4.42 shows the significant
difference between the two groups on the strongly agree item (p = 0.006). This result
indicates that the experimental students perceived the game-based grammar practice as being
more effective for understanding the rules of German grammar than did the control students for
their traditional grammar practice.
Regarding Item 3, a very strong majority of the experimental students (91.3%) agreed
that I would like my teacher to keep using the current grammatical practice to teach us German
grammar, while only 52.8% of the control students agreed with that statement. There was a
statistically significant difference in agreement between the two groups (p = 0.000). The
experimental students expressed a stronger preference for having the game-based grammatical
practice for learning German grammar than did the control students for their exercise-based
practice.
There was also a statistically significant difference between two groups in Item 4:
93.5% of the experimental students agreed that I can use German fluently as a result of the
practice my teacher uses, whereas only 55.1% of the control students agreed with that
statement (p = 0.000). This result reveals that the experimental students felt more strongly
about the game-based grammatical practice than did the control students about their
exercise-based practice.
With reference to Item 5, the majority of the experimental students (96.6%) versus
76.6% of the control students disagreed with the statement that the grammatical practice my
154
teacher uses reduces my learning effectiveness. A statistically significant difference was also
found here (p = 0.004). That is to say, most of the experimental students viewed the
game-based grammatical practice as a more effective way to learn German grammar than did
the control students for their traditional grammar practice.
Items 6 through 9 elicited students opinion on the value of the grammatical practice
for developing the four language skills, namely listening comprehension, oral ability, reading
and writing ability. Regarding listening comprehension, 73.9% of the experimental students
agreed with the statement that The grammatical practice my teacher uses can improve my
listening comprehension, while only 40.4% of the control students agreed with that statement,
thus providing another statistically significant difference (p = 0.000).
In the oral ability, the largest discrepancy (61.5%) was found in Item 7 (The
grammatical practice my teacher uses helps my ability in oral German). While 93.4% of the
experimental group marked strongly agree or agree in favor of this statement, only 31.5%
of the control group did so (p = 0.000). The experimental students felt more strongly than did
the control students that the game-based practice was more helpful for developing their oral
ability.
Item 8 stated that The grammatical practice my teacher uses helps my German reading
comprehension. Responses showed a discrepancy in opinion of 29.2%. Again, the
experimental students, with a 78.2% agreement rate, clearly have been sided more in favor of
the game-based practice in regard to the development of reading comprehension than the
control group did with the exercise-based practice, with 49% agreement rate (p = 0.014).
Item 10 showed that 91.3% of the experimental students felt that game-based
grammatical practice could increase their interest in learning German, which is consistent with
their significant improvement on the motivation scale (see 4.3). Only 36.1% of the control
students perceived the traditional grammatical practice as a tool to increase their interest, which
155
is consistent with the results on the motivation scale (see 4.3). A statistically significant
difference was also found here (p = 0.000).
In answering Item 11, another very strong majority of the experimental students
(93.5%) agreed that the game-based grammatical practice is an incentive to learn German,
whereas only 44.6% of the control student believed that the traditional grammatical practice is
helpful to learn German (p = 0.000).
In Item 12, 93.5% of the experimental students agreed that the game-based practice,
which encourages students interaction, helps them to learn German, which is consistent with
their indication of a significant improvement on the classroom atmosphere (see 4.4). This
result contrasts with the 59.6% result of the control students for the same item (p = 0.000).
In Item 13, 95.6% of the experimental students agreed that there was a better
atmosphere in class when the teacher used games to practise grammar, while only 57.4% of the
control students did (p = 0.000). Therefore, these responses are consistent with the results on
the classroom atmosphere (see 4.4).
With reference to Item 14, 100% of the experimental students disagreed that
game-based practice brought no benefit to their German ability, whereas 89.2% of the control
students did (p = 0.000).
The fifth hypothesis was that the experimental students would provide more positive
responses toward the game-based practice in their learning of German grammar than the
students of the control group would toward the traditional grammar practice. The results of the
statistical analysis of students responses reported that the experimental students recorded more
positive responses to the effective role of the game-based grammar practice in their learning of
German grammar than the control students did. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis was confirmed
by the results of this questionnaire.
156
4.5.1 Discussion and Summary of the Results on the Questionnaire

on the Two Types of the Grammatical Practice
These results relate to the fifth research question of this study: Will students in
game-based grammar practice perceive grammar learning as more interesting and effective
than those in the traditional grammar practice? Generally speaking, the data from this
questionnaire provided evidence of a strongly positive response on the part of the experimental
students that the game-based grammatical practice played a positive and effective role in their
learning of German grammar. The results of the analysis confirm similar results obtained by
Hajdu (2000), Issacs (1979), Matheidesz (1988) and Miller (1992) in which the students had a
positive attitude towards the use of games in their language-learning program.
Such feedback confirms the validity of a curriculum design based on the
communicative grammar teaching approach and on the inclusion of games in L2 classrooms.
This study also suggests that these findings can be applied to Taiwanese classroom settings, and
probably to L2 classrooms generally. However, further research is needed on this point.
The design of this experiment included both the traditional explanations of
grammatical rules and their application through a teaching strategy (i. e. the use of games) that
was new and unfamiliar to my students, in order to introduce into my teaching an aspect of the
communicative approach to the teaching L2 German. The evidence that the results of the
experiment have provided towards the positive effect of this communicative aspect includes a
better rate of student involvement, a higher level of student-to- student interaction, a better level
of oral German, a very positive perception that games improve the students macro skills.
With regard to students motivation, their responses confirmed the findings of the
game-designers, game-researchers and educators on the significant improvement of motivation
(see. 4.3). Games are fun and can increase students motivation to learn (Deesri, 2002;
Nemerow, 1996; Gaudart, 1999). The experimental students experienced a fun element in
157
games and felt that their interest improved and that this helped them to learn. The role of
games as a motivator to learn was thus confirmed.
It is also worth to note that 89.2% of the control group disagreed with the statement
The grammatical practice my teacher currently uses creates no benefit to my German ability
(Item 14). The control students, furthermore, expressed their disagreement with the statement
The grammatical practice my teacher uses reduces my learning effectiveness (Item 5). This
means that 52.5% out of the control students indicated that they would like their teacher to keep
using the exercisebased practice (Item 3).
Such a result did not surprise me. Indeed, this result supported the findings in
Huangs research (2004) and reflected the characteristics of L2 classroom in Taiwan: the
exclusive focus-on-form by means of explanation of rules and supporting exercises. In
form-based classes, learners learn grammatical knowledge. The control students in this study
confirmed the strength of form-based method for the learning of grammar: they agreed that
traditional grammar practice enabled them to understand the rules of German grammar
(91.5%, Item 1), to learn the correct German grammar (85.1%, Item 2) and to develop their
writing ability (72.3%, Item 9). Most students in Taiwan are accustomed to this approach and
their teachers have as their main focus the development of grammatical accuracy.
However, in the field of L2 teaching, there is more than grammatical competence to be
achieved (Krashen, 1982; Larsen-Freeman, 1995; 2001): competence in using a language for
effective communication. The control students might have had a different perception about
grammar instruction, if their teachers had provided them with a different type of grammar
practice, one that encouraged also communication, as was the case with the game-based
grammatical practice. The present study has provided some empirical evidence in favour of
positive results towards the achievement of both grammatical and communicative competence
through the use of games.
158
4.6. Results on the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction

As a way of complementing the students data from this study, a further questionnaire
asked for their perceptions regarding the importance of including grammar in L2 courses (Items
1-8), on the difficulties they were experiencing in dealing with grammatical rules (Items 9-13)
and on their preference concerning the ways that grammar is taught (Items 14-20) (all items
appear in Table 4.43). It should be noted that the data were simplified by collapsing the
5-point scale used to elicit responses (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly
disagree) into a 3-point scale (agree/strongly, undecided, disagree/strongly). In addition to a
computer-generated frequency study of the students data using Crosstab, Chi-Square Tests of
Independence were conducted to determine whether the experimental students responses
differed significantly for all items at the 0.05 level of confidence.
The results have been summarized in terms of frequencies and percentages in Table
4.43. The rest of this section reports the statistical results from all the items in the
questionnaire (see Table 4.43). This is followed by a discussion of these results in 4.6.1.
Comparing the responses of the experimental and control students to Item 1 through to
Item 20 on the role of grammar, the students difficulties in learning grammar and their
preference regarding the ways grammar is taught, there was a statistically significant difference
only on two items between the two groups: 91.4% of the experimental students versus 85.1 %
of the control students, agreed with the statement that Learning grammar can help me to read
German texts (Item 5, p = 0.031). This means that the majority of students in both group
agreed that the study of grammar can improve their reading ability.
91.3% of the experimental students agreed that the study of grammar can improve their
listening comprehension, while only 53.6% of the control students agreed with that statement
(Item 6). A statistically significant difference was found here too (p=0.000).
159
ITEMS
Groups
1
(SDA)
[ n/%]
2
(DA)
[n/%]
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
CG
0/0.0
EG
3
(ND)
[n/%]
4
(A)
[n/%]
5
( SA)
[n/%]
4/ 8.7
24/52.2
18/39.1
1/ 0.0
4/ 8.5
31/66.0
12/25.5
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
11/21.7
20/43.5
14/30.4
CG
0/0.0
1/ 2.1
10/23.4
22/46.8
13/27.7
EG
0/0.0
3/ 6.5
5/10.9
24/52.2
14/30.4
CG
0/0.0
5/10.6
6/12.8
26/53.3
10/21.3
EG
0/0.0
2/ 4.3
2/ 4.3
21/45.7
21/45.7
CG
0/0.0
1/ 2.1
4/ 8.5
22/46.8
20/42.6
EG
0/0.0
1/ 2.2
3/ 6.5
21/45.7
21/45.7
CG
0/0.0
1/ 2.1
6/12.8
31/66.0
9/19.1
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
4/ 8.7
20/43.5
22/47.8
CG
1/2.2
6/12.8
15/31.8
19/40.8
6/12.8
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
1/ 2.2
27/58.9
18/39.1
CG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
5/10.6
26/55.3
16/34.0
EG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
4/ 8.7
16/34.8
26/56.5
CG
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
5/10.6
15/31.9
27/57.4
Sig
Importance of Learning German Grammar

1. Learning grammar helps me to understand German.
2. Learning grammar enables me to achieve high scores
in German tests.
3. Learning grammar can help me to speak German.
4. Learning grammar can help me to write German.
5. Learning grammar can help me to read German texts.
6. Learning grammar can improve my listening comprehension.
7. Learning grammar can help me to study German well.
8. Learning grammar is essential to eventual mastery of
German.
0.376
0.958
0.734
Table 4.43
Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction (n=93)
0.865
0.031
0.000*
0.317
1.000
159
160

ITEMS
9. We need to learn grammar because German is not our

native language.
Groups
1
(SDA)
[n/%]
2
(DA)
[n/%]
EG
0/ 0.0
CG
0/ 0.0
4/ 8.5
8/17.0
16/34.0
19/40.4
EG
12/26.1
22/47.8
6/13.0
2/ 4.3
4/ 8.7
CG
8/17.0
19/40.4
12/12.5
6/12.8
2/ 4.3
EG
11/23.9
22/47.8
13/28.3
0/ 0.0
0/ 0.0
CG
13/27.7
23/48.9
10/21.3
1/ 2.1
0/ 0.0
EG
13/28.3
19/41.3
10/21.7
4/ 8.7
0/ 0.0
CG
11/23.4
22/46.8
10/21.3
3/ 6.4
1/ 2.1
EG
6/13.0
15/32.6
11/23.9
12/26.1
2/ 4.3
CG
4/ 8.5
12/25.5
19/40.4
11/23.4
1/ 2.1
EG
1/ 2.2
0/ 0.0
4/ 8.7
20/43.5
21/45.7
CG
0/ 0.0
0/ 0.0
9/19.1
22/46.8
16/34.0
EG
0/ 0.0
0/ 0.0
5/10.9
13/28.3
28/60.9
CG
0/ 0.0
0/ 0.0
6/12.8
15/31.9
26/55.3
5/10.9
3
(ND)
[n/%]
2/ 4.3
4
(A)
[n/%]
5
(SA)
[n/%]
20/43.5
19/41.3
Sig
0.257
Difficulties of Learning Grammar

10. German is Germanys native language, so German people do
not have to learn grammar.
11. My German study may be better if I do not learn grammar.
12. Grammar impedes my German learning.
13. Learning grammar makes me less interested in learning
German.
0.236
0.796
0.935
0.527
Preferred Methods of Learning Grammar

14. The German teacher needs to teach German grammar
in class.
15. It is necessary to learn grammar gradually from elementary
grammar to advanced grammar.
0.271
0.871
160
161

ITEMS
16. Systematic teaching from the teacher can help me to learn

German well.
17. Which item in the following list is the best help in learning
grammar?
Groups
1
(SDA)
[n/%]
2
(DA)
[n/%]
3
(ND)
[n/%]
4
(A)
[n/%]
5
( SA)
[n/%]
EG
0/ 0.0
0/0.0
6/13.0
14/30.4
26/56.5
CG
0/ 0.0
0/0.0
4/ 8.5
21/44.7
22/46.8
EG
38/86.4
3/6.8
3/ 6.8
0/ 0.0
0/ 0.0
CG
40/85.1
2/4.3
5/10.6
0/ 0.0
0/ 0.0
EG
0/ 0.0
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
11/23.9
35/76.1
EG
0/ 0.0
0/0.0
0/ 0.0
6/12.8
41/87.2
1. Sentence practice advised by the teacher

2. Study grammar by yourself
Sig
0.364
3. Talk to foreigners in German

4. Practise with classmates in German
5. Study the textbook
18. Which items should the German grammar teacher include
in class?
1. Only grammar
2. Only reading texts
3. Only German conversation
4. Grammar and reading texts
5. Grammar, reading texts, and conversation
Note: The numbers in questions 17-20 correspond to the horizontal numbers at the top of this table.
161
162

ITEMS
GPS
19. The grammar teaching method I prefer

1. Communicative teaching approach by interactive
1
(SDA)
[n/%]
2
(DA)
[n/%]
3
(ND)
[n/%]
4
(A)
[n/%]
5
( SA)
[n/%]
EG
3/ 6.5
2/ 4.3
41/89.1
CG
4/ 8.5
4 / 8.5
39/83.0
EG
19/18.4
31/30.1
31/30.1
13/12.6
9/8.7
CG
11/11.1
34/34.3
35/35.4
13/13.1
6/6.1
learning with classmates

2. Teaching by the teacher and listening by the students.
3. Combining teaching and listening with interactive practice
among students.
20. Which kind of tasks do you prefer during German grammar
teaching?
1. The teachers teaching and student listening

2. Team Discussion
3. Games
4. Paper test
5. To praise test scores as encouragement
Note: The numbers in questions 17-20 correspond to the horizontal numbers at the top of this table.
162
Chapter 4: Quantitative Results
163
A majority of both the experimental and control students (91.3% and 91.5%,
respectively) agreed with the statement that the study of grammar helps them to understand
German (Item 1, p=0.376). 73.9% of the experimental student versus 74.5% of the control
students, respectively, believed that learning grammar enables them to achieve high scores in a
German test (Item 2, p=0.958).
Regarding the development of the four language skills, 82.6 % versus 74.6% agreed
with the statement that the study of grammar enables them to improve their oral ability (Item 3,
p=0.734). Another very strong majority (91.4 % and 89.4%, respectively) agreed that
Learning grammar can help me to write German (Item 4, p=0.865): 91.4 % of the
experimental students versus 85.1% of the control students believed that their writing improves
if they study and practise the grammatical rules (Item 5, p=0.031). This means that both
groups of students agreed that the study of grammar can improve their reading ability. 91.3%
of the experimental students agreed that the study of grammar can improve their listening
comprehension, while only 53.6% of the control students agreed with that statement (Item 6).
A statistically significant difference was found here too (p=0.000).
A similar majority of both experimental and control students (98% versus 89.3%,
respectively) agreed that the study of grammar can help them to study well (Item 7, p=0.317).
The students came to the conclusion that they believed that the study of grammar is essential to
the eventual mastery of German (Item 8, 91.3% versus 89.3%, respectively, p=1.000).
When comparing responses of the two groups on the items dealing with the difficulties
of learning grammar (Item 9 through Item 13), the two groups of students showed relatively
little disagreement. 85% of the experimental students and 74.4% of the control students
agreed with the statement We need to learn grammar because German is not our native
language (Item 9, p=0.257). Both a majority of the experimental and the control students
(73.9% versus 57.4%, respectively) also agreed with the statement, German is Germanys
164
native language, so Germans do not have to learn grammar (Item 10, p=0.236). Therefore,
71.7% of the experimental students versus 76.6% of the control students expressed their need
for the study of grammar and disagreed with the statement My German study may be better if
I do not learn grammar (Item 11, p=0.796).
It is interesting to note that 45.6% of the experimental students disagreed with the
statement Learning grammar will make you less interested in learning German (Item12),
whereas only 34% of the control students did. This result indicates that more than half of both
groups were not sure that the study of grammar was interesting for them. This result is
consistent with the research findings in the literature and with my students perception that the
teaching of grammar usually creates a boring classroom atmosphere (see 5.5).
In regard to Item 14 through to Item 20 on students preference for the ways grammar is
taught, there was close agreement in perceptions between the two groups. No meaningful
difference was found. A large majority of the both experimental and the control students
(89.2% versus 80.8, respectively) believed that their German teachers need to teach German
grammar in class (Item14, p=0.271). Both groups (89.2% versus 87.2%, respectively) also
agreed with the statement that it is necessary to learn grammar gradually from elementary
grammar to advanced grammar (Item 15, p=0.871). Another significant majority (86.9%
versus 91.5%, respectively) agreed that systematic teaching by the teacher can help them to
learn German well (Item 16, p=0.364).
With regard to the aspects that their German grammar teacher should include (Item 18),
76.1% of the experimental students and 87.2% of the control students believed that their teacher
should not only teach grammar, but also reading and conversation; 23.9% versus 12.8% wanted
a combination of grammar and reading, and a zero percentage emerged for individual aspects
(only conversation, only reading and only grammar).
The students preference for the ways that grammar is taught was elicited in Item 19:
165
their answers were consistent with Item 18: 89.1% of the experimental students and 83.0% of
the control students indicated that they prefer a grammar teaching method that integrates
focus-on-form into a communicative teaching approach; while only 6.5% of the experimental
students and 8.5% of the control students liked to have a communicative teaching approach
without focus-on-form. Only 4.3% versus 8.5% prefer the focus-on-form teaching approach,
without focus on communication.
The students preference for the activities during German grammar teaching was as
follows: 30.1% of the experimental students and 35.4% of the control students indicated that
they prefer grammar activities that include games, and ones which place them in teams (30.1%
versus 34.3%, respectively). Only 18.4% of the experimental students and 11.1% of the
control students like to listen to the teacher teaching; 12.6% versus 13.1% like to have a paper
test to learn grammar. Only 8.7% versus 6.1% like to have their teachers praise their test
scores as encouragement (Item 20). The low preference percentage in this item may be due to
the fact that most Taiwanese do not feel confident enough in their language competence to
deserve such praise.
The sixth hypothesis was that most students in both groups would indicate their belief
that grammar needs to be taught in a second language program. The results of the statistical
analysis reported that not only the experimental students but also the control students see an
important role for grammar in their second language-learning program. Therefore, the sixth
hypothesis for this study was supported.
4.6.1 Discussion of the Responses on the Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar
and Grammar Instruction
The questionnaire is related to the sixth research question: Do second language
students believe that grammar ought to be taught at all in language classes? Overall, there
was little disagreement between the experimental and the control students: not only the
166
experimental students but also the control students have similar attitudes towards the important
role of grammar in their second language learning program and their preference for a type of
grammar instruction.
The most noteworthy result from this questionnaire relates to three main aspects. The
first is the strong agreement rate by both groups on the inevitability of including grammar in a
L2 course, because it is a necessary element for the acquisition of all language skills. This
overall response confirms my hypothesis 6 and is consistent with what most literature on the
role of grammar indicates (see 2.3, p. 12). My results confirm similar results obtained by Yen
(2002), Yu (2003) and Schulz (2001) who studied the students perception of the role of
grammar with ESL students, and Lai (2004), Schulz (2001), who studied teachers belief
concerning the role of grammar.
The second aspect is one that I was also expecting: that most of my students would
confirm my perception that the studying of grammar is basically boring for most students. It
was my strong perception of my students lack of interest in grammar which instigated the
undertaking of this experiment, together with my hope that the raising of interest in grammar
would translate to an improved rate of grammatical accuracy (Chapter 1, pp. 1-4).
The overall results of this experiment have realized a significant improvement in the
level of interest in the studying of grammatical rules, and a limited but noteworthy
improvement in their rate of grammatical accuracy.
The third aspect is that the communicative grammar teaching approach through games
met the needs of my students. This is an important aspect of L2 teaching.
According to the results of the questionnaire on the role of grammar and students
preferences, both groups showed similar attitude toward the need of form-focused and
communication-oriented instruction. The students in this study, on the one hand, thought that
grammar is important; on the other hand, they strongly agreed that their teachers should explain
167
grammar rules whenever necessary within the framework of the communicative approach (Item
19). That is to say, the students hope that German grammar could be taught interactively and
communicatively. Furthermore, the students also indicated that their teacher should explain
grammatical rules systematically (Item 16) and gradually (Item 15); they would like to
learn grammar in teams, as occurs in games (Item 20). Such opinions reinforce the validity of
the present study.
The use of accurate grammar is important in the process of communication. Savignon
(2000) claimed that communication cannot take place in the absence of structure (p. 7). The
implication that is suggested by this study is not to eliminate grammatical explanations: these
are necessary, especially for L2 learners (Item 9) or for more difficult features. But teachers
must also bear in mind that the purpose of teaching grammar is to help students learn the
language, and teachers must be wary of making grammar the end of their teaching: teachers
have a responsibility to create the right atmosphere for the use of L2 for communication.
Based on the findings in this study, the game-based grammatical practice instruction
can serve both the aim of facilitating students learning of grammar and the aim of developing
the learners communicative competence.
4.7 Summary
I was disappointed that my first and second hypotheses for this study were not realised:
my experimental students did not show a statistically significant improvement in their level of
grammatical accuracy as a result of the use of games during the practice phase.
However, this chapter contains enough positive results in other aspects of the learning
and teaching process monitored during this study to make this experiment worthwhile. In fact,
all aspects of research questions 3 and 4 have obtained statistically significant improvements as
a result of using games as the main teaching and learning strategy during grammatical practice.
Furthermore, the experimental students also recorded strong positive responses toward the
168
game-based practice (Research Question 5). Both groups of students agreed that their
language teachers should teach grammar of L2; communicative grammar activities including
games are their preference (Research Question 6). Language games meet the need of the
students.
Such improvements and positive responses did not occur easily and speedily, but only
during the last phase of the experiment, as revealed in the post-test phases. Occur, though,
they did, showing a consistent pattern in favour of a long-term approach and persistence.
These aspects proved necessary ingredients in the changes that were recorded in terms of an
increased level of student motivation, and their perception of an improved classroom
atmosphere during my German lessons. This points to the important pedagogical conclusion
that students acceptance of a partially new teaching and learning approach to grammatical
practice takes time and much effort to bring about. This militates against the unrealistic
expectations of obtaining quick and large results from any experiment that aims at changing
teaching and study habits in second language classrooms.
More evidence, of a qualitative nature, in support of these conclusions is presented in
chapter 5. The qualitative data were gathered by means of focus group interviews and my field
notes.
169
CHAPTER 5
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
5.0 Introduction
This study has explored the effects of game-based practice in the teaching and
learning of German grammar, its impact on the students levels of motivation, and on the
students perception of classroom atmosphere. The students attitudes towards their type of
grammar practice and perceptions of the role of grammar were also investigated. Many
researchers, for example, Tse (2000), recognize the importance of students responses to their
foreign language classroom experiences because of their theoretical, pedagogical and
programmatic implications and because of their bearing on the students L2 proficiency.
Thus, this study used focus group interviews with both the experimental group and
the control group to explore the students perceptions of their classroom experiences in the
German grammar classes. The focus groups sought a variety of information including the
students opinions about teacher-student and student-student interaction, their views on the
activities, and their level of satisfaction with the language-learning environment. In the focus
group interviews, the students attitudes towards the role of grammar were further
investigated. In addition to the focus-group interviews, I recorded my observations in a series
of field notes, commenting on the students responses and perceptions and on the teaching
and learning process.
This chapter presents the qualitative data that were gathered from both the focus
group interviews and the field notes. These data are included because they offer extra
confirmation and support to the results presented and discussed in Chapter 4.
During the focus group sessions the experimental and the control students were asked
Chapter 5: Qualitative Results
170
to talk about their responses to eight open-ended questions regarding their experiences during
the German grammar classes. The questions were:
1.
How is your course German1 going?
2.
What do you like about the course and the teacher?
3.
What are some characteristics of the teachers instructional style that work well?
4.
What are some positive aspects of studying German this way?
5.
What are some negative aspects of studying German this way?
6.
What are some of the ways in which the course might be improved?
7.
What do you think about the role grammar plays in your second language-learning
program?
8.
What are your preferred activities in class when you are learning the grammar of
German?
Students were instructed to discuss all questions, although they could give particular
emphases to those they felt were most relevant to their learning experience.
The students responses fell into three categories: (a) positive aspects of learning
German grammar through different types of grammatical practice, (b) negative aspects of
learning German grammar and (c) attitudes toward the role of grammar in the learning of a
second language.
Comments on each category are presented separately for the sake of clarity. Each
participant was assigned a number for the sake of anonymity. S stands for student (i.e.
S1 means student 1). The responses of the experimental students are reported separately
from those of the control students, while the conclusion will compare the two groups. Some
of the data to be reported is in informal or even slightly ungrammatical English. However,
the importance of the original opinions means that some of the translations have been very
direct or literal. Further quotations from students comments are reported in Appendix I.
171
5.1 The Experimental Groups Positive Responses to Grammar Classes

Where Games were Used
Among the positive reactions to German grammar classes that included the use of
games during practice time, the most often-mentioned aspect related to teacher-student and
student-student interaction. The students in the experimental group felt that the teachers
attention and understanding contributed to their progress and helped maintain their interest in
learning German. One respondent from the experimental group commented,
I am fortunate to have Frau Yu, as my first German grammar teacher She
showed a great level of patience and encouragement, which I feel, is vital,
particularly in learning a foreign language. (S2)
Another student commented that it was the willingness of the teacher to work with
the class to make us understand certain aspects of the language (S8) that contributed to her
progress in learning German. Endorsing these sentiments, another student, who reported that
he enjoyed his German grammar classes and had generally positive experiences, praised his
teacher who was very interested in us as students and involved us in her life (S3). A further
comment:
The teacher [Frau Yu] is concerned about my progress. I never thought that
teachers would pay any attention to a low-achiever like me. After the first
grammar quiz, she asked me whether I needed any help from her. She
offered to give me extra help after class. Since that time, I have made various
efforts to study the subject German grammar. (S8)
The experimental students seemed to agree that the positive personal characteristics
of their teacher (e.g. level of motivation, warmth, empathy, commitment) seem to influence
the rapport between the teacher and students and were largely responsible for improvement in
their motivation (Christophel, 1990; Drnyei, 2001,). The students were motivated to make
efforts to study the subject German grammar (S8) and reported their significant improvement
regarding motivational effort in Tables 4.16-1 and 4.16-2. As will be seen when I discussed
172
the control group, both groups responded positively to the teachers approach; therefore it is
not simply the use of games which created students positive feeling.
However, students comments also indicated that their teachers verbal and non-verbal
immediacy behaviours (the perceived physical and/or psychological closeness between people,
Drnyei, 2001) reduced the social distance between teacher and students during the games
because the teacher was often circulating around the room. Thus, interactions with their
teacher contributed to a less threatening environment for learning. The experimental students
recorded a significantly higher level of teacher support after the one-semesters intervention
with the game-based practice (see Tables 4.28-1 and 4.28-2). These comments also confirm
the findings that the experimental students perceived that there was a more positive classroom
atmosphere in the German grammar classes (see Tables 4.31-1 and 4.31-2).
In addition to providing assistance and showing empathy, the teacher, according to
some other experimental students, prepared the classes so well that this factor contributed
greatly to their learning of grammar. One student commented,
I like her handouts very much. From the handouts, we can tell that she
planned all the grammatical features before the classes. I think she must have
spent a lot of time editing the handouts. She has done a good job for students.
(S1)
Two other students went on to elaborate this point, explaining that
Regarding the learning of grammar, I think it is one of good ways to learn
language grammar. The teacher prepared the handouts. I know what I am
going to learn. With examples and explanations of the teacher, it is not
difficult for me to learn German grammar at all... The teacher explained very
clearly by using simply language. Moreover, the teacher introduced the
grammatical rules systematically so that it takes me normally 10-20
minutes to review the information, if a quiz is given. (S8)
I liked the grammar instructional process because the instruction was very
systematic and organized. Furthermore, there was lots of speaking or writing
communicative grammar activities prepared by the teacher. I think that these
kinds of activities, either speaking or writing grammar practice opportunities
are very important in grammar learning process. (S4)
173
As noted above, it seems that both groups of the students have similar positive
attitude regarding the teachers teaching approach; therefore it is not simply the use of games
which created students positive feelings. As suggested in the literature, teachers may
influence the level of students motivation through appropriate task presentations: this is
termed methodological motivation by Shie (2003). I called students attention to the rules
of German grammar by explaining grammar in a gradual and systematical way (S1, S8
and S4). This fits the characteristics of focus-on-form grammar instruction and also touches
on the students preference for learning grammar (Table 4.43). All results supported the
statistically significant higher level of satisfaction as it appears in Tables 4.29-1 and Table
4.29-2.
In addition to the explanations for the grammatical rules, the most-mentioned
classroom activities were the language games. Two students expressed their reactions in the
following way:
All in all, I had a good experience learning German grammar and felt that my
teacher did a good job letting us play games in the grammar class,
because she made it fun to learn and she taught me the value in learning and
to see a need for it in our lives and futures. (S7)
The teacher must have spent a lot of time planning the games and making the
picture cards. She made the learning of German grammar more attractive. It
was just fantastic. (S1)
In terms of the classroom activities that students in the experimental group liked,
most of them mentioned that they appreciated having opportunities to speak German and to
participate in language games. One student liked her teachers encouragement to use German
in the games. The teacher insisted that we use German, as much as possible, in order to
effectively further my abilities (S4).
The students reported that their opportunities to speak German were increased by the
classes in which games were a focus. Games created opportunities for practising the
174
grammatical rules, practising speaking German, and improving listening comprehension as

group members discussed, interviewed each other or answered questions. As one student
commented, I like the grammar instruction provided in my grammar class a lot because I
can practise the learned grammar in a communicative way with classmates, which I think
improves my German grammar a lot (S2). Another student also said, I like my grammar
class because I am able to check my grammatical knowledge through lots of language games
used there (S5). These comments confirm the perception of teachers and researchers that
games enable students to demonstrate and apply previously or newly acquired knowledge and
skills (Gary, Marrone & Boyles, 1998; Gaudart, 1999; Macedonia, 2005).
Owing to intra-group cooperation and inter-group competition, the students
encouraged or even compelled their group members to speak German (as in Games 1, 7, 8, 9,
see Appendix H) or to present an oral report in front of the whole class, for example in Game
2, when the students were asked to introduce themselves or their classmates. In Game 13, the
students were asked to introduce their family orally or in writing. Small-group interaction
increased my students actual German language use as pointed by Bailey (1985), Long &
Porter (1985) and Schultz (1988). They were actively involved in an authentic process of
communication with group members. As some students reported:
Language learning games can offer us more opportunities to speak and
practise German because you have to answer questions or ask questions, e.g.
in the games Wann machst du was?, you have to talk and ask. At the end of
each game, we have to raise our hands and give the correct answer in order to
earn points for the group. (S11)
I really enjoyed having the language games more than the lecture. I found it
easier to learn the information when I can see how it really applies to real
life. I know how to communicate with the others in German. I can greet my
friends in German. I can also make an appointment in German. (S6)
For another student, the opportunities to reinforce and to use German with peers in
games were a major contributor to her interest in the grammar course and in learning German.
175
She commented,
Frankly, I dont like coming to German grammar classes German grammar
rules are so complicated that I felt I could never master the language. I
struggled with the learning of verbs at the beginning of the semester but I
now have a better understanding and retain more. The difference was in the
games learning activities, because of the student interaction in the class,
others tried to help me to overcome the problem. This helped a great deal.
(S8)
The cooperative nature of most language games naturally encourages student-student
interaction. These types of games are excellent for encouraging shy students, since they
require the participation of all the member of a team, group or pair (Hajdu, 2000; Liang, 2004;
Rinvolucri & Davis, 1995). As Hajdu (2000) concluded in her research, students appeared to
participate in the learning process more and generate creative ideas more frequently. The
students had to be willing to communicate with one another and that encouraged the feeling
of comfort, low anxiety and perceived competence when they worked together with their
peers towards a common goal. Vygotsky (1997) also stated that games, in providing
interaction, create a zone of proximal development (ZPD), which provides an opportunity for
learning. In this study, the experimental students seemed to perceive game-based grammar
practice as good options for bringing about natural, meaningful and low-anxiety interaction in
a formal linguistic environment, because games require pair or group work and were by their
very nature informal tasks. The use of group work could relax students by engaging them in
stress-reducing tasks (Allery, 2004; Schultz, 1988). This also echoes Krashens Input
Hypothesis (1985) that a small group approach enables learners to attain greater language
competence than a teaching methodology that stresses the memorization of grammar,
vocabulary and drill exercises in isolation.
In addition to favouring group work in language games, two other experimental
students made positive comments about the feedback they had received about the accuracy of
their German utterances from their group members or the teacher. A student pointed out that
176
One of the best aspects of learning a language within a classroom setting is

the class participation and discussion, but with the constant correction and
supervision of teachers. Our mistakes can be corrected immediately during
the games because the correct answers are printed on the reverse side of the
game cards. My group members will correct me if I make a mistake. If we
are not sure, she [the teacher] walks around the class, we may ask her right
away. (S4)
Among the positive reactions to the German grammar classes, many students also
mentioned student-student interactions. They indicated that they did not feel so anxious when
speaking German in their game group. A lower achiever (S10) reflected, I feel less nervous
about practising during the German language games. I know my German pronunciation is not
good. I have learned to relax and speak in the groups. A higher achiever expressed his
response by saying,
I am still afraid of speaking in front of the class, though I have no problem
when it comes to speaking English. I feel that it was helpful, if I could
practise German well, particularly in small groups, before I use it. (S3)
Stress is a major hindrance in the language learning process (Krashen, 1982; Schultz,
1988). The recognition, not only of the teacher but also of their peers was important to the
students and also the feeling of competence (Hajdu, 2000). However, many students felt less
threatened when consulting with classmates during language games. Talking or asking the
teacher questions directly would cause more anxiety for the students. Learning through
language games might cause less anxiety and stress than in the traditional, teacher-dominated
language classroom and promote more effective learning (Gary, Marrone & Boyles, 1998;
Hajdu, 2000; Sprengel, 1994). Some of the students, who were afraid of approaching the
teacher directly, experienced decreased anxiety in their interactions with classmates. As one
student reported:
I dare not ask the teacher directly because I would feel nervous when talking
to the teacher. If I have any questions or anything I dont understand, I ask
my classmates while playing games. And sometimes, I can understand better.
(S2)
177
As shown in Tables 4.27-1 and 4.27-2, the experimental students recorded a higher
level of peer support after one semesters intervention of game-based practice. In this study,
language games in groups seemed to build up a more relaxed environment, which allowed
students to ask questions of their group members or the teacher. This was an important factor
that contributed to the students motivation to learn.
I also found that the students could use their own language to solve their problems.
As I wrote in my field notes on November 07, 2004:
Dirk told me how to learn the definite article for the noun Milch (milk). He
explained that only mothers have milk. So, the noun Milch (milk) has the
female definite article die (the). I was very surprised to hear Dirks
wonderful idea. I never thought of that before. I just asked my students to
memorize the definite articles for nouns. I asked Dirk to explain the idea to
the whole class so that everyone could learn the word quickly. Stefan told me
it is not Dirks idea, but Tinas instead. Tina, a very shy girl, seldom spoke.
The whole class praised her and appreciated her great idea. They learned the
definite article for Milch immediately. I learned a lot from the students, for
example, the way they designed the vocabulary cards for Domino. The cards
I designed were not as attractive as theirs. They proved that they had more
potential than I expected.
In addition to the peer support, peer encouragement also influenced the students
willingness to learn and their motivation. It was more inspiring to study and learn with group
members than to struggle alone. With peer support and encouragement, the students were
motivated to study German harder. This is reflected in the following comments:
I think I become more confident. I know that I can represent my group in
front of the whole class. I never realized that I was able to take or answer
question in front of the class. I like to work in small groups. And the sense
of success enhances my motivation to learn. (S10)
I like to play games in a group in order to learn German grammar because she
[the teacher] insisted that we learn not only for ourselves but also for the
other members of the group. We have to try to help each other. I really did
get a warm feeling from the sense of the belonging I had in the group. So, I
actively participated in the game and encouraged my group members to work
hard. I wanted my group to be the best group. I really enjoyed the
atmospherethe sense of the belonging, of cohesion. I found many of my
group members had a similar sense of cohesion. We worked together, not for
ourselves, but also for the group. (S4)
178
Students comments reveal that games provided them with the opportunities to work
together and encouraged interaction between students. They got to know each other and
supported each other in the learning process. Thus, the students built up the sense of
belonging in which there is a strong we feeling: the students were happy to belong (Raffini,
1993). A significantly higher perception of class cohesion was recorded by the experimental
students (Tables 4.30-1 and 4.30-2). This sort of sense of belonging or class cohesion also
contributed to the more comfortable classroom atmosphere for learning. This finding also
explained the reason why the experimental students perceived a more positive classroom
atmosphere in the German grammar classes (Tables 4.31-1, 4.31-2 and Table 4.42). These
results also answered my research question 4 and supported my hypothesis that the students in
the game-based grammar practice would perceive and respond to a more positive classroom
atmosphere, especially if the games were played over a longer period of time, that is for more
than a single semester.
Drnyei and Csizr (1998) claimed that classroom climate was rank-ordered second
among the motivation factors in a Hungarian survey of teachers of English. In a comfortable,
supportive classroom atmosphere, the students of this study found that they were more
motivated to learn (S8, S2) and indicated a higher degree of perceived competence (S2, S10,
S8). The higher level of motivational effort and the higher level of perceived capability were
also reported in Tables 4.16-1 and 4.16-2, Tables 4.17-1 and 4.17-2. These results confirmed
also my research hypothesis that the students in the game-based grammar practice would have
a statistically significant improvement on motivation (Tables 4.18-1, 4.18-2 and Table 4.42).
Regarding the affective issues, some students considered that they had obtained
greater intrinsic motivation in learning German from the games-based practice. Before the
experiment, the students motivation was extrinsic rather than intrinsic. More specifically, the
students general reasons for learning German were that German was the compulsory subject
179
in the college, and they were required to study German rather than English because of their
lower entrance examination scores.
However, as a result of this experiment some of the students indicated that their
German learning motivation was enhanced because German classes were becoming more
colorful, different, and interesting due to the language games. Students comments
reported on their increased enjoyment, as the following extract from the transcripts
demonstrates:
I like playing games. The classroom atmosphere became active and colourful,
and we students were in a happier mood in class time and we are not bored
because of these interesting, exciting learning games. (S11)
Two high-achieving students considered that they had studied German as diligently as
they had studied English previously. Their interest in second language learning remained the
same, notwithstanding the teaching approaches. However, they agreed that grammar-learning
activities should have the elements of fun and diversity, which are helpful for their
acquisition of grammar. As one of the students said,
I quite understand what I should do as a student. I have to study very hard,
not for examinations, but for myself. I have studied very hard, no matter
what teachers have done. However, of course, to study in a happy
atmosphere would help students to learn more. (S7)
A game is to be enjoyed (Griffiths & Clyne, 1995). Fun and interest are the main
elements of games and these can contribute to improving students motivation to learn: they
break the simple monotony of the traditional lecture (S2) and bring the students into a
happier mood in class time (S11). This made my students learning different: learning could
also be interesting and could be enjoyed. The more important issue for me is that it made my
students learn. This finding might minimize some language teachers concern that games
connote fun and are not therefore serious enough to be used in the classroom. The comments
by my experimental students should confirm the perception that students can learn or would
180
like to learn more through playing games (S7, S12): my students were motivated to put in
more effort to learn (S12, S5). This is shown by a significant improvement in motivational
effort in Tables 4.16-1 and 4.16-2.
The experimental students expressed their enjoyment of the games not only here, but
also in the Enjoyment Scale of the Questionnaire on Motivation (Tables 4.15-1 and 4.15-2).
The overall findings on motivation show that it is related to success in L2 learning (Gardner,
1985). My results confirm Krashens Affective Filter: when students affective filter is
down, as during games, it allows more information to be acquired. Games seem to make
remembering of the information easier, as found in Nemerows research (1996) and Hajdus
research (2000). The slight outperformance of the experimental students on grammar
accuracy (Table 4.13 and Figure 4.1) provides more evidence to support the claim that games
can improve students learning outcomes (Allery, 2004; Gaudart, 1999; Hajdu, 2000;
Macedonia, 2005; Shie, 2003; Thatcher, 1990).
Another two students mentioned that the types of games they played contributed to
their involvement and learning. A student with kinesthetic learning style reported his
experience in the following way:
I like to learn grammar through games. I used to doze off when the teacher
talked alone. I like to move around. I just dont like to sit still for a long time.
It was different in the games. You are allowed to stand up and move around
to conduct an interview or to ask some other students on the other corner of
the class. Moreover, you dont need to sit still as you play the games. It is
more comfortable. The movement kept me awake it did help me to pay
attention to whats going on in class. (S2)
Another student with a more visual learning style found picture games contributed to
her learning of vocabulary and sentence structure. As she reported:
I like language games, in especially picture games. In this semester, we have
played a lot of picture games, for examples, Game 3, Game 5, and Game 6
I can remember the words or sentences better, if I see the pictures of the
words or of the sentences. So, I found I could retain more and longer through
playing games. (S12)
181
One student explained that she liked the Game DIY Domino the most because she
liked to design games and to draw. As she commented, I like brainstorming. I also like to
learn by doing. Thus, its fun to have the opportunity to design games for ourselves and also
for our classmates (S6).
Recent educational theory has found that people learn in a variety of ways. Different
students learn in different ways and are motivated by different factors. As Jones, Mungai and
Wong (2002) have suggested, there is a positive relationship between learning style and
positive outcomes. Allery (2004) and Gary, Marrone and Boyles (1998) claim that games can
be intrinsically motivating and can adapt to different styles of learners, as well as different
learning styles. My students thought that learning through diverse language games catered to
their learning style and that helped them to remain on task in class, as stated by Oxford,
Ehrman and Lavine (1996).
Learning through games also helped the students to perceive German grammar,
learning activities, their peers and their teacher more positively. These changes in attitudes
influenced their motivation and their academic achievement. The use of language games
resulted in an increase in satisfaction with the German grammar class.
In my field notes, I wrote the following comment:
I felt more relaxed and encouraged to teach this class [the experimental
group]. I did not have to spend a lot of time on classroom management.
Because we had so many group games going on in classes, the students
became more and more creative, spontaneous, and most of all, attentive.
Almost all of the students were on-task and engaged in class. There was
hardly any students falling asleep, dozing off, or being absent-minded. Most
of the students were busy with games. (on November 13, 2004)
I noted in my field notes that it seemed to me that they were keen on German even
after class. On November 20, 2003 we finished Game 6. The students asked to play the game
again in the next session. Due to the schedule, we had to begin the next grammar unit.
Therefore, the students asked to borrow the game cards after class. After Game 5, the
182
students kept asking to continue with games every time I announced that it was time to finish
off. I saw real motivation in this situation. The most important sign I have experienced in my
classes was the students smiling and laughing. My concern with the three S principles
practised by my students in classroom, - (1) keep silent in order to hide boredom or anxiety; 2)
smile in order to hide embarrassment for not being able to answer any question; 3) sleep
because of lack of interest and lack of motivation to learn in Chapter 1) - became less of a
problem because students had more positive attitudes towards the learning of grammar with
the use of language games. The students were willing to engage in learning for its own sake
and enjoy it. This proved that intrinsic motivation occurs. Finocchiaro (1989) observed that
in many instances the motivation to learn a target language can be fostered and enhanced even
in learners who do not have a strong initial interest. In my experience of the experimental
students I was able to see that their compulsory motivation (Shie, 2003) was turning into
intrinsic motivation by integrating games into their grammar classes (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It
is as part of this type of motivation that games have a vital role to play.
These and similar comments help to explain the growth in motivation and in positive
classroom atmosphere that emerged from the questionnaire on motivation and classroom
atmosphere (see Figures 4.9 and 4.19). However, the students of the experimental group also
reported some unfavorable reactions to the game-based practice, although they expressed high
satisfaction with the new approach to the learning of German grammar. These unfavorable
reactions are reported in the next section.
5.2 Unfavourable Responses of the Experimental Group to the Grammar Classes
where Games were Used
Although some students were less positive about aspects of the games and about the
new classroom approach, their perceptions were not wholly negative. Rather, they gave
qualified answers, making many suggestions as to how the games could be improved or the
183
classroom activities modified. Some students complained about the organization of games.
They suggested that it would have worked better if the students had chosen their own groups.
As some students commented:
She [the teacher] always assigned us into a small group of four. The group
members are the classmates who sit around you. You have no choice. For
me, it would work better to work with someone I am familiar with. I met
someone who was so quiet and not willing to play with; even if you
encouraged or invited her. It made me frustrated. And you will also lose
your interest to play and do nothing. Of course, you learned less in that case
than you expected. (S2)
Other students complained that it was difficult to work with some students because
they usually misbehaved, such as chatting with some students and then probably bothering
others. I have also noted certain tensions within groups and the choice of group members. I
found that a few students did not really get involved while playing during the initial phase of
this experiment. In my field notes on November 15, 2004, I wrote:
It seemed that the students were not clear about what to do or how to play the
game. The rules did not seem to be for the students. They were just sitting
there. I could hardly hear their voices. The classroom was so quiet I
hardly saw any real interaction between them.
In Game 2 Interview (see Appendix H), the students were asked to conduct
interviews with classmates other than their group members. However, during the game only
one student moved around the class to conduct an interview. The rest of the class just stayed
in their own group. This would have occurred because of the unfamiliarity with each other,
since they were all new to each other at the beginning of the semester. It could also have
occurred due to the students unfamiliarity with the game. In order to minimize the
organizational problem, the students asked me whether they could play outside the classroom
when they played Game 6 Quartet. The students had the opportunity to choose their own
group members. It was really impressive to see that most of the students actively participated
in the game and were completely on task. They sat on the floor and played cards. They
184
laughed and spoke German. From that time, the students participated much more actively. It
finally worked much better, from Game 5 onwards. Therefore, I changed my mind and let the
students choose their group members when Game 7 was being implemented. However,
surprisingly, they chose the students sitting around them as their teams members. Two
students explained:
We got to know each other better in the past six weeks. So, we are familiar
with each other. Therefore, it wont be a problem any more to work with
anyone in this class. (S1)
The organizational problems seemed to be solved at this point, because the
relationship between the students and their familiarity with games were established. This
helps to explain why the students motivation increased as did their perception of a more
positive classroom atmosphere over the course of the semester: both improved significantly
(see Table 4.18 and 4.31).
Many students said that they wished to have more time to play games and more
games to play. The students explained their needs in the following way:
Its too hard to keep up with all the information we have to know by playing
around in class. It was fun and I hope we do more games for one grammar
unit. It could be helpful for me, if I could practice more in different games.
(S6)
In my field notes, I have written down a conversation I had with Friedrich. In Game
6 on November 07, 2003, I found that the Friedrichs group finished the game very quickly,
while most other groups were still playing. I encouraged Friedrichs group to play the game
once again. However, they said that they had learned the words well and were unwilling to
play the game once again. In order to show me how well they had worked, they even asked to
give them some questions to examine their learning outcomes. I was glad that the students
were so confident. The students really knew the words after I gave them some questions to
answer. I am really proud of your group. Well done!, I said to the group and reminded
185
myself of their progress in my notes: my students were not so afraid of showing me their
knowledge of German. Such improvement of higher level of self-evaluated capability
confirmed the findings in the motivational factor Capability (Tables 4.17-1 and 4.17-2).
And I tried to add more cards or design more variations for a game from that time on, in order
to minimize problems of students finishing early.
Some students complained that the classroom was noisier than it had been in the past.
A student pointed out her concern and commented in the following way:
It is fun to learn through games. However, I found that our classmates were
getting out of control more often. Some groups laughed loudly or spoke
loudly. The students made noises when they had a chance to move around
the class. It disturbed not only the other groups, but also even the classes
next to us. I think the teacher needs to do some classroom management or we
should learn to control ourselves while playing games. (S10)
Discipline in the classroom is a particular issue in the Taiwanese context, where both
the teachers and the students seem to expect classrooms to be quiet and orderly, with learners
focused on the largely silent task of reading or writing exercises. In many language
classrooms, oral language is practised by using controlled, predictable dialogues. Hence, in
my classes there was some tension between carrying out game activities and maintaining a
quiet environment. In Game 5, the Match Game, two groups laughed and spoke German so
loudly that the whole class was a little bit annoyed by the noise: this game lent itself to overexcitement and provoked excessive noise. These students tried to control themselves and
lowered their voices. However, it began again after a while. This time, more groups got
involved and did the same thing. I quite understand that it is unavoidable to have a certain
level of noise when playing games, or when students are talking, and walking around, as
pointed out by Kuo (1990), Richard-Amato (1996) and Gaudart (1999). But I also considered
the issue to what extent the noise is constructive. I always reminded the students not to make
much noise before the game and told them that they should talk more softly and keep noise
186
within reasonable levels.

Although I was aware of the risks associated with the use of games, such as noise and
the lack of discipline, I did not lose sight of the pedagogical value of games in second
language teaching (Gaudart, 1999; Kuo, 1990; Richard-Amato, 1996). One of the solutions
that I am planning to implement in the future, in order to meet these challenges, is to use my
college hall and sports grounds for some games, as I believe that taking the students out of the
classroom gives them a welcome change of scenery as suggested by Gaudart (1999). It is
interesting that the problem of noise has become less of a concern over one school semester.
With regard to the problem of organization and discipline, game-playing enhances students
interaction so that the students have more opportunity to know each other. Furthermore, the
students were encouraged to participate actively and were also motivated to learn together.
The problem of organization and discipline, fortunately, became less of a problem as the
semester progressed.
5.3 Experimental Students Attitude Towards the Role of Grammar
in a Second Language
In this section, the experimental students attitudes towards the role of grammar and
grammar instruction have been explored. Although all the interviewees pointed out that they
needed a certain amount of grammar instruction in their classes, their views on its role
differed from person to person. Some students thought it was very important; some thought it
was important but should not be overemphasized, while none thought that grammar teaching
should be minimized in class. These are some of the reasons the students gave in favor of the
role of grammar:
Native speakers dont need to study grammar. It seems reasonable because
we dont need to study Chinese grammar, either. But we can speak and write
Chinese fluently and accurately. We are not speakers of German. Therefore,
we need to study German grammar if we want to master the German
language. (S8)
187
The structures in Chinese and German are different; without learning

grammar, students would be unable to write or make sentences because we
would not know what was grammatical and what was not. We would
probably write sentences, which resembled a direct translation from Chinese.
(S9)
Overall, the students seemed to have positive attitudes towards the importance of
grammar and thought that grammar would support their learning of German, be conducive to
their German learning and help them to master the German language. As a result, they also
thought it was necessary for teachers to teach grammar. The students thought that knowledge
of German grammar would help them with their written communication more than with their
oral communication. Regarding the purposes of grammar instruction, these students
explained their perceptions in the following ways:
The general purpose of learning grammar is to achieve accurate and more
fluent German in either writing or speaking. (S4)
Grammar is learned for writing and speaking skills of German, because
German grammar is completely different from Chinese. German grammar is
also very important to learn for the development of reading and listening
skills. Overall, I think that grammar is learned to strengthen the four skills of
German [listening, speaking, reading, and writing]. (S10)
Although the students represented above assigned an important role to grammar for
developing all four-language skills, some of them noted that grammar was not the only thing
that was significant and that it should not dominate class time. Teaching should also focus on
meaning and content of the materials as well. For example, one student said:
Learning German is not restricted to learning the language. The teachers
should not teach grammar separately all the time. They should incorporate
grammar into other activities such as reading, listening, and speaking practice.
(S5)
The comments of the students on the purpose of grammar confirmed the results in the
Questionnaire on the role of grammar (Table 4.43). In Item 18, 100% of the experimental
students believed that their teacher should not only teach grammar, but also reading and
conversation as a whole. That was because the students believed that the study of grammar
188
would enable them to improve their four language skills (Item 3 to Item 6). Hence, the
students came to the conclusion that they believed that the study of grammar was essential to
eventual mastery of German (Item 8).
As far as these students were concerned, grammar facilitated language learning,
especially in reading and writing, when accuracy, rate of learning, and the pursuit of a higher
level of proficiency were concerned. Nevertheless, not all of them considered grammar
helpful in developing accuracy or fluency in speaking. Some students thought that grammar
could help with speaking, but students needed to do a lot of oral practice before they could
apply their grammatical knowledge in actual situations.
As to the ways of learning grammar, most students agreed that the teachers guidance
in learning grammar would help them learn best. They also considered that grammar should
be taught step by step. Hence, for these students, it is necessary to learn grammar
systematically (Item 16) and gradually from elementary grammar to advanced grammar
(Item 15).
It is apparent that the students realized the importance of authentic language use and
this suggests that learning German should require not only context but also communication
because language is a tool of communication, as claimed by Krashen (1985) and Prabhu
(1987). When asked how grammar should be taught, many students cited their current
grammar instruction as a good example of grammar instruction in general. Typical comments
were as follows:
I think that the systematic organization and presentation of any grammar
point and intensive exercises on that grammar in the chosen textbook really
helps any grammar instruction. Diverse exercise types on any learned
grammar are important for students to digest and practice the already learned
grammar either through speaking or writing activities. Just direct rules
explanation and memorization by the students should not be the only focal
activities of grammar lessons. (S7)
189
One student summed up the experimental students attitudes and perspectives

regarding grammar instruction by saying that
Grammar is essential for most students to learn a foreign language in the
language classroom. I think grammar should be used in everyday life and
that is the most important part to improve my grammar. By doing this,
grammar learning and use become a natural experience and through this, I
think grammar can be remembered and learned a lot until later when lots of
time went by. On this point also, I wish to have diverse and interesting
communicative grammar practice activities where I can practise the learned
grammar in communicative way with classmates. I think it improves my
German Grammar a lot. (S5)
It is noted that the experimental students talked freely about their perceptions of the
role of grammar and their perceptions of grammar instruction, which they thought to be of use
for their acquisition of German grammar. The comments of the experimental students on the
role of grammar and their preference were consistent with the findings in the Questionnaire
on the role of grammar (Table 4.43): most of students showed positive attitudes toward the
needs of form-focused and communication-oriented instruction (Item 19). On one hand, the
students thought that grammar is important; on the other hand, they agreed that their teachers
should explain grammar rules whenever necessary within the framework of communicative
approach, as claimed by many researchers such as Lando (1999), Lightbown (1998), Norris
and Ortega (2000). Furthermore, the students expected their teacher to use diverse and
interesting grammar exercises other than exercise-based practice to sustain their interest in
learning. Games and teamwork were suggested by the students in this interview and also in
Tables 4.42 and 4.43. Such opinions reinforce the validity of the present study.
In the following section, the positive reactions of the control group to the traditional
grammar instruction used in this study will be explored.
190
5.4 The Control Groups Positive Responses to the Grammar Classes

The reactions of the students in the control group fall into affective, cognitive, and
metacognitive domains. On the whole, the control groups comments focused on their
impression of their grammar teacher and on the approach used by their teacher. They felt that
the teachers patience and efforts contributed partly to their progress and helped maintain their
motivation in learning German. Many responded positively to the fact that the teacher
frequently encouraged them to talk to her about any problem that occurred in the learning and
in the use of the grammar taught in class. One student said:
I like my grammar teacher because she always answers in a very friendly
manner any grammatical question. I really feel comfortable about asking her
any grammatical questions. (S3)
Regarding the instructional process, most students commented that the way the
teacher explained the German grammatical rules, using both deductive and inductive methods,
was helpful for them to develop a good understanding of German grammar.
I like my grammar teacher because she distributed a lot of handouts that I
liked and was very helpful for my acquisition of German grammar. Her
handouts presented a grammar point in a systematic and organized way and
lots of practice exercises followed her explanation of grammar. I think, in
this way, my understanding of the grammar taught was improved. (S12)
In addition to the clear and direct explanations of grammar, many students perceived
the handouts that I prepared as a very positive resource and thought the handouts were
another key factor for contributing to better understanding of German grammar. Some
students commented on the benefit of the handouts in relation to their learning of grammar in
the following extracts:
She [the teacher] made a good decision in that she did not always use the set
textbook to introduce grammar. The textbook did not present a grammar
point in a systematic and organized way. The book is more communicationbased. Without her systematic and organized grammar handouts, it would
have been very difficult to understand German grammar, especially for
beginners like me. (S12)
191
One student found the grammar classes interesting. The reason for this was that she
needed a very systematic teaching approach as a beginner. Regarding her grammar
instructional process and her grammar teacher, she commented:
I think the teachers role at my level is very important. The teacher taught
and focused very much on what I should learn as a German beginner. The
deductive grammar presentation method from my teachers part is not bad.
She used a very systematic teaching approach and taught grammar
systematically. Especially in relation to this part of her teaching, she did play
her role well. (S9)
In addition to the systematic teaching instruction, some students liked their grammar
classes because the teacher gave students a test after each grammatical unit. In this way, the
students were able to check their grammatical knowledge and their progress as well. One
student explored the issue further by saying:
I know we dont like to have tests or exams. We have already had too many
examinations in the past nine school years. However, if the teacher did not
give us test or exam, we would not study. Then, we would never know what
we have learned or what we have missed. So, the teacher used tests or
examinations as a learning strategy to make me learn. These strategies are
really helpful for the learning of grammar. (S3)
It was surprising to hear such a positive attitude expressed toward examinations by
the students. Normally, students in Taiwan complain they have many tests and examinations
and that these make them less interested in the learning. However, like other teachers in
Taiwan, I am aware of the fact that most Taiwanese students will not study if they do not have
examinations, even if they are at a higher educational level. It is therefore pleasing to have
students perceptions suggesting that tests and examinations are tools for them to check their
grammatical knowledge and their progress (S3). This also explains the reason why 12.6% of
the experimental students and 13.1% of the control students liked to have paper tests among
their preferred grammar learning activities (Item 20). Therefore, I planned tests and
examinations in all my teaching schedules in order to check the students learning progress
192
and my teaching outcomes as well.

Another student was very satisfied with his grammar teacher because the teacher
shared useful learning strategies with her students, which made their learning of grammar
easier. Two students commented on these strategies:
The grammar teacher gave her students some learning strategies in addition to
grammar instruction; these were helpful to me because she reminded me of
the way I should go about improving my own grammar. She reminded us of
some techniques, for example, the verb ending for du (informal you) is -st,
du sounds like kill in Taiwanese; and -st sounds like dead. If you were
killed, then you will be dead. So du has the verb ending st. It was
interesting and easy to learn the verb ending. (S3)
[The teacher] shared the following learning strategy: how to learn the definite
article to the noun Milch (milk). The noun Milch (milk) has the definite
article die (the) because only mothers (female) have milk. I think that this
contributed to my learning of German grammar. It also inspired me to
formulate my own learning strategies. (S7)
The comments in this section show that the students in the control group appreciated
their grammar class teacher. On the whole, the control groups comments focused on their
impression of their grammar teacher, and focused on the approach used by their teacher.
They felt that the teachers patience and efforts contributed partly to their progress and helped
maintain their motivation in learning German. Many responded positively to the fact that the
teacher frequently encouraged the students to talk to her about any problem that occurred in
the learning and in the use of the grammar taught in class, although it was not as successful
when it came to encouraging the students to oral practice. This was a commonality with the
experimental group.
In an interesting contribution to the literature, Chambers (1999) claimed that the
students considered the teachers own behaviour to be the single most important motivational
tool. Such behaviour was described in terms of care for the students learning, warm
interactions with the students, an empathic manner, mutual trust and respect. I focused
students attention on the rules of German grammar by planning all the grammatical features
193
in handouts (S12, S13, S5), explaining the grammatical rules clearly (S5) and
systematically (S8, S12), and by sharing useful learning strategies (S3 and S7). This
process, as the students commented, was quite helpful when it came to understanding the
grammatical rules (S8, S13) and improving their learning of grammar (S11, S12), particularly
for the beginners (S9 and S8). This fits the characteristics of focus-on-forms grammar
instruction and also touches on the students need for the grammar and their preference for
learning grammar (Table 4.43).
Moreover, many students felt that their teacher interacted with them in a friendly
(S3), very welcoming (S6) and supportive (S1) manner. Each aspect contributed to the
students overall satisfaction with their teacher. Such satisfaction was confirmed by the
findings in the Questionnaire pertaining to Classroom Atmosphere. The control students
perceived higher teacher support after one semesters intervention using traditional teaching
strategies (Tables 4.33-1 and 4.33-2). The control students comments revealed that the
personal characteristics of their teacher (e. g. motivation, warmth, empathy and commitment)
seemed to reinforce the rapport between the teacher and student and was largely responsible
for their learning and motivation (Drnyei, 2001; Chambers, 1999; Christophel, 1990).
However, the control students did not record higher satisfaction with their grammar
class in the Questionnaire on the Classroom Atmosphere (Tables 4.34-1 and Table 4.34-2).
Nor did the control class report higher level of motivation in the Questionnaire on the
Motivation after one semesters intervention with the traditional grammar practice (Tables
4.22-1 and Table 4.22-2). In the following section, the control students comment critically on
the grammar activities and the learning environment in the grammar classes. The students
concerns regarding their motivation and perception about the classroom atmosphere are
explored in greater detail.
194
5.5 Unfavourable Responses of the Control Group to the Grammar Classes

The students in the control group reflected the typically problematic learning
atmosphere of grammar classes in Taiwan. There is hardly any teacher-student or studentstudent interaction during or after class in such traditional learning contexts. Dead air
prevails in classrooms, as an often-used Chinese expression has it. The students in the control
group also made critical comments about their experiences in the German grammar classes.
They received the same grammar teaching program as the experimental students, but instead
of the game-based practice they were involved in completing traditional grammar-based
exercises.
Most of the students were dissatisfied about the fact that their teacher usually did not
touch on the type of communicative practice activities that might have increased their
acquisition of German grammar and also their interest. The two most often mentioned
aspects were (a) the lack of focus on communication and oral language development and (b)
the monotonous atmosphere of the classes, due to the paucity of teacher-student and studentstudent interaction.
All interviewees mentioned this. The sentiments expressed by the students are
captured in the following comment:
Both the teacher and the students rarely spoke in class; when the students did
speak, it was only to read answers from the textbook exercises or homework
aloud. Although the language itself interested me greatly, my experiences in
the German grammar classes left me bored, frustrated, and unable to
communicate orally. (S5)
According to the teaching program, the control students did have some drill practice.
However, it seemed that it was not successful in encouraging the students to engage in oral
practice. Therefore, a number of students felt that without a focus on their oral language
ability, they were not able to make use of the months of instruction they had received. One
195
student (S7) commented that her language classes did not prepare me for the practical use of
the language. My German teachers taught the rudiments of reading and writing, but did not
focus much on speaking.
Another student stated that he felt that
We have learned a lot of words and grammatical rules. However, they were
seldom used, I mean, practised, and therefore it was not useful for me. I do
not know when to use the rules or how to use them when I have to use them.
(S8)
Yet another student felt that the vocabulary that the teacher focused on was not
practical. She complained,
The teacher seemed to focus upon making us memorize words, which were
not relevant to learning German. Knowing what kind of article should be
used for a noun or how a sentence was built up isnt as important as learning
how to ask for directions or assistance. (S6)
A student (S12) summed up these sentiments by saying that Classes that involved
realistic situations and interaction were instrumental to my success; classes where I filled in
the blanks were less productive for me.
One student also supported this with her perception that
I met one of the German teachers at the campus. I knew it was a good
opportunity to practise German, particularly the grammatical sentences that I
had learned in classes. But I was unable to open my mouth to speak German.
The German teacher encouraged me to speak, even a few German words. But
I still could not I was so afraid of speaking, even though I knew the answer.
So, I answered in English. I have not practised that well. I wondered why
did I learn German? It is useless for me. I started to ask myself whether I
should continue to study it. I know it is my own problem. But I think the
teacher could help us to solve this problem, if she plans enough opportunities
for us to practice the language. (S9)
All the concerns of the students touched on both the strengths and the inevitable
weakness of a grammar-based practice. As most of the literature reviewed in 2.4.1 suggested,
isolated grammar lesson can have a negative effect on students writing (Braddock, LloydJones & Schoer, 1963; Hillocks, 1986; de Silva & Burns, 1999). Echoing the results in the
196
literature, the control students in this study had lower scores in the grammar tests and
examinations than the experimental students who had experienced the game-based practice
(Table 4.13). Moreover, de Silva and Burns (1999), Krashen (1985), Macedonia (2005),
Nunan (2005) and Petruzzella (1996) stated that isolated grammar drills are unlikely to lead to
the effective communicative use of a language, because learners may not have any way of
transferring their knowledge of grammatical structures appropriately to a range of
communicative situations. Learning grammar in isolation also detaches the grammatical
aspects from the meaning-making aspects of language. Based on their awareness of
weaknesses of the traditional approach, Lightbown (1998), Ellis (1991) and Lando (1999)
suggested that the focus on form needs to be incorporated into communicative practice, in a
balanced integration of both aspects, each with its own clearly defined space, but with
constant and protracted opportunities for their implementation within relevant communicative
contexts.
Moreover, the opportunity for practising foreign language structures effectively is
very important in language teaching (Foto, 1993; Gaudart, 1999; Larsen-Freeman, 1995;
Macedonia, 2005) reflecting the main concern of the majority of the control students.
However, teacher-centered classrooms do not allow learners the time necessary for practising
their second language structures or participating in the communicative process in the fill-inexercises and multiple choices exercises (Gaudart, 1999).
In addition to the lack of effective practice, the control students revealed also their
need for engaging in the learning. Specht and Sandlin (1991) found that there are mainly
visual and auditory components in traditional lecture formats and that these encourage passive
learning (Sprengel, 1994). Merely hearing something or seeing something is not enough to
learn the target language. Silberman (1996) and Anderson (1998) emphasize the need for
students to be given a more active role in the learning process so that this can contribute to
197
greater retention and more satisfactory learning outcomes (Holler, 1996). In the traditional
teacher-centered classroom, teachers usually explain and talk; students often just listen.
According to Hollers statement, students remember only 10% of what they read, 20 % of
what they hear, 30 % of what they see, 50% of what we both hear and see, 70% of what they
say, but 90% of what they do. This explains why the learning outcomes could be limited in
traditional lecture situations, as also shown in the less successful learning outcomes of the
control students of this study (Table 4.13).
The control students continued complaining that they were unable to practise
grammar in writing or in speaking because the teacher did not offer these opportunities. They
attributed their ineffective learning to this point. As one student complained:
Grammar is some kind of rule acquisition and remembering and so the best
way to remember that rule is to use it in everyday life, not by memorizing it
in rote fashion. I dont like the grammar class because the teacher did not
offer enough writing or speaking opportunities to practise or apply the newly
learned grammar. I think, in this way, grammar could not be learned
effectively. (S2)
A student (S6) commented: I remember my classes being concentrated on grammar
and vocabulary. They got to be boring after the first couple of textbook chapters. As one
student (S11) stated, she remembered very little from her classes in German because they
were monotonous and uninteresting. A student commented:
I know we should study hard and pay attention to the teacher. I felt guilty if I
did not listen to the teacher. I always reminded myself that is the
responsibility of the student. But I could not help myself from falling asleep
once in the class It was so boring. Furthermore, it was easy to be
influenced by your classmates who sat next to you or around you. If they
dozed off, then you were the next one. (S9)
Another student responded differently from S4, commenting
The teacher or some classmates scolded me very often in this semester. I was
scolded in almost very class. Whenever I made some noise, the teacher
would stop her lecture and ask me to be quiet. You know, it was very boring
listening to the teacher talking and talking. I did not understand what she said,
198
particularly when she explained in German. There was nothing I could do in

class. When I got bored, I started flipping over my drawer, swinging my pen,
or sending messages to my friends. Sometimes, the classmates blamed me
for making a noise. I tried to control myself because I wanted my classmates
to like me. (S6)
Many students commented that they did not like grammar classes (S8) because the
classes were boring (S9, S7) and quiet (S10). The students could not help themselves,
but became bored (S6) or even dozed off (S6). For the control students, the teachercentered teaching meant that the class was not enjoyed or even interesting. The students were
not motivated to learn. These comments were consistent with the results in the motivational
scale Enjoyment (Tables 4.19-1 and 4.19-2). The control students did not make progress in
their motivation factor Enjoyment after one semesters intervention with the traditional
approach. In this situation, the students had a high affective filter so that their boredom or
anxiety increased and hindered their learning (Krashen, 1982). As the results showed, the
control group did not make significant improvement in their motivation factor Effort after
one semesters intervention with the traditional practice (Tables 4.20-1 and 4.20-2). The
control students were not motivated to learn more or make more effort to learn.
Moreover, the control students complained that they felt alone since they could not
obtain support from their peers when they needed help from them. This is recorded in the
scale Peer Support in the Questionnaire of the Classroom Atmosphere (Tables 4.32-1 and
4.32-2). As a result, some students even felt rejected or were afraid of being rejected by
their classmates (S4 and S5), as the control students indicated that they did not show higher
feelings of class cohesion or belonging after the intervention with the traditional practice over
a period of one semester (Tables 4.35-1 and 4.35-2).
Even though I was in a teaching role, I also experienced a similar sense of frustration
to that expressed by the students. I felt sad to experience the students negative feedback.
Early in the beginning of the semester, about one month after the school began, the students in
199
the control group found out that the other class, namely the experimental group, were learning
grammar through language games. The classroom of the experimental and control groups
were located next to each other. The students also heard the noise made during the games.
The students expressed their disappointment and anger at missing out on the new program to
both their class teacher and the chairperson of the German Department. I was fortunate to
have ongoing support from the class teacher and the chairperson since they were aware of my
experimental study. They tried hard to calm the control students and asked me to have
another talk with the whole control group. I was enthusiastic about letting the students make
further comments in writing, even though the students were well informed before the
experiment started. At that time, I found that the atmosphere was tense, with less interaction
between the students and me. I could also read the dissatisfaction and discomfort on their
faces. This dissatisfaction was demonstrated in the post-test results of the Questionnaire on
Motivation and the Questionnaire on Classroom Atmosphere (see Tables 4.22-1, 4.22-2, 4.361 and 4.36-2), particularly in the scales showing Teacher Support (Tables 4.33-1 and 4.33-2),
Satisfaction (Tables 4.34-1 and 4.34-2), Enjoyment (Tables 4.19-1 and 4.19-2), and
Capability (Tables 4.21-1 and 4.21-2). In these results, the students of the control group
recorded even lower scores than in the pretest. After explanations from their class teacher and
me, the students seemed to be more accepting of the grammar class. As one student explained:
I quite understood that we as students have to study on our own. We should
not blame the teacher all the time, since she has done her part as a teacher
well, I mean, she explained the grammar systematically and clearly. We
should take on our part, our responsibility to study. I think, if the other class
could learn well with the teacher, we could also learn well. Moreover, some
of my friends in the other class [the experimental class] were not so interested
in playing games. So, I told some close classmates that we should study on
our own. And I was glad that some accepted my suggestions and studied
together instead of complaining. (S9)
As the above-mentioned student (S9) explained, the control students took on the
responsibility of studying and made similar efforts to learn, instead of simply attributing their
200
lower achievement to their teacher. Thus, the control students scored similarly on the
motivational factor Effort in the post-test as in the pretest (Tables 4.20-1and 4.20-2).
Checking with the results of the delayed post-test in the Questionnaire on Motivation and on
Classroom Atmosphere, all scores went backwards from their original scores in the pre-test.
Some even gained improvement (Tables 4.19-1 to 4.22-2 and Tables 4.32-1 to 4.36-2). All
results indicated that the students seemed to be more accepting of grammar classes, though
the control students still did not have a significantly higher motivation.
From then on I tried harder to address questions by the students and encouraged them
to speak. However, I was unable to elicit responses and my questions were met by a stony
silence or, as the Chinese say, dead air. Sometimes, I tried hard to elicit student talk by
appointing some students to talk and tried hard also to maintain the students attention, but the
questions were often met with a muffled reply and averted eyes. I was frustrated and noted
the following in my field notes on December 19, 2003:
Why are they getting passive and quieter than before? I know its hard for
students to ask questions, if they do not understand. But I try to encourage
them to ask. It hurts when I see their confused or impatient faces. I am sure
some of them did not understand. But what didnt they understand? If they
do not tell me, how can I know?
A student tried to explain the reasons why they were behaving in this way:
The teacher encouraged us very often to ask question if we didnt understand
what she said. However, it was still very hard for me to ask questions in front
of the class. I thought that I was the only one who did not understand. I feel
ashamed. If my classmates knew that, they would laugh at me or look down
on me. Therefore, I would approach the teacher after classes. In this way, I
felt more comfortable. (S13)
These students reflected the typical problematic learning atmosphere in grammar
classes in Taiwan. There is hardly any student-student interaction during or after class in such
traditional learning contexts. Dead air was evident across the whole classroom. Sometimes,
I felt alone during classes. The students looked very tired and were often off task. I could
201
only see their black hair: I was not able to see their faces because many of them were dozing
off during lessons. Some students would not look at the teacher because they were afraid that
the teacher would ask them to answer questions. I am aware of the relationship between
teachers and students in the traditional Chinese culture. As Gary, Marrone and Boyles (1998)
observed, Asian students avoid taking educational risks in relation to peers. Asking direct
questions or quizzing participants in front of peers is considered threatening and is a potential
cause for loss of face, or embarrassment. For the same reasons, the students in this study
were unlikely to volunteer questions openly. My students prefer individual recognition or
face-to-face interaction rather than other forms of communication. However, how could I
help them to be attentive and encourage them to interact with me or other students? I wrote in
my reflective notes: The weather was so bad. The classroom atmosphere was so quiet. My
mood was so down (on December 20, 2003).
From the results of the interview with the control group and my own field notes, it
was confirmed that such a traditional lecture approach to teaching German grammar lacked
effective teaching strategies to enhance the students learning motivation. Neither did this
method of learning provide positive learning attitudes nor a safe, comfortable authentic
language-learning environment that was able to create opportunities to practise and
communicate. The weakness of the traditional grammar teaching approach found in this
study is consistent with a great many research findings in the literature (de Silva & Burns,
1999; Krashen, 1985; Nunan, 2005).
I felt very discouraged that my students still had to practise the three S principles
that I have described in Chapter 1 of this study: 1) keep silent in order to hide boredom or
anxiety; 2) smile in order to hide embarrassment for not being able to answer any question; 3)
sleep because of lack of interest and lack of motivation to learn. In the words of Nemerow
(1996), lack of motivation is probably the greatest obstacle to learning (para. 7). Veenman
202
(1984) has found that teachers ranked problems about motivating pupils as the second most
serious source of difficulty, preceding other obviously important issues such as the effective
use of different teaching methods, knowledge of the subject matter, and the effective use of
textbooks and curriculum guidelines. The question of how student motivation can be
increased remains an ongoing issue for seasoned practitioners as well, since student lethargy
and non-achievement norms in the classroom are regularly reported to be basic hindrances to
effective teaching.
5.6 Control Students Attitude towards the Role of Grammar
in Learning a Second Language
In this section, I am reporting comments by the students of the control group on their
attitudes towards the role of grammar and grammar instruction. Regarding the need for
teaching German grammar, all the interviewees commented that they needed an amount of
grammar instruction in their classes, as they pointed out in the Questionnaire on the Role of
Grammar (Table 4.43). The main reasons that the students gave for the importance of
teaching grammar are covered in the following extracts from the focus group interviews:
Learning German here in Taiwan is different from learning German in
Germany. Students hardly get a chance to use the language outside the
classroom. According to my experiences in the learning of English, I am
quite sure that it is necessary for us to learn the grammar of any foreign
language. (S9)
The control students also expressed their learning difficulties in the learning of
German because they were not Germans (Item 9 and 10). If they did not study German
grammar, they would have difficulties learning German (Item 11, Item 12). The students also
realized that communication cannot take place in the absence of structure (Savignon, 2000,
p. 7). Therefore, the control students seemed to have positive attitudes towards the
importance of grammar and also thought that grammar would support their learning of
203
German (Item 7 and 8). Thus, it was necessary for teachers to teach grammar in their learning
of German.
In relation to the purposes of grammar instruction, these students considered that
knowledge of German grammar would help them with their four language skills. Among the
four language skills, knowledge of German grammar is more helpful for the development of
writing ability than that of oral ability. That these students assigned an important role to
grammar for developing all four-language skills is demonstrated by their high agreement rate
in Table 4.43: 89.4% of the control students agreed that the study of grammar could help them
to write German (Item 4); 85.1% agree that the study of grammar could improve their reading
ability (Item 5); 74.6% that the study of grammar could improve their oral ability (Item 3);
only 53.6% agreed that the study of grammar could improve their listening comprehension
(Item 6). These students explained their perceptions in the following way, supporting the
results in Table 4.43:
The aim of grammar learning should be to support the acquisition of the
target language. When I learned grammar, I should also have learned how to
apply it to my oral communication in daily life situations. I think the purpose
of learning a second language is to be able to use the language to
communicate with people. (S2)
The primary purpose of learning German grammar is for good writing and
reading skills. Grammar should be used to analyse text and to get a better
understanding of written materials. I would be unable to write, produce a
sentence, if I did not study German grammar. I would also be unable to
understand what the others said in German and even to express myself
correctly. Therefore, it is very important to learn grammar. (S7)
Furthermore, the control students also made suggestions regarding ways in which
teachers could teach grammar effectively. In relation to the various ways to present grammar,
the students thought that teachers should plan in advance the grammatical features to teach
and when to teach them, as well as using more Chinese:
204
I would learn [the grammar] better, if teachers analysed structures and told us
the rules as clearly as possible. Teachers should try to use more Chinese than
German when teaching grammar, and then let us do related exercises. (S4)
If teachers use too much German, particularly when explaining grammar
rules, I really feel it is more difficult to understand what the teacher says.
Therefore, teachers should try to use Chinese and less grammatical
terminology in the Beginner Course. (S1)
The control students tended to agree with the explicit, and the deductive approaches.
Regarding students attitudes towards the medium of instruction, more than half of the
students supported the use of using Chinese as the medium of instruction. However, the
students thought that an emphasis on grammar should not override an emphasis on meaning.
The students expressed the belief that focusing on meaning and providing students with
abundant exposure to German are as important as grammar instruction. Moreover, they
agreed that grammatical knowledge could be applied in real communication if teachers
exposed them to German more, e.g. practised grammatical rules in real communicative
situations. Most students expressed their agreement regarding the incorporation of repetitive
pattern practices and the inclusion of communicative grammar practice. At this point, the
control students came to express their preference for the learning of German: the students
wanted German grammar to be taught both interactively and communicatively. This response
was also recorded in the Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar (Item 19). Fotos and Ellis
(1991) stated that
[Communicative grammar tasks] may contribute directly by providing
opportunities for the kind of communication which is believed to promote the
acquisition of implicit knowledge, and they may also contribute indirectly by
enabling learners to develop explicit knowledge of L2 rules which will alert
facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge. (p. 622)
Many students emphasized the importance of interesting and active classes to
facilitate students language learning. In this respect, the following comments were typical:
But I think teachers should not only provide form-based exercises, but also
communicative practice for students. (S13)
205
I really agree with this point. Its really boring to sit there listening to the
teacher all the time, though I knew s/he works very hard. I would like to
participate in learning activities, e.g. games, discussion, role-play, singing
songs, etc. Grammar classes should be more than listening to the teacher, but
something different. More communicative or interactive. (S 7)
The students commented on the classroom atmosphere in the exercise-based practice
with the words boring (in my words dead air). Nevertheless, the control students
appeared to be slightly less satisfied with grammar classes (Tables 4.34-1 and 4.34-2).
Therefore, they called for fresh air and a happy atmosphere for their learning
environment.
Among the various communicative grammar activities, many students suggested that
the affective issues should not be ignored while teachers plan their grammar lessons. A high
achiever commented:
I used a rote memorization strategy for grammar rules and I could almost
always get good grades. But I was not happy at all. I felt that I was studying
just for examinations. But I think that learning German should be more than
getting good grades. Sometimes, it should also sustain your interest and
motivation. In that way, you may learn it for longer. (S9)
The comments of most control students reveal, on one hand, their needs to be
motivated to learn or to make their learning interesting; on the other hand, their exercisebased practice failed in arousing their motivation. This lack of motivation also emerged in the
post-test results of the Questionnaire on Motivation (Tables 4.22-1 and 4.22-2), as well as in
the Questionnaire on the Type of Grammatical Practice (Table 4.42). The control students
score of grammar tests were lower in average than the experimental students with the gamebased practice. In my role of researcher and teacher, I observed that my students were easily
distracted by external factors, such as the unexpected noise of the patrol of the school
administrators outside the classroom. Furthermore, while students were doing drills or
exercises, related to the target structure during the instructional period, some repeated the
answers after their teacher, but most of them just sat and listened. Therefore, affective factors
206
such as low motivation, impatience, and unwillingness affected the control students
concentration and performance while being instructed and completing the post-tests. The
control group did not gain significant improvement in their motivation with the traditional
practice. Indeed, such a concern was part of the justification for the present study. This is
also a major concern of many language teachers (Drnyei, 2001; Keller, 1983) and me. The
control students wanted interesting, diverse and communication-rich activities, such as games.
Their preference for the communicative activities, such as games or teamwork, echoed their
answers in the Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar (Item 20).
In general then, the control students tended to agree that grammar helped them learn
German. Without learning grammar, they thought they might not be able to express
themselves in German accurately. However, they also thought that an emphasis on grammar
should not override emphasis on meaning. The students said that focusing on meaning and
providing students with abundant exposure to German are as important as grammar
instruction. Moreover, they agreed that grammatical knowledge could be applied in authentic
communicative situations especially if teachers exposed them to German more frequently.
Most students expressed their agreement regarding the incorporation of repetitive pattern
practice and the inclusion of communicative grammar practice. The positive attitudes of the
control students towards the teaching of grammar were consistent with the results found in the
Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar (see Table 4.43) and the perceptions both of the
teachers and students in the literature (Gao, 2001; Schultz, 2002; Yen, 2002;Yu, 2003).
5.7 Summary
By analyzing all the interview data collected from 12 experimental students and 13
students from the control group during the focus group sessions, I found that each student had
his/her German language learning experiences to relate, and various attitudes towards the role
of grammar in their foreign language-learning program. Therefore, it was somewhat difficult
207
to draw conclusions about their German language learning experiences. Table 5.1, and
following comments, summarize the data explored in this chapter.
Table 5.1
Summary of the Interviews with the Experimental Group and the Control Group
Issues
EG
CG
Satisfaction with the grammar teacher
Efforts made in the grammar classes
Self-evaluated capability in German language
Perception of motivation
Teacher-student interaction
Student-student interaction
Satisfaction with the type of grammar practice
Classroom cohesion
Perception of classroom atmosphere
Importance of grammar
Communicative grammar teaching approach/activities
Note: 1. EG = The Experimental Group

2. CG = The Control Group
3. + = Positive perception
4. O = Ambivalent perception
5. = Negative perception
The indicators listed in Table 5.1 show a clear advantage for the Experimental Group
over the Control Group on most items, in terms of overall level of satisfaction, enjoyment,
self-evaluated capability, increased motivation, improved student interaction and positive
classroom atmosphere
As all the comments have shown, the experimental students reported that they have
experienced more enjoyment; made more effort; felt more confident in language use and were
more actively involved than the control students. Overall, the motivation of the experimental
students improved.
208
In addition to the improvements in motivation, the results of the focus group

interviews also showed an improvement in the experimental students perception of
classroom atmosphere. They experienced a higher level of support during interaction with
their teacher and registered a greater level of satisfaction with the game-based grammar
classes. The experimental students also experienced stronger levels of cohesion and
belonging and were more comfortable in their groups when working together, helping and
supporting each other more than the control students reported.
With the exploration of the role of grammar in the learning of foreign languages, the
students, whether they were from the experimental or the control group, had positive attitudes
towards grammar and thought that grammar was important for their learning of a foreign
language. The students pointed out that they needed a certain degree of grammar instruction
in their classes. Some students thought it was very important, some thought it was important
but that grammar should not be overemphasized. However, none thought that grammar
should play an insignificant role in a language learning class. Some students perceived that
the purpose of learning grammar was increasing their oral skills and literacy skills. Many
students pointed out that grammar was not helpful for increasing speaking proficiency when
students have few opportunities to practise the newly learned grammar.
Many students wanted grammar to be taught in a relaxed classroom atmosphere
where students could interact freely with both the teacher and with other students. Therefore,
the students suggested that teachers should use diverse and interesting communicative
grammar activities that would be helpful not only for their acquisition of grammar, but also
for developing oral skills and skills in reading and writing. Interesting and challenging,
communicative and interactive grammar practice activities, such as group work, role-play,
language games, dialogues, and videos, were suggested by the students.
These positive results are in line with my expectations, as formulated in Hypotheses 3
209
4, 5 and 6 for this study- i.e.

Hypothesis 3:
Students in the experimental group will show a greater degree of motivation with
regard to grammar after having been exposed to language games.
Hypothesis 4:
Students of the experimental group will record an improvement in the language
classroom atmosphere as a result of the use of language games, while the control students will
not.
Hypothesis 5:
Students in the experimental group will provide more positive responses toward the
game-based practice in their learning of German grammar than the students of the control
group will toward the traditional grammar practice.
Hypothesis 6:
Most students of both groups will indicate their belief that grammar needs to be
taught in a second language program.
210
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS,
LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
6.0 Introduction
This chapter deals with the overall conclusions to be drawn from this study. Section
6.1 summarizes the aims and the procedure of the study. Section 6.2 summarizes the main
findings. The pedagogical implications are presented in Section 6.3. The limitations of the
study are presented in Section 6.4. Finally, the recommendations for future research are
considered in Section 6.5.
6.1 Aims and Procedure of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the use of language games
as a teaching strategy for raising the grammatical accuracy level in the writing by students of
German as a second language. It also sought to explore the effects of game-based grammar
instruction on both the students motivation and the classroom atmosphere. To achieve this
purpose, the following experiment was carried out over one school semester: I taught two
groups of students, the Control group and the Experimental group, by using the same teaching
program with one difference; the difference was the use of game-based practice for the
experimental group, while the control group performed a traditional grammar-based exercise
program only.
To collect data, I used grammar tests and examinations, a questionnaire on motivation,
a questionnaire on classroom atmosphere, a questionnaire on grammatical practice, a
Chapter 6: Conclusion: Pedagogical Implications, Limitations and Further Research
211
questionnaire on the role of grammar and grammar instruction, focus group interviews, and
my field notes. All data were analysed and discussed in relation to my research questions and
hypotheses.
6.2 Summary of the Main Findings
The experimental students reported that the games provided them with welcome
communication-rich grammar practice activities. These activities (games) were enhanced, in
the students perception, by a more positive classroom atmosphere and a supportive spirit,
whereby students were more willing to help one another, and the teacher was more readily
available to offer support and answer any questions (see 5.1). My students perceptions
confirmed that games as teaching-learning strategies are fun and create a non-threatening
learning environment that encourages interactions between students and teachers, enhances
communication and teamwork, encourages active participation and enables students to
demonstrate and apply previously or newly acquired language knowledge and skills, as a
number of educators reported in the literature review have claimed (Deesri, 2002; GarciaCarbonell, Rising, Montero & Watts, 2001; Gaudart, 1999; Hong, 2002; Macedonia, 2005;
Shie, 2003).
It is also to be noted that the results on the level of grammatical accuracy in the
grammar tests and examinations (Research Question 1) show that there was no statistically
significant difference between the two groups of students (Tables 4.13, 4.14, and Figure 4.1).
These results were consistent with the research findings obtained by Gardner (1987) and
Miller (1992). However, this main finding does not support the common perception
regarding the validity of games as a recommended learning and teaching strategy that
emerged from most of the literature review, presented in chapter 2 (for example: GarciaCarbonell, Rising, Montero & Watts, 2001; Gaudart, 1999; Macedonia, 2005; Shie, 2003) and
212
the research findings obtained by Cortex (1974), Issacs (1979), and Wrucke-Nelson (1992).
However, in spite of the statistically non-significant advantage registered by my
experimental students over the control students, it is important to note that the experimental
group recorded a small improvement in their accuracy level over the control group. This
happened in spite of the experimental students having spent much less time on exercise-based
grammatical practice. This small improvement points to a positive result in favour of the
game-based teaching of a second language.
My second research hypothesis was also not supported by the results. The results
regarding the level of grammatical accuracy in the grammar tests and examinations (Research
Question 2) show that there was no statistically significant difference between the
experimental language levels and the control language levels of students (Tables 4.13, 4.14,
and Figure 4.1). However, it emerged from the post-test of the experimental students that the
middle and low levels of these students showed a higher rate of improvement in accuracy than
the top students. This result is noteworthy because it seems to imply that the use of games
could be more beneficial to students with generally lower academic ability, as suggested by
Gaudart (1999). The call by Shie (2003) for further research to examine whether weaker
students benefit from the use of games as much as other students has been answered by this
study with an empirically positive result. Given this situation, the positive outcome is very
encouraging and suggests a causal relationship between the improvement rate of lowerachieving students and the use of games in the practice phase of learning a second language.
Nevertheless, at this stage such an implication is based on evidence of this experiment only,
and will need to be further tested in future research studies, as I have not found any evidence
in my literature review of any other study that has reported a similar result.
The effects on the level of students motivation in language classes (Research
213
Question 3) recorded a statistically significant improvement by the experiment group (Table

4.26 and Figure 4.9). The results confirmed my research hypothesis regarding the impact of
games on students motivation. The experimental students reported that they experienced
more enjoyment (Table 4.23, Figure 4.6); made higher motivational effort (Table 4.24, Figure
4.7); felt more confident in language use (Table 4.25, Figure 4.8) and were more actively
involved than the control students (see 5.1, pp. 171-182 and Appendix I, pp. 300-301). These
results are in accordance with Andersons (1998), Gardners (1987) and Nemerows (1996)
research findings and also support many language educators perceptions of the main
advantage of games on students motivation (Allery, 2004; Garcia-Carbonell, Rising,
Montero & Watts, 2001; Rinvolucri & Davis, 1999; Shie, 2003; Ur, 1999).
The results from the questionnaire on classroom atmosphere (Research Question 4)
showed a statistically significant improvement in the experimental students perceptions
(Table 4.41 and Figure 4.19). The results supported my research hypothesis on the effects of
games on classroom atmosphere. The experimental students experienced a significantly
higher level of support during interactions with their teacher (Table 4.38, Figure 4.16) and
registered a significantly greater level of satisfaction with their participation in classes (Table
4.39, Figure 4.17). The students also experienced stronger levels of cohesion and belonging
(Table 4.40, Figure 4.18). They reported feeling comfortable with each other as a result of
working together, helping and supporting each other (Table.4.37, Figure 4.15).
The experimental students reported that the games provided them with welcome
communication-rich grammar practice activities. These activities (games) were enhanced, in
the students perception, by a more positive classroom atmosphere and a supportive spirit,
whereby students were more willing to help one another, and the teacher was more readily
available to offer support and answer any question (see 5.1, pp. 171-173). My students
214
perceptions confirmed that games as teaching-learning strategies are fun and create a nonthreatening learning environment that encourages interactions between students and teachers,
enhance communication and teamwork, encourage active participation and enable students to
demonstrate and apply previously or newly acquired language knowledge and skills, as a
number of educators claimed in the literature review (Deesri, 2002; Gary, Marrone & Boyles,
1998; Gaudart, 1999; Garcia-Carbonell, Rising, Montero & Watts, 2001; Macedonia, 2005;
Shie, 2003).
It is also to be noted that the less positive comments by the students on the games
related to organisational and disciplinary weaknesses rather than presenting objections to the
use of games as such. One of the solutions that I am planning to implement, in order to
obviate these difficulties, it to use my college hall and sports grounds for some games, as I
believe that taking the students out of the classroom gives them a welcome change of scenery
as suggested by Gaudart (1999). It is interesting that the problem of noise has become less
and less of a major concern over one school semester. Games enhance students interaction
and encourage active participation. Students are motivated to learn together. The problem of
organization and discipline, fortunately, has become less of a problem for my students (see
5.2).
Overall, the experimental students recorded strong positive responses towards the
game-based grammar practice. Such positive perceptions have supported my fifth hypothesis,
which expressed the expectation that the experimental students would provide more positive
responses toward the game-based grammatical practice in their learning of German than the
students of the control group would toward the traditional grammar practice. Table 4.42
shows that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups of students
on this score. The results of the analysis confirm similar results obtained by Hajdu (2000),
215
Issacs (1979), and Miller (1992), in which the students in the game-groups had a more
positive attitude towards the use of games.
In the final research question of the present study, it was hypothesized that the
majority of the students in both groups would indicate that grammar needs to be taught in a
second language program. The results of the statistical analysis in Table 4.43 reported that
the students of both groups had positive attitudes towards grammar and thought that grammar
was important for their learning of a language. Many students in each of the two groups
wanted grammar to be taught in a comfortable classroom atmosphere, where they could
interact freely both with the teacher and with each other. Therefore, interesting and
challenging communicative and interactive grammar practice activities including games, were
suggested by the students (see 5.3, p. 192 and 5.6, pp. 211-212).
My results confirm similar results obtained by Yen (2002), Yu (2003) and Schulz
(2001) who studied the students perceptions of the role of grammar with ESL students, and
Lai (2004) and Schulz (2001), who studied teachers beliefs concerning the role of grammar.
My students comment on their preference for communicative interactive grammar instruction
echoed a number of language educators perceptions that the focus-on-form needs to be
incorporated into communicative practice (Ellis, 2001; Klapper & Rees, 2003; Lando, 1999;
Lightbown, 1998).
Although no statistically significant improvement in accuracy was recorded as a result
of the use of games with the experimental students, the positive results in all other aspects of
this are significant enough to warrant the conclusion that a more protracted use of games will
result in an improvement also in grammatical accuracy. This is because games provide the
appropriate grounding for accuracy to improve: better motivation, improved classroom
atmosphere and interaction.
216
6. 3 Pedagogical Implications
The overall positive effects of the use of games in the teaching of grammar as they
emerged from this study have important implications for second language teachers,
curriculum designers, textbook writers, and language teachers associations.
The first implication is that language teachers ought to seriously consider introducing
games as a regular and integrated strategy, in order to improve both their students
grammatical accuracy and their use of the language, thus improving their correctness and their
listening/speaking competence, as suggested for example by Garcia-Carbonell, Rising,
Montero and Watts (2001), Hong (2002), Macedonia (2005), Gaudart (1999) and Shie (2003).
The second implication to flow from the introduction of games relates to a muchimproved level of student motivation to study a language. This implies that language teachers
who commonly experience difficulties with students apathy, disinterest, passivity and
boredom during language classes could find a partial solution when games are an integrated
part of teaching and learning. Motivated learners means engaged learners, and engaged
learners means more successful learners. In the words of Gaudart (1999), With practice
comes progress, with progress comes motivation, and with motivation comes more learning
(para. 43).
In fact, the learners in my experimental group said that they were not only more
motivated by being exposed to the use of games, but also more active and happy to be in their
language classes, more ready to help each other, more willing to use German in order to
improve their speaking skills, as well as their written skills.
A crucial pedagogical implication, therefore, points to the positive effect of the regular
use of games on the improvement of students oral competence. This also touches at the core
of many language teachers concerns, especially when they have to deal with large classes:
217
how to foster, not only the students written ability, but also their oral skills. The use of
games seems to offer a good starting point for ensuring that oral practice occurs in language
classes. This was possible to do in my large class of 46 experimental students particularly
through the use of pair and group work, as suggested by Gaudart (1999) and Nemerow (1996).
The positive results stemming from this experiment were obtained in spite of a large class of
students. Apart from providing useful indications to teachers of similarly big classes, these
results augur well for smaller L2 classes, as is the case, for example, with Australian classes.
The third implication is that curriculum designers ought to consider integrating more
communicative activities, including games, into their language teaching programs. Due to the
overall positive effects of the use of language games, it is important to integrate them into the
regular syllabus and curriculum in appropriate ways. As Deesri (2002) and Gaudart (1999)
suggested, games should be regarded an integral part of the language syllabus, not an amusing
activity for the end of the term.
A fourth important pedagogical implication touches on the need to revise the content
and approach of language textbooks. Textbook writers would be advised to consider the first
two implications and to include a variety of language games in what they write. Again, what
is called for is not a sporadic presence of a few games, but rather a substantial and pervasive
integration of games into every chapter.
It is a well-known fact that textbook editors provide the kind of texts that are likely to
sell well. It is, therefore, the language teachers role to ensure that they exercise their buying
preference for the texts that respond to the inclusion of communicative activities such as
games.
In other words, textbooks should contain both focus-on-forms and communicative
tasks, as widely suggested by much literature on the successful combination of these two
218
crucial aspects (Ellis, 2001; Klapper & Rees, 2003; Lando, 1996,1999; Li, 2003). This
approach is likely not only to lead the learners to notice linguistic forms, but also to help them
use the target language in a meaning-oriented way. Hence, textbooks need to have explicit
references to grammatical features while maintaining a communicative focus, which will
interest learners. This will allow teachers to sequence the content of their lessons as they
deem appropriate. The inclusion of games will thus allow the use of authentic language, out
of which students can discover grammatical features inductively. The segments of a text
containing grammatical explanations can be used by the teachers to show students how to
apply the rules in communicative language. The kind of integration of formal and
communicative elements in texts is already happening, as can be seen in German textbooks
such as Ping Pong 1 (Kopp & Frhlich, 1997), Passwort Deutsch 1 (Albrecht, et al.,
2001), and Sowieso (Hermann & Knig, 1995).
A further pedagogical implication suggested by the results of this study relates to the
field of teacher training in Taiwan and in places where games have not been adopted as yet.
Games as learning and teaching strategies that can effectively motivate learners are
introduced into classes with a great deal of fear and trepidation. It is a pity that games have
been sidelined for a very long time in Taiwan. The Goethe Institute in Taipei in May 2005
offered a professional development course for German teachers with a focus on the use of
games in German classes. In this training course German teachers were encouraged to play
games and design their own games. Most teachers came to notice the value of language
games and were going to try them in their own classes.
Student teachers of second languages need to be explicitly trained to use
communication-based strategies, if they are to respond to their potential students need to be
exposed to sound teaching approaches, which will enhance both accuracy and communicative
219
ability, in a positive, engaging and supportive atmosphere. Games offer the advantage of
practising both oral and written skills. They are helpful for the development of these two
skills because the negotiation of meaning and better expression of ideas in speaking are likely
to help a similar negotiation of meaning and better expression of ideas in writing: oral
presentations on topics students are planning to write, or are in the process of writing, and
dialogue and journal activities in which students interview another person, are all activities
where writing skills could be developed in combination with the speaking process.
Lastly, the study suggests that the attitude of the teacher towards the whole class and
towards the individual students within the class is of great significance to the learning of a
second language in a non-immersion context. Clement, Drnyei and Noels (1994), Chambers
(1999) and Christophel (1990) considered the teachers own behaviour to be the single most
important motivational tools. This was echoed by the term methodological motivation by
Shie (2003). The comments of my students in both groups supported the important role of
teacher in their learning process (see 5.1 and 5.4).
6.4 Limitations of this study
This experiment focused on a semester program. This allowed me to concentrate my
teaching using a new approach in an intensive manner. While this can be viewed as a
limitation on the experiment, it was the best I was allowed within the overall curriculum
followed by my students. As language acquisition and language learning both occur over
time, the brevity of the time period does limit the study.
The conclusions and the implications to emerge from this experiment are presented in
full awareness of these limitations.
220
6.5 Recommendations for the Further Research

In spite of the reasons offered here to explain the inconclusive advantage of games in
raising the level of grammatical accuracy, such an outcome needs to be taken seriously.
Given the strength of the common perception by language teachers about the usefulness of
games as a teaching strategy, the fact that the non-significant improvement recorded in this
study failed to provide a more definite confirmation is a challenging result. It gives rise to a
serious doubt about a type of activity that has been adopted as one of the best teaching
practices, as was pointed out in the literature review (Chapter 2). The limitations under which
this experiment was conducted need to be adjusted or supplemented by further research on
this subject.
Firstly, this study focused only on the level of accuracy of grammatical rules of L2
German. Not only writing skills development, but also speaking skills development, is a
concern of second language teachers. Future studies need to focus also on students
performance in their oral production. Therefore, an investigation of how speaking skills
improve over time through the use of games will provide extra information on how to
improve L2 education.
Secondly, future studies could also focus on other grammatical features to see how,
and to what extent, the adoption of games influences both the rate of accuracy and the
communicative production requiring the inclusion of those features. This could be done
particularly with features that are very different from those of the learners first language.
Only when more grammatical features are tested alongside the main language skills will a
more complete picture on the use of games be provided. Hopefully, future experiments will
also provide a variety of settings, i.e. different countries, a variety of L2 learners at different
levels of competence.
221
The issue relating to the generally perceived usefulness of games in improving the
accuracy rate of a L2 remains basically untested, as this experiment can only indicate some
future directions for its likely confirmation. The other more positive and significant results on
the use of games, though, provide a strong indication in favor of other very crucial aspects of
L2 classroom courses, which are also likely to lead, in time, to a more substantial
improvement also in grammatical accuracy. The improvement in my students overall
motivation as well as in classroom atmosphere, as a result of games, the raising of their level
of interest in their study of German, their strong perception of an increase in both teacher-to
students and student-to-student interaction, all augur well for the integration of games into
grammatical practice. These strongly positive results pave a way that L2 teachers may decide
to follow in their search for a more effective and satisfying approach to deliver grammar to
their students.
Lastly, this study was conducted for the duration of one semester and monitored the
short-term results of the use of games on grammatical accuracy, classroom atmosphere and
level of motivation. In order to obtain further confirmation of the positive effects of games
that emerge from my data, future studies could test also these effects over a longer period of
time as suggested by Ortega and Iberri-Shea (2005). Ortega and Iberri-Shea (2005) suggest
that SLA researchers should increasingly seek to look at second language and literacy
development longitudinally. Ultimately, longitudinal findings can have a central place in
advancing our SLA theories and research programs (p. 42). My hypothesis, based on the
results of this experiment, is that long-term effect of games will prove beneficial for both
accuracy and other classroom-related aspects.
222
REFERENCES
Albrecht, U., Dane, D., Fandrych, C., Grhaber, G., Henningsen, U., Kilimann, A., et al. (2002).
Passwort Deutsch 1. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett.
Allery, L. A. (2004). Educational games and structured experiences. Medical Teacher, 26(6),
504-505.
Altenmller, E. M. (1987). Fragespiele fr den Unterricht zur Frderung der spontanen
mndlichen Ausdrucksfhigkeit. Stuttgart: Klett.
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros
and cons. System, 21(4), 471-480.
Anderson, K. S. (1998). Let the game begin: The gaming approach as an alternative paradigm in
nursing education. Unpublished EdD dissertation, North Carolina State University, North
Carolina.
Asher, J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern
Language Journal, 53(1), 3-17.
Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Bailey, K. M. (1985). Classroom skills for ESL teachers. In M. Celce-Murcia & L. McIntosh
(Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 315-331). Rowley, MA.:
Newbury House Publishers.
Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Behme, H., & Knig, M. (1992). Miteinander reden lernen. Sprechspiele im Unterricht. Mnchen:
Iudicium Verlag.
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based
instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research,
5(2), 95-127.
References
223
Benito, J. s., Dreke, M. & Oberberger, C. S. (1997). Spielend Deutsch lernen: Interaktive
Arbeitsbltter fr Anfnger und Fortgeschrittene. Berlin: Langenscheidt.
Beretta, A. & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of Gangalore project. ELT Journal, 39(2), 121-127.
Beretta, A. (1989). Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore project. TESOL
Quarterly, 23, 283-303.
Bohn, R., & Schreiter, I. (1994). Sprachlernspiele (SLS). In G. Henrici & C. Riemer (Eds.),
Einfhrung in die Didaktik des Unterrichts Deutsch als Fremdsprache, Band II (pp.
419-436). Schneider: Baltmannsweiler Verlag.
Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the
authority of knowledge. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks. Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 459-480.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's
course (2nd ed.): Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Chambers, G. N. (1999). Motivating language learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chandler, T. (1996). Reflections and further questions. Retrieved October 20, 2002, from
global.umi.com/pqdweb?INT=0&SelLanguage=0&TS=1043287741&Did=00000
Chang, B. L. (2001). Study of junior high school English teachers' beliefs towards the
communicative approach. Unpublished masters thesis, National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei.
References
224
Chang, H. C. (2002). Integrating form-focused instruction and communicative language teaching

approach: Teaching wh-questions in secondary EFL classes. Unpublished masters thesis,
Tamkung University, Taipei.
Chang, S., & Huang, Y. K. (2001). Communicative language teaching: Senior high school
teachers' belief and practices. Paper presented at the 10th International symposium on
English Teaching (ETA-ROC), Taipei, Taiwan.
Chvez, R. C. (1984). The use of high-inference measures to study classroom climates: A review.
Review of Educational Research, 54, 237-261.
Chio, S. (1999). Teaching English as a foreign language in Korean middle schools: Exploration of
communicative language teaching through teachers' beliefs and self-reported classroom
teaching practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, OH.
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviours, student
motivation and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-339.
Clement, R., Drnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence and group cohesion
in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417-448.
Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold.
Cortez, E. G. (1974). Games for second language learning: A comparison of two approaches for
teaching English to Puerto Rican children. Unpublished EdD dissertation, Temple
University, PA.
Costantino, M. (1999). Reading and second language learners: Research report. Olympia, WA:
The Evergreen State College.
Crowther, J. (1995). Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the English language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dauvillier, C. L & Hillerich, D. (2004). Spiele im Deutschunterricht. Mnchen: Langenscheidt.
References
225
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The
self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346.
Deesri, A. (2002). Games in the ESL and EFL class. Retrieved June 17, 2003, from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Deesri-Games.html.
Delbridge, A., Bernard, J., Blair, D., Butler, S., Peters, P., & Yallop., C. (Eds.). (1997). The
Macquarie dictionary (3rd ed.). Sydney. Australia: Macquarie University Library.
Denzin, N. K., & Lerman, S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage
Publications.
de Silva, J. H., & Burns, A. (1999). Focus on grammar. Ryde: NCELTR.
Drnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamism
and motivation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 482-493.
Drnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Drnyei, Z., & Csizr, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of
an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2, 203-229.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431-469.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Downton, A. (2004). Games can help get reluctant learners into maths. EQ Australia 3, 17-19.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245-258.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language
Learning, 24, 37-53.
Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. (1998). From lower-division to upper-division foreign language classes:
Obstacles to reaching the promised land. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 119(120), 1-7.
References
226
Dykema, K. W. (1961). Where our grammar came from. College English, 22, 455-465.
Ehrman, M. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Elley, W. B., Barham, I. H., Lamb, H., & Wyllie, M. (1975). The role of grammar in a secondary
English curriculum. Research in the Teaching of English, 10, 5-21.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford,
Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(3),
1-46.
Engel, D., & Myles, F. (1996). Grammar teaching: The major concerns. In D. Engel & F. Myles
(Eds.), Teaching grammar: Perspective in higher education. London: Association for
French Language Studies, the Center for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on acquisition of direct object
pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 87, 242-260.
Finocchiaro, M. (1989). English as a second/foreign language: From theory to practice (4th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents.
Friedrich & von Jan (1985).
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task
performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14(4), 385-407.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52(4),
301-307.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(4), 605-628.
Gao, C. Z. (2001). Second language learning and the teaching of grammar. Retrieved March 15,
2005, from
proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=110692209&sid=9&Fmt=3&clientld=38979&RQT=309&VNam
References
227
e=PQD
Garcia-Carbonell, A., Rising, B., Montero, B., & Watts, F. (2001). Simulation/gaming and the
acquisition of communicative competence in another language. Retrieved August 05, 2002,
from http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=5712553
Gardner, D. (1987). Communication games: Do we know what were talking about? ELT Journal,
41(1), 19-24.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). London:
Fontana.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, RC, & Clement, R. (1990). Social psychological perspectives on second language
acquisition. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and Social psychology (pp.
218-243). Oxford: Blackwell Press.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowledy, MA.: Newbury House Publishers.
Gary, R., Marrone, S., & Boyles, C. (1998). The use of gaming strategies in a transcultural setting.
Retrieved November 11, 2002, from
http://global.umi.com/pqdweb?INT=0&SelLanguage=0&TS=1043287741&Did=00000.
Gaudart, H. (1999). Games as teaching tools for teaching English to speakers of other languages.
Retrieved September 05, 2001, from http://sag.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/283
Gover, C. W., & Stay, B. L. (1995). Grammar in the writing center: Opportunities for discovery
and change. In S. Hunter & R. Wallace (Eds.), The role of grammar in writing instruction,
past, present, future (pp. 129-135). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Goebel, R. (1979). Lernen mit Spielen, Lernspiele fr den Unterricht mit auslndischen Arbeitern.
Graetz, R. (2001). Vom Spielen, Leben, Lernen. Fremdsprache Deutsch, 25, 5-8.
References
228
Griffiths, R., & Clyne, M. (1995). Games: A context and a medium for learning. In J. Wakefield &
L. Velardi (Eds.), Celebrating mathematics learning (pp. 191-195). Melbourne: The
Mathematical Association of Victoria.
Gurrey, P. (1961). Teaching English grammar. London: Longmans.
Hadfield, J. (1996). Elementary communication games: A collection of games and activities for
elementary students of English. England: Wesley Longman.
Hajdu, J. (2000). A journey in language teaching and learning. Unpublished EdD dissertation,
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic.
Hammerly, H. (1985). An integrated theory of language teaching. N. Burnaby, BC, Canada:
Second Language Publications.
Harley, B. (1991). Directions in immersion research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 12, 9-19.
Harvey, J. G. & Bright, G. W. (1985). Basic math games. Palo Alto, California: Dale Seymour
Publications.
Hassaji, H. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communication interaction
in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language
Journal, 84(2), 241-250.
Hermann, F., & Knig, M. (1995). Sowieso. Berlin: Langenscheidt.
Hewitt, I. E. (1999). Edutainment: How to teach language with fun and games (2nd ed.). Subiaco:
Language Direct.
Hillocks, G. J. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.). (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbau Associates.
Holler, J. (1996). Das neue Gehirn. Padeborn: Junfermann
Hlscher, H. K. (Ed.). (1991). Schritt fr Schritt. Mnchen: List-Schroedel Verlag.
References
229
Hong, L. (2002). Using games in teaching English to young learners. Retrieved September 11,
2003, from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Lin-UsingGames.html
Hsu, C. H. (2003). Impacts of English teachers' perceptions of communicative language teaching
on classroom practices in senior high schools in Taiwan. Unpublished masters thesis,
Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung.
Hudson, R. A. (1992). Teaching grammar: A guide for the national curriculum. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Huang, C. Y. (2004). Comparing the effects of two grammar pedagogies on the learning of English
grammar for junior hight school students in Taiwan: Communicative focus on form and
traditional grammar instruction. Unpublished masters thesis, Ming Chuan University,
Taipei.
Hunt, S. E., & Cain, E. (1950). Games - the world around: Four hundred folk games. New York:
A. S. Barnes Com.
Hutchinson, D., McCavitt, S., Rude, K., & Vallow, D. (2002). Improving student achievement
through grammar instruction. (ERIC Reproduction Services No.ED 471070)
Isaacs, R. H. (1979). Affective and cognitive changes in using Hebrew language games with
thirteen and fourteen year old students: An exploratory study. Unpublished EdD
dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College, New York, NY.
Jacobs, J. W., & Dempsey, J. V. (1993). Simulation and gaming: Fidelity, feedback, and
motivation. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback
(pp. 197-227). Englewood Hills, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Jones, D., Mungai, D., & Wong, L. (2002). Games to teach. Paper published in the proceeding of
the 18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Wisconsin, UW.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigelruth (Ed.), Instructional
design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383-434). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klapper, J., & Rees, J. (2003). Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the
university foreign language learning context. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 285-314.
References
230
Klepping, K. (1980). Das Sprachlernspiel im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Untersuchung zum

Lehrer-und Lernerverhalten in Sprachlernspielen. Tbigen: Narr.
Kopp. G, & Frhlich, K. (1997). Ping-Pong 1. Mnchen: Max Hueber Verlag.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon
Press Inc.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1992). Under what conditions, if any, should formal grammar instruction take place?
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign
Language Annals, 32, 245-257.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1988). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. New York: Prentice Hall.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Kuo, Y. (1990). Using some selected games to develop secondary school students' oral
communication skills in Taiwan. Taipei: The Grane Publishing.
Lacey, A., & Walker, W. J. (1991). Using small group work to motivate English students (Eric
Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 332224).
Lai, S. J. (2004). High school English teachers' beliefs on grammar instruction in Taiwan.
Unpublished masters thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Lando, J. (1996). The effect of instruction on the use the past tense system in the writing of learners
of Italian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
Lando, J. (1999). Learning second language grammar: Teachers and learners at work. Babel, 34(1),
26-27, 36.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In
F. R. Eckman (Ed.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 131-150).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
References
231
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Grammar and its teaching: Challenging the myths. ERIC Digest.
(ERIC Reproduction Services No. ED 406 829).
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching language: from grammar to grammaring. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 251-266).
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition and
research. London: Longman.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lee, J. S. (2001). The study of the effects of cooperative learning in geography courses in a junior
high school in Taiwan. Unpublished masters thesis, National Changhua University of
Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
Li, D. (1998). It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers' perceived difficulties
in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4),
677-703.
Li, Y. C. (2003). Effects of the 'focus on form' approach on EFL learning in an immersion program
in Taiwan. Unpublished masters thesis, National Chin Hwa University, Chin Sun.
Liang, T. L. (2002). Implementing cooperative learning in EFL teaching process and effects.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Normal University, Taipei.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Willliams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). New York:
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative
language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1991). Instruction and the development of question in L2
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(4), 205-241.
References
232
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1994). An innovative program for primary ESL students in
Quebec. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 563-579.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lin, H. R. (2002). Effects of communicative language teaching on English learning and cultural
learning for children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Kaohsiung Normal
University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Lin, M. K. (1997). The effects of cognitive apprenticeships collaborative learning on English
learning achievement, motivational belief, and learning strategies of second graders of
junior high school. Unpublished masters thesis, National Normal Universityy, Taipei,
Taiwan.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lohfert, W. (1996). Kommunikative Spiele fr Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Mnchen: Max Hueber.
Long, M. & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research.
TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.
Long, J. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty
& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models
and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Lozanov, G. (1979). Suggestology and outlines of suggestopedy. New York: Gorden & Breach
Science Pub.
References
233
Lund, S. K., & Light, J. (2003). The effectiveness of grammar instruction for individuals who use
augmentative and alternative communication systems: A preliminary study. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(5), 1110-1123.
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott's "What's wrong with
oral grammar correction." Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457-467.
McCarthy, B., (2002). The grammar dilemma in university beginners programs: Some
teacher-thoughts on grammar. Babel, 37(1), 17-21.
Macedonia, M. (2005). Games and foreign language teaching. Support for Learning, 20(3),
135-140.
MacIntyre, P. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In D. J.
Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning (pp.24-25). Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill.
MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language
learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 85-117.
MacRae, P. (2003, December 29). We're not teaching our children well: Students suffer when the
school system neglects grammar and spelling. Times Colonis [Victoria, BC], final ed., p.
A12. Retrieved April 07, 2004, from http://LexisNexis Academic Search database.
Madylus, O. (2002). Teaching teenagers grammar. Retrieved December 8, 2002, from:
http://www.onestopenglishcom/News/Magazine/children/teaching_grammar.htm
Makino, T. (1980). Acquisition order of English morphemes by Japanese secondary school
students. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education, 30, 101-148.
Manley, J. M., & Calk, L. (1997). Grammar instruction for writing skills: Do students perceive
grammar as useful? Foreign Language Annals, 30(1), 73-83.
Markey, C. E. (1997). An investigation into the use of structured games to teach early fraction
concepts to students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Unpublished masters thesis, Griffith
University, Queensland, Australia.
References
234
Matheidesz, M. (1988). Communication games: Are they really effective? (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 299820).
Metcalfe, P., Laurillard, D., & Mason, R. (1995). The decline of written accuracy in pupils' use of
French verbs. Language Learning Journal, 12, 47-50.
Miller, M. C. (1992). Two experimental studies of the effectiveness of interactive game-playing in
the acquisition of Japanese by Americans. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Delaware.
Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2005). Guidelines for a nine year curriculum. Retrieved August
08, 2005, from
http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/EJE/EDU5147002/9CC/9CC.html?TYPE=1
&UNITID=225&CATEGORYID=0&FILEID=124759&open
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement. Language Learning Journal,
50, 617-673.
Murphy, J. M. (2001). Reflective teaching in ELT. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as
a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 499-514). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking the tradition: An exploration of the historical relationship between
theory and practice in second language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nemerow, L. G. (1996). Do classroom games improve motivation and learning? Retrieved August
20, 2001, from
http://global.umi.com/pqdweb?INT=0&SelLanguage=0&TS=1043287741&Did=000000.
Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers' communicative style
and students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal, 83, 23-24.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a
second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language
Learning, 50, 57-85.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-498.
References
235
Nunan, S. L. (2005). Forgiving ourselves and forging ahead: Teaching grammar in a new
millennium. English Journal, 94(4), 70-75.
Ogershok, P., & Cottrell, S. (2004). The pediatric board game. Medical Teacher, 26(6), 514-517.
Omaggio-Hadley, A., & Terry, R. M. (2000). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Heinle and Heinle.
Ortega, L., & Iberri-She, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent
trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26-45.
Oxford, R. L. (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Crosscultural Perspectives.
Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R., M. Ehrman, and R. Z. Lavine. (1991). Style Wars: Teacher-Student Style Conflicts in
the Language Classroom. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Challenges in the 1990s for College
Foreign Language Programs (pp. 125). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Patterson, N. G. (2001). Just the facts: research and theory about grammar instruction. Voices from
the Middle, 8(3), 50-55.
Pennington, M. C. (1995). New ways in teaching grammar. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Petruzzella, B. A. (1996). Grammar instruction: what teachers say? Retrieved April 07, 2004,
from
proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=10421798&sid=9&Fmt=3&clientld=38979&RQT=309&
VName=PQD
Pierfy, D. A. (1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling blocks and stepping
stones. Simulation and Games, 8(2), 255-268.
Pithers, R., & Mason, M. (1992). Learning style preferences: Vocational students and teachers,
Australian Education Researcher, 19(2), 61 - 71.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79.
References
236
Pietro, R. J. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge:

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Puchta, H., & Schratz, M. (1994). Teaching teenagers: Model activity sequences for humanistic
language learning. Canterbury: Pilgrims Longsman.
Raffini, J. P. (1993). Winners without losers: Structure and strategies for increasing student
motivation to learn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ramor, H., & Wetz, C. (1984). Bilderkreuzwortrtsel, Kopiervorlagen. Licthenau: AOL-Verlag.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students' perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities
in the EFL classroom. System, 30(1), 85-105.
Richard-Amto, P. A. (1996). Making it happen. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Group.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Rinvolucri, M., & Davis, P. (1995). More grammar games: Cognitive, affective and movement
activities for EFL students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rinvolucri, M., & Davis, P. (1999). 66 Grammatik - Spiele, Deutsch als Fremdsprache (B. Huter &
S. Schauf, Trans.). Stuttgart: Ernst Klett.
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ruben, B. D. (1999). Simulations, games, and experience-based learning: The quest for a new
paradigm for teaching and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 498-506.
Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman.
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The
Canadian Modern language Review, 53, 422-451.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical
understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 494-517.
References
237
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign-language teaching.

Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Savignon, S. J. (2000). Communicative language teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge
Encyclopaedia of Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 124-129). London: Routledge.
Scheidecker, D. & Freemann, W. (1999). Bringing out the best in students: how legendary teachers
motivate kids. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Schiff, P. (2004). Leading beyond what we know about grammar instruction. English Leadership
Quarterly, 27(1), 3-5.
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure
and external connections. In O. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to
the new century (pp. 9-70). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Schultz, M., & Fischer, A. (1988). Games for all reasons. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of
grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language
Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Schultz, R. A. (2002). Hilft es die Regel zu wissen um sie anzuwenden? Das Verhltnis von
metalinguistischem Bewusstsein und grammatischer Kompetenz ( Is knowledge of
grammar rules helpful in their application? The relationship between metalinguistics
insight and grammar competency in the study of German as foreign language).
Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 35(1), 15-24.
Schweckendiek, J. (2001). Spiele und Spielerisches: zur Forderung der Gruppenintegration und zur
Binnendifferenzierung. Fremdsprache Deutsch, 25, 9-15.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Shie, J. S. (2003). Aspects of EFL games. Taipei: The Crance Publishing Company.
Shih, Y. H. (2001). Communicative language teaching: For nine year curriculum. English
Teaching & Learning, 25(3), 5-21.
References
238
Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies for teaching any subject. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Smitherman, G. (1977). Talkin' and testifyin': The language of black America. Detroit, MI: Wayne
State University Press.
Spada, N. (1987). Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: a
process-product study of communicative language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 8,
181-189.
Specht, L. B., & Sandlin, P. K. (1991). The differential effects of experiential learning activities
and traditional lecture classes in accounting. Simultaion & Gaming, 22(2), 196-210.
Spier, A. (1984). Mit Spielen Deutsch lernen. Spiele und spielerische bungsformen fr den
Unterricht mit auslndischen Kindern, Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. Frankfurt:
Scriptor.
Sprengel, A. D. (1994). Learning can be fun with gaming. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(4),
151-152.
Steinberg, J. (1992). Games language people play. Ontario: Dominie Press Pippin Publishing
Limited.
Stern, H. H. (1990). Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In B.
Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language
proficiency (pp. 93-109). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Straus, R. A. (1986). Simple games for teaching sociological perspectives. Teaching Sociology, 14,
119-128.
Fox, Ch., Manning, E., Urbom, R., & Marwick, K. C. (2003). Longman dictionary of
contemporary English. Essex, U. K.:Longman.
Sysoyev, P. V. (1999). Integrative L2 grammar teaching: Exploration, explanation and expression.
Retrieved Nov. 20. 2005, from http://iteslu.org/Articles/Sysoye-integrative.html
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. The Modern
References
239
Language Journal, 61, 325-336.

Thatcher, D. C. (1990). Promoting learning through games and simulations. Simulation & Gaming,
21, 262-273.
Toth, P. D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom
discourse. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 14-30.
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language
learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-518.
Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign
language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1).
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ur, P. (1999). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Valette, R. M. (1991). Proficiency and the prevention of fossilization. The Modern Language
Journal, 75, 325-328.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Wang, C. C. (2001). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes in
Taiwan. Paper presented at the Eighteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning
in the Republic of China, Taipei.
Wang, C. C. (2002). Innovative teaching in foreign language contexts: The case of Taiwan. In S. J.
Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in
teacher education (pp. 131-153). Haven, US: Yale University Press.
Wesson, C., Wilson, R., & Mandlebaum, L. H. (1988). Learning games for active student
responding. Teaching Exceptional Children, 12-14.
West Virginia Department of Education. (2002). Grammar for all. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2005, from
http://wvde.state.wv.us/tt/2002/grammartips/
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question
References
240
formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.

William, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Williams, G. (1995). Putting grammar back in the school curriculum. Australian Style, 3(2), 1, 15.
Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (1989). Games for language learning (9th ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wrucke-Nelson, A. C. (1992). An investigation into the development of oral English in concept
formation through the use of group games in the bilingual/ESL classroom. Unpublished
EdD dissertation, Texas Woman's University, TX.
Yen, S. W. (2002). A study of teaching grammar communicatively in the EFL vocational high
school classroom. Unpublished masters thesis, Chung Cheng University, Chia Yi.
Young, D. J. (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning. McGraw-Hill:
Boston, MA.
Yu, L. M. (2001). Communicative language teaching in China: Progress and resistance. TESOL
Quarterly, 35(1), 194-198.
Yu, S. Y. (2003). Junior college students' perceptions of the role of grammar in the German
Department. Unpublished manuscript, Kaohsiung.
241
APPENDIX A
Individual Demographic Information
242
Individual Demographic Information
Please fill in your responses to the items below. Use an x to mark where boxes are
provided. Thank you!
1. Your student No.: _____________
2. Gender: 1. Male
2. Female
3. Your Entrance Examination Scores:

Total Score: _________, Chinese Score: ________, English Score:________,
Math Score: _________, Biology Score: ________, History Score:________.
4. Is German your 1st priority? 1. Yes
5. Have you studied German before?
2. No
1. Yes. For how long ?
__________
2. No.
6. Have you used games during formal class teaching of a second language at school?
1. Often
2. Sometimes
In which subjects have games been used?
3. Never
__________________________
243
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire on Motivation
244
Questionnaire On Motivation (for Pilot Study)
Agree
Strongly Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1.
German I is one of the subjects I am most interested in.
2.
I like to discuss German grammar with my classmates.
3.
I often participate in discussion about the contents of German

grammar.
4.
I study German grammar more diligently than any other subjects.
5.
I ask someone for advice when I have problems with German.
6.
It is worthwhile to dedicate more time to study German grammar.
7.
I am very satisfied with my performance in German I.
8.
I believe that I can help my classmates to learn German.
9.
I am able to use German grammar.
10. I find a way to solve my problems, if I cannot understand German in

class.
11. I will try to work harder on the required assignments of the German
course.
12. No matter what a test result is, I can still study German hard.
13. No matter what my German ability is, I believe I can study it well.
14. I hope to learn more German and its grammar.
15. I would like to spend more time learning German.
16. When studying German in German I, I always feel that time

passes quickly.
17. I feel the materials used in the German course are easy.
18. I feel that the materials used in the German class are interesting.
19. When learning German, I try my best to use correct German.
20. I will try my best to finish my German assignments.
21. I think that I can understand the contents taught in class.
245
Questionnaire On Motivation
This questionnaire consists of 21 items. Please choose the number that matches your opinion
and experience: 5 means Strongly Agree, 4 means Agree, 3 means Unsure, 2
means Disagree and 1 means Strongly Disagree. Please circle the number selected.
Please answer all questions.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1.
German I is one of the subjects I am most interested in.
2.
I like to discuss German grammar with my classmates.
3.
I often participate in discussion about the contents of German

grammar.
4.
I study German grammar more diligently than any other subjects.
5.
I ask someone for advice when I have problems with German.
6.
It is worthwhile to dedicate more time to study German grammar.
7.
I am very satisfied with my performance in German I.
8.
I believe that I can help my classmates to learn German.
9.
I am able to use German grammar.
10.
I find a way to solve a problem, if I cannot understand German in

class.
I will try to work harder on the required assignments of the German

5
course.
12.
No matter what a test result is, I can still study German hard.
13.
No matter what my German ability is, I believe I can study it well.
14.
I hope to learn more German and its grammar.
15.
I would like to spend more time learning German.
11.
246
16.
When studying German in German I, I always feel that time pass

quickly.
17.
I feel the materials used in the German course are easy.
18.
I feel that the materials used in the German class are interesting.
19.
When learning German, I try my best to use correct German.
20.
I will try my best to finish my German assignments.
21.
I think that I can understand the contents taught in class.
247
APPENDIX C
Questionnaire on Classroom Atmosphere
248
Questionnaire On Classroom Atmosphere (for Pilot Study)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1.
My classmates help one another during German activities.
2.
My classmates share their experiences of learning German among

themselves.
My classmates care about our progress in German when we study

together.
4.
My classmates care about my correct use of German grammar.
5.
My classmates care about my feelings about learning German.
6.
My classmates praise me when my performance in German is good.
7.
My classmates expect me to have a good performance in German.
8.
My classmates encourage one another to study German more

diligently.
My classmates are satisfied with their own performance in German.
10. The activities used in learning German make us more familiar with
one another.
11. My classmates get along better when studying German together.
12. My classmates would like to share their learning experience with our
teacher.
13. I have achieved a lot in German classes.
14. My classmates like the learning activities in class.
15. My classmates feel happy when learning German.
16. My classmates wish that the way of studying every subject could be
the same as in the German class.
17. Teaching with specific and concrete contents benefits our learning of
German grammar.
3.
9.
249
18. The learning activities used in the German class are well organized.
19. My classmates like to participate in every class activity.
20. My classmates feel that we can master German very well.
21. The teacher cares about classroom management when we learn

German.
22. The teacher often offers us opportunities to practise speaking

German.
23. The teacher helps us to study more efficiently.
24. The teacher praises our performance when we make progress.
25. The teacher encourages us to discuss our problems and learn

together.
26. The teacher values our feelings when we learn German.
27. The teacher often praises our responses during German classes.
28. The teacher is friendly during the German class.
29. I can have important experiences in learning German from my

classmates.
30. My classmates have the same attitude to the study of German.
31. When encountering difficulties in learning German, we help one

another.
32. To learn German together will enables us to get along better.
33. My classmates find it interesting to learn German.
34. My classmates would like to follow the rules for the German
activities decided in class together.
35. If a classmate has not participated in some activities, the others help
him to catch up.
250
Questionnaire On Classroom Atmosphere
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
5 4
2 1
1.
My classmates help one another during German activities.
5 4
2 1
2.
My classmates share their experiences of learning German

among themselves.
5 4
2 1
My classmates care about our progress in German when we study

together.
5 4
2 1
4.
My classmates care about my correct use of German grammar.
5 4
2 1
5.
My classmates care about my feelings about learning German.
5 4
2 1
6.
My classmates praise me when my performance in German is

good.
5 4 3
My classmates expect me to have a good performance in

German.
5 4 3
My classmates encourage one another to study German more

diligently.
5 4
2 1
My classmates are satisfied with their own performance in

German.
5 4
2 1
10. The activities used in learning German make us more familiar

with one another.
5 4
2 1
11. My classmates get along better when studying German together.
5 4
2 1
12. My classmates would like to share their learning experience with

our teacher.
5 4
2 1
13. I have achieved a lot in German classes.
5 4
2 1
14. My classmates like the learning activities in class.
5 4
2 1
15. My classmates feel happy when learning German.
5 4
2 1
16. My classmates wish that the way of studying every subject could
be the same as in the German class.
5 4 3
3.
7.
8.
9.
251
17. Teaching with specific and concrete contents benefits our

learning of German grammar.
5 4 3
18. The learning activities used in the German class are well
organized.
5 4
2 1
19. My classmates like to participate in every class activity.
5 4
2 1
20. My classmates feel that we can master German very well.
5 4
2 1
21. The teacher cares about classroom management when we learn

German.
5 4
2 1
22. The teacher often offers us opportunities to practise speaking

German.
5 4
2 1
23. The teacher helps us to study more efficiently.
5 4
2 1
24. The teacher praises our performance when we make progress.
5 4
2 1
25. The teacher encourages us to discuss our problems and learn

together.
5 4
2 1
26. The teacher values our feelings when we learn German.
5 4
2 1
27. The teacher often praises our responses during German classes.
5 4
2 1
28. The teacher is friendly during the German class.
5 4
2 1
29. I can have important experiences in learning German from my

classmates.
5 4
2 1
30. My classmates have the same attitude to the study of German.
5 4
2 1
31. When encountering difficulties in learning German, we help one

another.
5 4
2 1
32. To learn German together will enables us to get along better.
5 4
2 1
33. My classmates find it interesting to learn German.
5 4
2 1
34. My classmates would like to follow the rules for the German
activities decided in class together.
5 4
2 1
35. If a classmate has not participated in some activities, the others

help him to catch up.
5 4
252
APPENDIX D
253
Strongly Agree
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1.
The grammatical practice used by my teacher enables me to learn

the correct German grammar.
5
The grammatical practice my teacher uses reduces my learning

effectiveness.
5
The grammatical practice used by my teacher enables me to

understand the rules of German grammar.
Please specify the reason: ______________________
2.

3.
I would like my teacher to keep using the current grammatical

practice to teach us German grammar
Please specify the reason: _______________________
4.
I can use German fluently as a result of the practice my teacher uses.

Please specify the reason: _______________________
5.

6.
The grammatical practice my teacher uses can improve my listening

comprehension.
5
254
7.
The grammatical practice my teacher uses helps my ability in oral

German.
The grammatical practice my teacher currently uses helps my

German writing ability.
5
11. The grammatical practice my teacher currently uses is an incentive

to learn German.
5

8.
The grammatical practice my teacher uses helps my German reading

comprehension.
9.
Please specify the reason:

10. The grammatical practice my teacher uses enables me to like
German more and to raise my interest in learning German.

12. The grammatical practice my teacher uses when encouraging
students interaction helps me to learn German.
5
13. The grammatical practice my teacher uses creates an excellent
atmosphere in class and it helps me to learn German.
5
14. The grammatical practice my teacher currently uses brings no
benefit to my German ability.
5
15. Do you have any suggestions about this teaching method?
255
APPENDIX E
Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar and

Grammar Instruction
256
Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction
How to fill in the questionnaire:

For each item please circle the number.
Answer all items!
Thank you for your cooperation!
Strongly Agree
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Learning grammar helps me to understand German.
3.
4.
Learning grammar enables me to achieve high scores in German

tests.
Learning grammar can help me to speak German.
5.
Learning grammar can help me to write German.
6.
Learning grammar can help me to read German texts.
7.
Learning grammar can help me to study German well.
8.
Learning grammar is essential to eventual mastery of German.
We need to learn grammar because German is not our native

language.
10. German is Germanys native language; so German people do not

have to learn grammar.
11. My German study may be better if I do not learn grammar.
12. Grammar impedes my German learning.
13. Learning grammar makes me less interested in learning German.
Importance of Learning German Grammar
Difficulties of Learning Grammar

9.
257
Methods of Learning Grammar

14. The German teacher needs to teach German grammar in class.
15. It is necessary to learn grammar gradually from elementary grammar

to advanced grammar.
16. Systematic teaching from the teacher can help me to learn German
well.
17. Which item in the following list is the best help in learning grammar?
1. Sentence practice advised by the teacher
2. Study grammar by yourself
3. Talk to foreigners in German
4. Practise with classmates in German
5. Study the textbook
18. Which items should the German grammar teacher include in class:
1. Only grammar
2. Only reading texts
3. Only German conversation
4. Grammar and reading texts
5. Grammar, reading texts, and conversation
Why? Please write down your comments.
________________________________________________________
19. The grammar teaching method I prefer
1. Communicative teaching approach by interactive learning with
Classmates.
2. Teaching by the teacher and listening by the students.
3. Combining teaching and listening with interactive practice among students.
Why? Please write down your comments.
_______________________________________________________
20. Which kind of tasks do you prefer during German grammar teaching?
1. Teaching by the teacher and listening by the students
2. Team Discussion
3. Games
4. Paper test
5. Praise of test scores as encouragement
258
APPENDIX F
Focus Group Interview Questions
259
Focus group questions
1. How is the course going?

2. What do you like about the course and the teacher?
3. What are some characteristics of the teachers instructional style that work well?
4. What are some positive aspects of studying German this way?
5. What are some negative aspects of studying German this way?
6. What are some of the ways in which the course might be improved?
7. What do you think about the role grammar plays in your second language-learning
program?
8. What are your preferred activities in class when you are learning the grammar of German?
260
APPENDIX G
Teaching Program
261
Teaching Program
Activities
Units
Date
Themes
Grammatical Features
Control Group
15.09. ~21.09. 2003
Orientation week
09.22 ~ 09.28 2003
Orientation week
Experimental Group
(Administration of Questionnaires)
09.29 ~10.14.2003
(12 hours)
Greetings
Pronouns: ich, du, er, Stage hours
sie, es, ihr, Sie
To get to know each
4
Direct and in-depth explanation
other
Verb endings for the
1
of rules with examples
pronouns
To introduce
someone else to a
Word order: subject+
group
verb
Question words: wo,
woher, was, wie
Integrative sentence
W-questions
4
2
1
1
Direct and in-depth explanation

Dialogue
Exercises + drills
from textbook
Test 1 (10.13.2003)
Discussion
Dialogue
Game 1
Game 2
Test 1 (10.13.2003)
Discussion
261
262
Teaching Program
Activities
Unit
Date
Themes
Control Group
Experimental Group
Stage hours
Enquiring and
answering about
what people do
10. 15 ~ 10.19
2
10.27 ~ 11.03. 2003
(9 hours)
10.22 ~ 10.25 2003
Irregular verbs:
sein (to be),

fahren (to drive),
schlafen (to sleep),
haben (to have),
sprechen (to speak),
lesen (to read),
sehen (to see),
essen (to eat),
nehmen (to take),
laufen (to run)
Direct and in-depth Explanation


Text
Text
Exercises + drills
from textbook
Test 2 (10.3.2003)
Test 2 (10.31.2003)
Discussion
Discussion
Game 3
Game 4
Wenzao Week ( no class)
262
263
Teaching program
Activities
Units
Date
Themes
Control Group
Experimental Group
Stage Hours
11.04 ~ 11.08
11.18 ~ 11.24. 2003
Naming objects and
people in German
Making requests
The gender of nouns

The definite articles:
der, die, das
(9 hours)


Text
Text
Exercises + drills from textbook
Test 3 (11.21.2003)
Test 3 (11.21.2003)
Discussion
Discussion
Singular and plural
forms of nouns
Game 5
Game 6
Game 7
11. 10~ 11.16. 2003
Mid-term Examination week
263
264
Teaching Program
Activities
Units
Date
Themes
Control Group
Experimental Group
Stage Hours
Naming objects of
11.25. ~ 12.08. 2003

(10 hours)
stationery, food and

drink
Describing people,
things or places
The indefinite article:
ein, eine, (a, an)

Negative: nicht, keinPronoun (sie, er, es)
Yes/no question:
Verb+subject..?
Negative sentences


Text
Text
Exercises + drills
Test 4 (12. 05. 2003)
Test 4 (12.05.2003)
Discussion
Discussion
Game 8
Game 9
264
265
Teaching program
Activities
Units
Date
Themes
Grammar Structures
Control Group
12.09 ~
12.10.2003
(3 hours)
Activities and
Reinforcement of some
hobbies: say what you

like or dislike;
how often you engage
in the activities
Time (official)
Timetables
Stage
regular weak verbs and irregular

verb forms
Word order: adverbs with the
verb -gern, nicht gern/oft,
manchmal, selten
Experimental Group
Hours
2
Direct and in-depth Explanation Direct and in-depth Explanation

1
1
Exercises + drills
Exercises + drills
5
12.11 ~
Timetables
When do you do
what?
12.22. 2003
Separable verbs: ankommen,
abfahren, stattfinden, ausfuellen,

mitspielen, mitsingen,
mitbringen, nachsprechen,
vorlesen, anfangen,einladen

Exercises + drills
Test 5 (12.24.2003)
Game 10
Game 11 (4 sessions)
(8 hours)
1
12.23.2003
Discussion
Test 5 (12.24.2003)
Discussion
Christmas party
(2 session)
265
266
Teaching Program
Activities
Units
Date
Themes
Grammar Structures
Control Group
Stage
12.25.2003
~
01.07.2004
(8 hours)
The Family
Form of a letter
Describe your family
Talk in some detail about
your family members
Write a letter about your
family
The possessive adjective
in all genders
Form of a letter
All sentence structures
taught in the semester
Experimental Group
Hours
3

Text
Exercises + drills
Test 6 (01.05.2004)
Discussion
Text
Game 12
Game 13
01.12
~
01.16.
2004
Test 6 (01.05.2004)
Discussion
Final-examination week
266
267
APPENDIX H
Language Games used in the Study
268
Game 1
Grammar:
Snakes and Ladders

To reinforce the usage of subject pronouns, present tense of verbs and
the sentence structure for question and answers.
The German pronoun and verb ending of regular verb forms; e.g.
ich komme (I come), du kommst (you come), er kommt (he
comes), sie kommt (she comes), wir kommen (we come), ihr kommt
(you come), sie kommen (they come)
Sentence structure: subject + verb + object
Gabi lernt hier Englisch. (Gabi learns English here.)
Er heisst Willi. (His name is Willi.)
W-questions: question words and structure:
wie, woher, wo, was + verb + subject ? e. g.
Wie heissen Sie? (What is your name?)
Woher kommst du ? (Where do you come from?)
Wo wohnt ihr? (Where do you live?)
Was macht Gabi hier? (What are you doing here?)
Wer ist das? (Who is it?)
Prepositions: in (in), aus (from)
Gabi kommt aus Hamburg und wohnt jetzt in Bonn.
(Gabi comes from Hamburg and lives now in Bonn.)
Function:
To enquire and respond
Skills:
Speaking and writing, partly reading and listening
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
50 minutes
Preparation:
A SNAKE AND LADDERS board

A die and 4 markers
A deck of playing word-cards:
The white cards have fill-in exercises with correct verb endings.
The blue cards have fill-in exercises with correct prepositions.
The orange cards have fill-in exercises with correct question words.
The green cards have exercises to build correct questions.
Procedure:
Students take turn placing a marker on the starting place and

tossing the dice.
269
The students then move their marker the appropriate number of spaces.
The colour on the spaces where they land decides which playing cards
students choose.
question. If a student lands at the base of a ladder and gives the
right answer, he may climb up to the top of the ladder and
continue from there to the next turn; if the answer is not correct,
he just does not proceed any further.
If a student lands on the tail of a snake and gives the right
answer, he is permitted to move forward to the head of snake. If the
answer is incorrect, he moves three spaces back. If he lands
on the head of snake and gives the right answer, he may stay on the
same spot; otherwise, he has to slide down to the tail of the
snake and continues from there on the next turn.
The first person to reach the endpoint, wins.
Yellow cards
Wo ist der Zug?
Woher kommt er?
Der Zug ist in

Deutschland.
Er kommt aus
Kopenhagen.
Wie heit das

Mdchen?
Was lernt Thomas?
Das Mdchen heit

Lisa.
Thomas lernt jetzt

Chinesisch.
Wo liegt Deutschland.
Deutschland liegt
mitten in Europa.
Wohin fahrt ihr?/

Wohin fahren Sie?
Wir fahren nach Japan.
Wohin fahren viele

Mensch?
Viele Menschen fahren

nach Paris.
Was machst du?/Was

machen Sie?
Ich spiele Karten.
Woher kommt das

Bier?
Das Bier kommt aus

Deutschland.
Wo arbeitest du?
Wo arbeiten Sie?
Sie arbeiten in
Kaohsiung.
270
Blue cards
Lisa
a______________ in
Frankfurt.
Frau Mohr
w___________ in
Berlin.
Herr Schmidt
___________ aus
Dortmund.
arbeitet
A___________ ihr
auch in Leipzig?
arbeitet
wohnt
Frau Miller
m___________ in
Italien Urlaub.
macht
kommt
Wir
f________________
nach Moskau.
fahren
Das Kind
h___________ Tobias.
Und wie h________
du?
heit
Du _______________
Maria?
Ihr _____________
auch Karten?
spielt
Wir _____________
sehr viel.
Ich _____________
jetzt Deutsch.
Green Cards
lerne
bist/heisst
reisen/arbeiten
271
Der Zug ist

__________
Deutschland.
in
nach
Deutschland liegt
__________ Europa.
in
Ich komme ________

Australien.
aus
Frau Hansen wohnt

________ Frankfurt.
in
Tobias lernt Deutsch

__________ Kln.
in
Der Tee kommt

__________ Asien.
aus
Die Zge fahren

________________
Genf.
nach
Wir machen Urlaub

_________ sterreich.
in
Anna und Thomas

fahren _____________
Suddeutschland.
272
Red Cards
__________ kommst
du?
Aus Deutschland.
Woher
____________
machen Sie in
England?
Was
Urlaub machen
__________ arbeiten
Sie?
Wo
______________
fahren Sie?
In England.
Nach Mnchen.
___________ lernt ihr

hier?
Deutsch und
Chinesisch.
_____________ liegt
Deutschland?
_____________ heisst
du denn?
Willi Baumann.
Was
Wohin
Wo
Mitten in Europa.
Wie
_____________ reist
viel?
Wer
Thomas.
____________
wohnen Herr und Frau
Baumann?
In Bonn.
Wo
____________ ist Ihre

Adresse?
Min Tzu Strae 900.
Wie
____________ ist
deine Telefonnummer?
3426032
Wie
273
This board card is adopted from 66 Grammatik Spiele by Rinvolucri and Davis (1999), p.
19.
274
Game 2
Grammar:
Interview (Kennenlernenspiel)
To reinforce the usage of subject pronouns, present tense of verbs
and the sentence structure for questions and answers.
A Wie heit du? or Wie ist dein Name? (What is your
name?)
B Ich heie xxx. or Mein Name ist xxx. (My name is
xxx.)
A Woher kommst du? (Where do you come from?)
B Ich komme aus xxx. (I come from xxx.)
A Wo wohnst du? or Wie ist deine Adresse?
(Where do you live? Or what is your address?)
B Ich wohne in xxx. (I live in xxx. or my address is...)
A Was machst du hier? or Was lernst du hier?
(What are you doing here?)
B Ich lerne Deutsch. (I learn German.)
Function :
To introduce oneself and someone else to a group
Skills:
Speaking, writing and listening
Class Organisation:
Pairs, groups
Preparation:
As many identity cards as there are students
Time:
40 minutes
Procedure:
The students are grouped in pairs of four and each receives a blank
identity card.
The four students now interview each other in order to fill in the
blanks on the identity card.
Each student introduces his partner to the group using the
identity card as a memory aid.
Winner: the first student to finish the task.
Variation:
Each student interviews another 3 classmates out of his group.

Each student introduces himself to the class and then introduces
one of his interviewed classmates to the class.
Source: This game was adapted from the game Das Kennlernenspiel as found in the
German text book Passwort Deutsch I (Albrecht, et al., 2001, pp. 103-104)
275
Game 3
Picture and Board Game
276
Grammar:
Irregular verbs and verb forms: sein (to be), fahren (to go), schlafen
(to sleep), sprechen (to speak), lesen (to read), sehen (to see), essen
(to eat), nehmen (to take), laufen (to run)
Sentence structure: questions with question words and answers
Examples: A Was machst du ? (What are you doing?)
B Ich lese Bcher. (I am reading books.)
A Wie kommt Gabi zur Schule?
(How does Gabi come to school?)
B Sie fhrt mit dem Bus. (She comes by bus.)
B Sie nimmt den Bus. (She takes the bus.)
A Was essen Sie gern? (What do you like to eat?)
B Ich esse gern Fisch. (I like to eat fish.)
A Wer ist das? (Who is that?)
B Das ist Frau Baumann. (It is Mrs. Baumann.)
Function:
Enquiring and answering about what people do
Skills:
Listening, speaking
Class Organisation:
Pairs, groups
Preparation:
A board card, a dice and 4 markers

A deck of playing picture cards with relevant irregular verbs
Procedure:
Students take turns placing a marker on the starting place and

tossing the dice.
They then move their marker the appropriate number of spaces. The
pronoun on the spaces decides which pronoun students use for the
question, i.e. Was macht Gabi? (What are you doing?)
Then, students choose a picture card to answer the question.
Source:

question and the picture. If the answer is incorrect, the player
moves three spaces back. The first person to reach the endpoint
wins.
This game is a variation of a game in the German course book
Pinpong 1 (Kopp & Frhlich, 1997, p. 28).
277
278
Er nimmt eine Suppe.

Du nimmst eine Suppe.
Ihr nehmmt eine Suppe
nehmen
Der Film luft jetzt.
laufen
Er schlft.
Du Schlfst.
Ihr schlaft.
schlafen
Er luft schnell.
Du lufst schnell.
Ihr lauft schnell.
laufen
Er fhrt mit dem Taxi.

Du fhrst mit dem Taxi.
Ihr fahrt mit dem Taxi.
mit dem Taxi fahren
Er isst zu Mittag.
Du isst zu Mittag.
Ihr esst zu Mittag.
zu Mittag essen
Er nimmt den Bus

zur Schule.
Du nimmst den Bus
zur Schule.
den Bus nehmen
Pommes frites essen

Er fhrt mit dem Auto.
Du fhrst mit dem Auto.
Ihr fahrt mit dem Auto
Er nimmt das Taxi.

Du nimmst das Taxi.
Ihr nehmt das Taxi.
zur Schule.
mit dem Auto fahren
Englisch sprechen
das Taxi nehmen

Er spricht Englisch.
Du sprichst gern
Englisch.
Ihr sprecht wenig
Englisch.
Er fhrt mit dem Zug

zur Schule.
Du fhrst mit dem
Zug zur Schule.
mit dem Zug fahren
Er nimmt den Zug

zur Schule.
Du nimmst den Zug
zur Schule.
den Zug nehmen
Er isst Pommes frites

gern.
Du isst Pommes frites
gern.
Ihr esst Pommes frites
gern.
Sie isst Eis gern.

Du isst Eis gern.
Ihr esst Eis gern
Eis essen
279
Game 4
Who wrote what about me?
Grammar:
Irregular verbs and verb forms: sein (to be), fahren (to go), schlafen (to
sleep), sprechen (to speak), lesen (to read), sehen (to see), Essen (to
eat), nehmen (to take), laufen (to run)
Sentence structure: questions and answers
Examples: A Sprichst du Deutsch? (Do you speak German?)
B Ja, ich spreche Deutsch. (Yes, I do.)
A Liest du gern Bcher? (Do you like reading?)
B Ja, ich lese gern Bcher. (Yes, I do.)
Function:
To check statements
Skills:
Writing, speaking, listening, reading
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
30 minutes
Preparation:
One irregular verb sheet per student
Procedure:
Give out an irregular verb sheet to each person in the class. Ask each
student to complete the sentences thinking about different classmates
and complete a full sentence structure by using the irregular verbs they
have learned, e.g. Maria schlft oft (Maria sleeps very often) or Alex
fhrt heute nach Taipei (Alex is going to Taipei today). Each sentence
should mention a different classmate.
Collect all the completed sheets and then hand them out again, making
sure nobody gets his own.
The students walk around the room and try to find the person described
on the sheet. The students have to check with the people whether the
statements about them are true or not by asking the question, e.g. Isst
du gern Fisch, Alex? (Alex, do you like to eat fish?) Each student has
an opportunity to correct the previous statements that have been written
about them, e.g. Ja, ich esse gern Fisch. (Yes, I like to eat fish.) or
Nein, ich esse gern Fleisch. (No, I like to eat meat.)
The winner is the first student to find the person described in his/her
sheet.
Source:
This game is a variation of the game Who wrote what about me?
found in the book More grammar games: Cognitive, affective and
movement activities for EFL students (Rinvolucri & Davis, 1995, pp.
62- 63).
280
Sheet
IRREGULAR VERB SHEET
Write about your classmates using the verbs below they are given in the infinitive
form you have to use the correct form of the verb for the person you use. You may
decide to write more than one sentence about a particular classmate.
Mein Name
(sein )
(schlafen)
(fahren)
(sprechen)
(lesen)
(essen)
(laufen)
(haben)
..........................................................................................................
...............................
................................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
................................
.....................................
281
Game 5
Matching game
Grammar:
Insertion of the definite article der (masculine) /die (feminine)/das

(neuter)/die (pl.), use of singular/plural forms; short oral responses
to picture cues.
Function:
Naming objects and people in German
Skills:
Speaking, listening, reading, writing
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
30 minutes
Preparation:
Sets of small cards made up of matched pairs whose link is

immediately and easily grasped. Sets of small pictures cards of
objects in singular and plural and sets of word cards of
corresponding words.
Procedure:
Students work in groups of four, with the word and picture cards
randomly spread out before them. The first student picks up a
picture card by asking a question, for example:
Was heisst das auf Deutsch? (What is it in German?) or
Wer ist das? (Who is it?),
Was ist er/sie von Beruf? (What is your job?)
Then he has to find the word card that matches the picture. If a
student picks up a word card first, he has to ask Wo ist das Bild
die Lampe? (Where is the picture card of the light?)
The cards become the property of the student who matched the
word with the picture. The winner is the one who has the most
cards at the end.
Variation:
To reinforce the three kinds of definite articles and forms of

singular and plural of nouns, each student will be asked by the
other of the group what is on the card. (Wie heisst das?/ wie
heissen sie auf Deutsch?). The student has to say the noun with its
singular form as well as plural form, e.g. das Buch, die Bcher (a
book, books). If he gives the correct answer, he may keep the card.
The winner is the one who has the most cards at the end.
282
der Journalist
die Journalisten
die Kirche
die Kirchen
die Strae
die Strae
der Touist
die Touristen
die Frau
die Frauen
die Lampe
die Lampen
das Mdchen
die Mdchen
der Grovater
die Grovter
die Steckdose
die Steckdosen
das Buch
die Bcher
die Sonne
die Sonnen
die Mine
die Minen
283
der Mond
die Monde
das Telefon
die Telefone
das Foto
die Fotos
der Kugelschreiber
die Kugelschreiber
die Patientin
die Patientinnen
der Stecker
die Stecker
der Taschenrechner
die Taschenrechner
der Mann
die Mnner
das Kind
die Kinder
der Schler
die Schler
die Lehrerin
die Lehrerinnen
284
Game 6
Quartet (Happy Families)
Grammar:
Insertion of the definite article: der (masculine) /die (feminine)

/das (neuter)/die (pl.), use of singular/plural forms; short oral
responses to picture cues.
Function:
Making requests and naming objects and people.
Skills:
Listening and speaking
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
30 minutes
Preparation:
Pictures and pieces of card (see Appendix)

For each group of players, a set of 36 small picture cards is
distributed. The pictures fall into nine families, four pictures
constitute a family. This game has families of food items. Each
card has only one picture of a food with a word in the centre of
the card.
Procedure:
This is a game for four players. One player shares out the
picture cards, shuffling the set first, and dealing them out face
down so that no one sees the others cards. Each player looks at
his own cards and sorts them out into as many complete
families as possible. There may be none. All complete families
are placed face down in front of each player.
The players take turns to ask another player for any card that is
needed to make up a complete family. If the player who is asked
has the card in question, he must hand it over. As before, when a
family is completed, the cards are placed face down in front of
the player to whom they belong. The first player to complete all
his families is the winner.
Direct the learners to use an appropriate form of words when
asking for cards, e.g.
S1.: Wo ist die Scholade? (Where is the chocolate?)
Ist die Scholade hier? (Is the chocolate here?)
S2 : Ja, sie ist hier. (Yes, here it is.)
Nein, sie ist leider nicht hier. (Sorry, it is not here.)
Source:
This game was adapted from the book Games for Language
Learning (Wright, Betteridge & Buckby, 1986, p. 85). These
cards were designed and made by my colleague, Mrs. Chu,
chen-pin.
285
DIE LEHRERIN
DIE TTE
DIE DOSE
DER SCHLER
die Schlerin
der Schler
der Lehrer
der Riegel
der Stck
die Flasche
der Becher
das Glas
die Packung
die Schlerin
die Lehrerin
der Lehrer
DER KREIDE
DER LEHRER
DIE SCHOKOLADE
DIE JACKE
die Tafel
der Schwamm
die Tr
die Schlerin
der Schler
die Lehrerin
die Gummibrchen
der Kuchen
der Saft
der Mantel
der Rock
der Pullover
DER SCHWAMM
DER PULLOVER
DIE PACKUNG
DIE FLASCHE
die Kreide
die Tafel
die Tr
der Rock
der Mantel
die Jacke
der Becher
das Glas
die Dose
der Riegel
die Tte
das Stck
DIE GUMMIBRCHEN
die Schokolade
der Kuchen
der Saft
DIE SCHLERIN
DER ROCK
DIE TR
der Schler
die Lehrerin
der Lehrer
der Pullover
der Mantel
die Jacke
die Kreide
der Schwamm
die Tafel
DER MANTEL
DER BECHER
DER KUCHEN
DER RIEGEL
der Rock
der Pullover
die Jacke
das Glas
die Dose
die Packung
die Gummibrchen
der Saft
die Schokolade
die Flasche
die Tte
das Stck
DER SAFT
DAS STUCK
DAS T-SHIRT
DIE TAFEL
die Gummibrchen
der Kuchen
die Schokolade
der Riegel
die Tte
die Flasche
die Hose
die Schuhe
der Grtel
die Kreide
der Schwamm
die Tr
DER KEKS
DIE LIMONADE
DAS GLAS
DER JOGHURT
die Limonade
der Joghurt
die Milch
der Keks
der Joghurt
die Milch
der Becher
die Dose
die Packung
der Keks
die Limonade
die Milch
DIE MILCH
DER GRTEL
DIE HOSE
die Limonade
der Joghurt
die Keks
das T-Shirt
die Hose
die Schuhe
die Schuhe
der Grtel
das T-Shirt
DIE SCHUHE
das T-Shirt
die Hose
die Grtel
286
Game 7
Memory game
Grammar:
Insertion of the indefinite article ein/eine/x (a/an) before appropriate

nouns; use of singular/plural forms;
Function:
Asking and describing.
Skills:
Speaking, listening, reading, writing
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
30 minutes
Preparation:
Sets of small cards made up of matched pairs whose link is

immediately and easily grasped, are presented. Sets of small picture
cards of objects (in singular and plural) and sets of word cards of
corresponding words.
Procedure:
Students work in groups of four, with the cards randomly distributed

before them, face down. The first student turns over any two cards
and reads the written words or describes the picture(s):
Das ist ein Buch. (This is a book.)
Das ist eine Strasse. (This is a road.)
Das ist ein Kugelschreiber. (This is a pen.)
Das sind Lampen. (They are lights.)
Then students replace the cards face down. This process is repeated,
in turn, by the participants, the aim being to remember where the
different cards were located and to turn up a matching pair which
then becomes the property of the one who found them. The winner is
the one who has the most pairs at the end.
Source:
This game was adapted from the book Grammar practice activities:
A practical guide for teachers (Ur, 1988, p. 86).
287
Game 8
Grammar :
Picture game
Negative words: nicht (not), kein/keine/kein (no, not a, not any)
Negative sentences:
Nicht (not) goes directly after the verb or in front of the adjective.
Examples :
A Ich komme nicht aus Taiwan.

(I do not come from Taiwan.)
B Dino kommt heute nicht.
(Dino wont come today.)
C Ich bin nicht gross.
(I am not tall.)
Kein/keine/kein (no, not a, not any) are followed by a noun and

follows the pattern of ein/eine/ein (a/an).
Examples :
A Das ist keine Lampe, sondern ein Telefon.

(This is not a light, but a telephone.)
B Das sind keine Bleistifte, sondern Kugelschreiber.
(They are not pencils, but pens.)
Function:
Asking and answering.
Skills:
Writing, reading, speaking, listening
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
30 minutes
Preparation:
A dice, four markers and a board card (Snakes and Ladders)

Sets of picture cards with adjectives, nouns or phrase
Procedure:
Students take turns placing a marker on the starting place and tossing
the dice.
The students move their marker the appropriate number of spaces.
Then they choose a picture card. With the words, (an adjective or
prepositional phrase), they have to build up a question from the
picture.
Examples :
A Ist der Kaffee kalt? (Is the coffee cold?)

B Kommt der Mann aus Deutschland?
(Does the man come from Germany?)
C Spielt er? (Does he play?)
D Sind das Kugelschreiber? (Are they pens?)
288
E Ist er Lehrer von Beruf? (Is he a teacher?)

question.
Examples :
A1
B1
C1
D1
E1
Nein, er ist nicht kalt, sondern heiss.

(No, it is not cold, but hot.)
Nein, er kommt nicht aus Deutschland, sondern
aus England. (No, he doesnt come from Germany,
but from England.)
Nein, er spielt nicht, sondern macht Musik.
(No, he doesnt play, but listen to music.)
Nein, das sind keine Kugelschreiber, sonder
Bleistifte. (No, they are not pens, but pencils.)
Nein, er ist kein Lehrer, sondern Student.
(No, he is not a teacher, but a student.)
If a student lands at the base of the ladder and gives the right answer,
he may climb up to the top of the ladder and continue from there on
the next turn; if the answer is not correct, he just stays on the same
spot.
If a student lands on the tail of a snake and gives the right answer, he
is permitted to move forwards. If the answer is incorrect, he should
move three spaces back. If he lands on the head of the snake and
gives the right answer, he may stay on the same spot; otherwise, he
has to slide down to the tail of the snake and continues from there on
the next turn.
The first person who reaches the endpoint, wins.
Picture cards
289
Nein, es ist
nicht kurz,
sondern lang.
Das Lineal kurz?
Nein, es ist
nicht neu,
sondern alt.
neu?
Nein, es ist
nicht schn,
sondern schlecht.
schn?
Nein, es ist
nicht hei,
sondern kalt.
hei?
Nein, sie ist

nicht jung,
sondern alt.
jung?
Nein, er ist
nicht kalt,
sondern hei.
kalt?
Nein, die ist

nicht gro,
sondern klein.
gro?
Nein, es ist
nicht leer,
sondern voll.
leer?
Nein, sie laufen

nicht langsam,
sondern schnell.
langsam?
Nein, er ist
nicht Max,
sondern Ted.
Max?
290
Karten spielen?
Nein, sie spielen

nicht Karten
sondern
studieren.
Studieren?
Nein, er liest
nicht, sondern
schreibt.
lesen?
Nein, sie arbeiten

nicht, sondern
spielen.
arbeiten?
Nein, er arbeitet
nicht, sondern
isst.
Nein, sie schlft

nicht, sondern
liest.
schlafen?
arbeiten?
Nein, sie singt
nicht, sondern
spricht.
Nein, sie fhrt

nicht, sondern
schlft.
fahren?
singen?
Nein, sie fahren
nicht, sondern
warten.
fahren?
Nein, sie
studieren nicht,
sondern spielen
Fuball.
aus Tainwan?
Nein, es kommt
nicht aus Taiwan,
sondern aus
Afrika.
291
Game 9
Describing Pictures
Grammar:
Negative words: nicht (not), kein/keine/kein (no, not a, not any)

Negative sentences:
Nicht (not) goes directly after the verb or in front of the adjective.
Examples :
A Ich komme nicht aus Taiwan.

(I do not come from Taiwan.)
B Dino kommt heute nicht.
(Dino wont come today.)
C Ich bin nicht gross.
(I am not tall.)
Kein/keine/kein (no, not a, not any) are followed by a noun and

follows the pattern of ein/eine/ein (a/an).
Examples :
A Das ist keine Lampe, sondern ein Telefon.

(This is not a light, but a telephone.)
B Das sind keine Bleistifte, sondern Kugelschreiber.
(They are not pencils, but pens.)
Pronouns for the different gender of the nouns:

Examples :
A
B
C
D
der Mann er (the man he)

das Auto es (the car it)
die Kirche sie (the church it)
die Bcher sie (the books they)
Indefinite articles: ein/eine/ein (a/an)

.
Function:
Describing a picture
Skills:
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
50 minutes
Preparation :
Procedure:
Three large pictures of the College Wenzao Ursuline College of

Languages, a church der Klner Dom and a truck made by
Mecerdes Benz. Basic key words are supplied either by the teacher
or within the coursebook so that most of the items depicted are
within the vocabulary range of the class.
Students work first as a whole class to brainstorm and jot down some
ideas. The teacher invites the students to say as much as they can
about the picture, using the grammatical features listed above.
292
Students then work in groups of four and repeat step 1.

They are then required to write as much as they can about the picture
into a short paragraph in ten minutes.
Each group has to send one of its groups to read out his writing in
front of the class.
The group work will be assessed by other groups and by the teacher
by adding points on a set scale. The winning group is the one who
has the most points at the end.
Game 10
DIY word order (Domino)
293
Grammar:
Separable verbs: ankommen (to arrive), abfahren (to start), umsteigen

(to transfer), anfangen (to begin), ausfllen (to fill in), mitsingen (to
sing together), mitkommen (to come with), mitspielen (to play with),
vorlesen (to read loud), nachsprechen (to speak after)
Function:
Putting the words in the correct order
Skills:
Class Organisation:
Groups
Time:
50 minutes
Preparation:
Select five sentences built up with the separable verbs from the
textbook and teaching handouts for each group of students.
Procedure:
Ask the students in the group to choose their five favourite sentences
from those provided by the teacher. They then write each word on a
separate piece of card. The students may design their own cards.
The students mix up the word cards and place them on their chairs.
Students then reconstruct the same sentences.
The winner will be the one who first finishes the reconstruction of the
sentences.
Variation 1:
Ask the students of the group to remix the pieces and to place them on
their chairs. Students of the other group then mill around and
reconstruct the sentences.
Stop them when they have done half a dozen sentence reconstructions.
The group who can reconstruct the most sentences will be the winner.
Source:
Game 11
This game was adapted from the book More grammar games:
Cognitive, affective and movement activities for EFL students
(Rinvolucri & Davis, 1995, pp. 44 - 45).
Finding time to meet
294
Grammar :
Present progressive of verbs, irregular and separable verbs

Sentence structure:
Examples :
A
B
C
D
Ich hre Musik um 19:00 Uhr.

(I listen to music at 19:00 oclock.)
Ich mache Musik am Freitag.
(I play music on Friday.)
Ich spiele Fuball am Freitag um 15:00 Uhr.
(I play football at 15:00 oclock on Friday.)
Am Freitag um 15:00 Uhr spiele ich Fussball.
(On Friday, at 15:00 oclock I play football.)
Function :
Gathering information; making appointments
Skills :
Class Organisation :
Pairs
Time :
40 minutes
Preparation :
Blank diary for each student
Procedure :
Group are placed in pairs.

Give students blank grids (as in Table 3.7). Students are told to fill
about two thirds or three quarters it with their own imaginary program
of activities for the coming week. They then talk to partners and try
to find times they are both free to meet (or preferably two or three
possible times, out of which they choose the most convenient). As an
optional continuation, they may go on to try to fix a further
appointment with someone else- and so on, until the diary is full, or
until they are unable to find anyone to meet in the little spare time
remaining. They do this by asking each other questions:
Was machst du am Freitagnachmittag?
(What are you going to do on Friday afternoon?)
Hast du Zeit am Samstag? (Do you have time on Saturday?)
Um wieviel Uhr spielst du Fuball?
(When do you play football?)
If they cannot meet their partner at the time proposed, they must
say why, i.e. describe what they are going to do then.
They do this by answering each others questions:
Nein, am Samstag um 10:00 Uhr spiele ich Fuball.
295
(No, I am going to play football on Saturday.)

Nein, der Deutschkurs fngt um 9:00 Uhr an.
(No, the German course begins at 9:00 oclock.)
The winner is the first student in a group to finish the task.
Source:
This game is adapted from the book Grammar practice activities: a

practical guide for teachers (Ur, 1988, pp. 96-105)
296
Blank Dairy
11
12
13
14
15
16
Montag
Dienstag
Mittwoch
Donnerstag
Freitag
Samstag
17
Sonntag
7 :00_________
8 Deutschkurs
anfangen
9 _________
10 ________
11 ________
12 ________
13 ________
14 ________
15 ________
16 ________
17 ________
18 ________
19 ________
20 ________
21 ________
22 ________
7:00______
8 ________
7 ________
8 ________
7 ________
8 ________
7 ________
8 ________
7 ________
8 ________
7 ________
8 ________
9 ________
10 _______
11 _______
12 _______
13 _______
14 _______
15 _______
16 _______
17 _______
18 _______
19 _______
20 _______
21 _______
22 _______
9 ________
10________
11 _______
12 _______
13 _______
14 _______
15 _______
16 _______
17 _______
18 _______
19 _______
20 _______
21 _______
22________
9 ________
10 _______
11________
12 _______
13 _______
14 _______
15 _______
16 _______
17 _______
18 _______
19 _______
20 _______
21 _______
22 _______
9 ________
10 _______
11 _______
12 _______
13 _______
14________
15________
16________
17 _______
18 _______
19 _______
20 _______
21 _______
22 _______
9 ________
10 _______
11 _______
12 _______
13________
14________
15________
16 _______
17 _______
18 _______
19 _______
20 _______
21 _______
22 _______
9 ________
10________
11 _______
12 _______
13 _______
14 _______
15 _______
16 _______
17 _______
18 _______
19 _______
20 _______
21 _______
22 _______
296
297
Game 12
Detectives
Grammar :
The use of the possessive adjectives to indicate possession;

simple oral utterances based on object cues.
Function :
Stating possession of objects.
Skills :
Groups
Time :
40 minutes
Preparation :
Collect easily identifiable objects from the students, e.g. a

pencil, a standard textbook
Procedure :
Send one student in the group (the detective) outside, and ask
other students in the group for something that belongs to him
or her, but is not easily identifiable a pencil, a standard
textbook, etc. The detective comes back, is given one of the
collected objects, and is asked by one student:
Ist das dein Buch? (Is it your book?)
The student whether it is in fact his or not denies it by
indicating another female student out of the group:
Nein, das ist nicht mein Buch, vielleicht ihr
Buch.
(No, it is not my book, it is her book.)
The detective then asks the student indicated, and so on
round the group; at the end, he or she has to try to identify
who in fact was lying and who the owner of the object is.
Each member of the group has to take a turn to play the
detective and repeat step one.
The winner will be the person who found the owner of the
object within five minutes.
Source:
This game was adapted from the book Grammar practice

activities: A practical guide for teachers (Ur, 1988, p. 226).
298
Game 13
Grammar letters
Grammar :
To use of the possessive adjectives to indicate possession
Function :
Asking and answering.
Skills :
Listening, speaking, reading and writing
Groups
Time :
50 minutes
Preparation :
A letter to the students, taken directly from the textbook

Passwort Deutsch, Stufe I (p. 40)
Family photo of students will be collected.
Procedure :
Ask students to open page 40 of their textbook Passwort

Deutsch, Stufe I and allow time for them to read the letter.
The teacher helps with vocabulary or grammar problems
including reinforcing the written grammar presentation in the
letter. Tell the students that the sample letter gives them all
the grammar they need in order to reply.
Four group members choose one of their family photos and
try to find out the relationship between people in the photo
with the owner of the family photo. They should ask by
using the question Wer ist das? (Who is it?) The owner has
to give an answer by saying Das ist meine Onkel. (This is
my uncle.) Other members of group may ask more questions
of the person they are interested in, e.g.
Wie alt ist er? (How old is he?)
Wie gro ist er? (How tall is he?)
Ask each student to write a letter to a German penfriend
about himself and his family.
Collect the letters in the next class. Pick out a few of the
most interesting ones in terms of human content and
grammar errors. Photocopy these for the whole group.
Give the class copies of the letters you have chosen to
highlight. Let them read them, enjoying them for content.
Then go through the main grammar difficulties.
This game was adapted from the game Grammar letter collected in book More
Grammar Games: Cognitive, affective and movement activities for EFL students
(Rinvolucri & Davis, 1995, p. 92).
299
APPENDIX I
Extra Students Comments

from Focus Group Interviews
300
5.1 The Experimental Groups Positive Responses to Grammar Classes Where

Games were Used
a) Students level of satisfaction with their teacher:
Although her teaching approach was much the same as my English
teachers approaches in the junior high school, she tried to explain the
rules as clearly as possible. I like the way she explains the
grammatical rules step by step from simple units to the
completed sentence structure. This really helped me understand
German grammar better. (S9)
I benefited a lot in this way. The teacher stated the grammatical
rules at the beginning of the lessons; we are supposed to have an
overview of the explicit information about the rules. Then, we
might be able to work on a series of exercises [games], which
improved my understanding of the taught grammar. I think its a
good way to learn German grammar. (S5)
b) Students level of satisfaction with the type of grammar practice through
communicative, interactive games
I thought the hands-on approach to the lecture was wonderful. I will
keep what I have learned with your interactive learning approach. I
can retain more information with hands-on vs. formal lecture. (S1)
I have learned to speak German more freely, and my expression or
communicative ability has also been enhanced. I thought that I
applied what I have newly learned to real life communication with
each other and elicited information that I needed. Practising my
grammar contributed to my success in the learning of German and
also strengthened my interest. (S7)
c) Students level of satisfaction with the teaching approach through
increased student-student interaction, peer support and encouragement in
games:
Supportive classroom atmosphere
In that way, I mean, we could check the answers by ourselves or you
could also get the support from your group members or the teacher.
I felt more confident to apply the grammar and use German. That
encouraged me to study harder. And my German ability is
improving, I thought. (S11)
I am very shy because my German is not good. However, I have to
work with my classmates in groups. In small-group interaction time,
I become more cooperative with my classmates because they would
301
encourage me to study. I can still remember that time; they

encouraged (in forced tone) me to raise my hand to answer a
teachers question in order to earn points for my group. And this is
the first time I speak German in front of the whole class. I am happy
to get one point for my group. I finally realised I can also succeed if I
study hard. I feel I am motivated to study German. Although I am
still passive, I wont be so scared to work with my classmates as
before. I appreciated my group members very much. (S8)
At first, I hated to attend German grammar class because my German
is so poor. But now I like German better because German classes
are fun and I have several nice, helpful group members who are really
concerned about me. Its good to have learning partners. (S2)
I felt more encouraged to speak in class. I think I have become
more fluent and more competent at expressing myself.
I felt less
nervous because I knew I was not alone in the class. I felt more
encouraged to talk, to explore and even to make mistakes. (S6)
I usually ask my classmates instead of the teacher. Sometimes, I
could understand their answers or explanations better. (S4)
Classroom cohesion
By playing games, I got to know students in class, who I did not
know before. Group members share happiness and sorrow together,
and I like this sense of belonging. (S7)
If I have any problems, my group members would teach me or they
would correct my mistakes immediately. Besides, through games,
we have more chances to get to know each other, to learn together,
and share learning experiencese.g. Stefan taught and told me how
to learn definite articles. (S7)
d) Increased students motivation as a result of the use of games:
I like to learn German through games. Sometimes, I am looking
forward to playing games. While playing games, our responses and
actions are forced to become faster than usual. If you want to win,
you have to concentrate in class. So I can concentrate harder in
class and its impossible for me to doze off during the games. (S12)
I enjoyed the games. It was such an exciting alternative to the
lecture. Not that lecture is all bad, but the games break the simple
monotony of it. (S2)
I thought the games were interesting. I found that I absorbed
information more when I enjoy learning it, and the games were a big
help. To learn grammar through games was easier and more fun to
learn. It made the class go by quicker. (S8)
For me, it is more interesting to play games than sitting at the desk
and listening to the teacher alone. I wish that the teacher would
include more games in the grammar class. (S5)
5.2 Unfavourable Responses of the Experimental Group to the Grammar Classes
302
where Games were Used.

a) Students problems regarding the organization of games:
Playing games did not make all students look forward to every class
time. We are accustomed to teacher-fronted lessons. This time we
have the chance to sit in a group. Some students just use the
opportunity to talk. They did not really become involved in the
games. (S9)
It is true. I got wonderful experiences at that game Match game.
I was in the group with Stefan, Verona, and Manfred. All of us
participated actively in the game. We trained each other to
pronounce the new words We created our rules to play games.
It was a lot of fun and learned the words better. But you are not
lucky every time to have such wonderful partners to work with. So,
it might be a good idea to choose our partners by ourselves. (S7)
b) Request for more games:
I am often able to finish the games rapidly. Sometimes, I have a
greater opportunity to move off-task. Therefore, the grammar
classes would work better if the teacher prepared more games for the
same context. Then, we would be able to practise more and get
more familiar with the newly learned grammar. That may make the
learning of grammar more effective. (S9)
c) Usefulness of group work:
I recognized that sometimes it is better to play with different people.
You have more opportunity to work with different people. Its also
a challenge more fun. It was not an issue any more as it was at
the beginning of the semester. (S7)
5.3 Experimental Students Attitude Towards the Role of Grammar
in a Second Language.
a) Students perceptions of the role of grammar in their learning of a Second
Language:
Learning a foreign language is different from learning a native
language; it is just necessary and natural to learn grammar. (S7)
We are not German and we are not learning German in Germany.
We are learning German here in Taiwan. We are unable to have
exposure to it and are therefore not used to it. In Germany, they
dont need to learn the grammar of their native language. Similarly,
we dont learn grammar of Chinese, but we still can use Chinese
naturally and fluentlybecause we are exposed to it and are used to it.
303
So, if we want to master a foreign language, it is important to learn

grammar. (S1)
I am aware that German is very different from Chinese. It is an
alphabetic language, like English They belong to the same
language family. And Chinese is a character-based language. If
we didnt study the grammar, how would I know how to make a
meaningful sentence? We would encounter similar problems when
we started to learn English. That is why it is necessary to study
grammar. Then, with knowledge of grammar, I can understand what
I read. I can build up correct sentences and write. (S5)
b) Students perceptions of the purposes of grammar instruction:
The primary purpose of learning German grammar is for good
conversational skills. Grammar should be used to gain a better
command of speaking and writing skills. I would be unable to read
German texts or understand dialogues in German, if I did not study
German grammar. (S1)
I dont think it is a good idea that the teachers spend most of time
talking about grammar or leading students to do a lot of form-based,
fill-in-the blank exercises. They might select relevant reading texts
or dialogues. So we have ideas about how to apply or practise the
grammatical rules and improve our reading, writing, listening, and
speaking skills. (S12)
c) Students preference for the current grammar instruction
approach:
It was impressive that the teacher taught the definite articles and
pronouns. Then we read the text about the German cities. Through
reading, I understood the rules better and also got to learn about some
German cities. I saw that German could be useful. I know I will
be able to read German if I study it. (S6)
I like the grammar instruction provided in my grammar class a lot
because I basically think that students in any grammar class should
practise grammar both through grammar exercises and through
applied communicative activities, like language games in class after
getting instruction on any specific grammar point. The grammar
practice activities, I mean, both the exercises in the handouts and
communicative grammar practice activities, were helpful for my
acquisition of grammar. (S10)
d) Students preference for communicative grammar teaching

approach/activities:
304
The grammatical knowledge has to be practised and used. Perhaps

at first students only have the knowledge and cannot use it, but after
receiving guidance and instruction from the teacher, they start using it
and expressing themselves better.
So, more interactive or
communicative activities should be integrated into grammar teaching.
Language games can be one of the most interesting communicative
activities for practising the learned grammar. (S3)
Grammar should be used in real life situations either through
speaking or through writing after being taught the rules. Thus, the
way, I think, the teacher taught for the last semester is not bad for the
learning of German grammar. The teacher explained grammar
points in focus by giving many meaningful example sentences, and by
referring many times to the handout charts where the grammar points
in focus were explained and how the grammar points can be used.
The teacher, then, prepared useful communicative speaking activities
or writing activities, I mean, language for us to practice already
learned grammar. I think, this grammar instruction is helpful for the
learning of the grammar. (S9)
5.4 The Control Groups Positive Responses to the Grammar Classes.
a) Students level of satisfaction with the grammar teacher:
[The teacher] was really keen on teaching us. [She was] very
positive and encouraging. She was definitely charismatic the
teacher worked hard and was very supportive. She always explained
or answered every very basic, easy, and trivial question from her
students, and helped the students to do their job better in class by
acting as a helper or facilitator instead of a controller. (S1)
I liked the grammar class a lot because I was able to ask the teacher
about any grammatical points that she had taught in class, and the
teacher herself assumed those learning processes to be natural and
responded to my questions in a very welcoming manner. (S6)
b) Students level of satisfaction with the grammar teaching approach:
I liked the approach that the teacher used to teach grammar. She
explained the rules by demonstrating the structure on the blackboard
and giving examples. (S2)
The deductive grammar presentation method from my teachers part
was not bad. She did a good job the way she introduced the
grammar enhanced my understanding of German language. She
explained in detail the forms and the ways these grammar items are
used. During these grammar explanations, the teacher enriched her
explanations with lots of model sentences showing how those
grammatical items work in a sentence. This process was quite
helpful when it came to improving my grammar. (S11)
Which textbook is used in any grammar class is very important. I
was unable to study German grammar with the textbook alone. It
305
was not easy for a beginning learner to find grammar points by

him/herself. To this point, [the teachers] systematic organization
and presentation of any grammar point and intensive exercises on that
grammar in the chosen textbook really helped us to understand
German grammar. I was satisfied with my teacher because she did
her job well. (S8)
The benefits of handouts:
I appreciated the teacher very much.
She planned all the
grammatical features and organized them systematically in the
handouts. The handouts helped me a lot in the understanding
German grammatical rules. (S13)
Finally, I could understand why the teacher was proud of her
handouts. With her handouts, she explained each grammar point
very clearly by using simple language, step by step. In this way, I
was able to get an overview of the explicit information about the rules.
It was not as difficult to understand German grammar as I had
thought at the beginning of the semester. I could get good grades if I
concentrated on the lessons and reviewed the handouts and text
exercises. (S5)
5.5 Unfavourable Responses of the Control Group to the Grammar Classes
a) Students comments on the type of grammar practice:
I think that a grammar instruction where a teacher teaches first the
grammar rules and then students do exercises in a textbook is not
adequate for improving the students grammar. Instead, I really love
grammar instruction where the teacher gives lots of example
sentences about grammar while teaching the rules and after that, lots
of communicative grammar practice activities. (S1)
In addition to the exercises prepared by the teacher in the handouts,
the main focus practice activities were doing textbook exercises in
class or as homework. In these parts of the lessons, I did not have
any interest at all. Of course, I hardly benefited from the classes.
First of all, the textbook exercises were all grammar-based, they were
fill-in-the blanks, multiple choices, circle the correct answer. You
can do it by yourself since you can find the answers at the end of the
course book. Why should we sit in class and read the answers
together? (S4)
b) Students comments on the paucity of teacher-student and student-student

interaction:
Of course, we could practise our grammar through textbook exercises
by filling in the blanks. But it was so boring to fill in the blanks or
306
to circle the correct answer in class. You just sat there. Nobody,
not even the teacher would notice whether or not you read the
answers from the exercises. No interaction. It was easy to be
absent-minded. And I often told myself, its OK, I might find the
answers by myself after class! (S12)
It was not a problem for me to learn the grammar since the teacher
introduced grammar clearly. It wasnt a problem to do textbook
exercises or pass the grammar examination. But I am seriously
concerned that I am unable to check grammar use myself and
understand its use. In her teaching approach, she lacked of grammar
practice activities, I mean, communicative grammar practice activities
which would enable us to use grammar we had learned in class.
(S9)
c) Classroom boredom:
I did not like the classroom atmosphere. I could not understand why
so many classmates fell asleep in the German grammar course. Its
very impolite to the teacher. But some weeks later, I began to
understand why it is so. The teacher talks and talks. I quite
understand she tries very hard to explain the rules and sentences as
clearly as possible. But she talks too much. Many of us used to
doze off when the teacher talked for more than twenty minutes. (S8)
I did not like my German class because all the activities given out in
the class were the same every time, and I felt that the class was boring.
Why couldnt we play language games to learn German grammar like
the other class? I hated to hear when the other class played and
laughed. Why did the teacher treat us differently from the other
class? (S7)
d) Unsupportive and uncomfortable learning classroom atmosphere:
Actually, I did not have any difficulties interacting with the teacher or
my classmates at the beginning of the semester. I think that it was
reasonable for me to ask for clarification or to answer any questions
which were posed by the teacher. I needed more opportunity to
practise German. However, in such a classroom atmosphere, I dared
not ask or answer any questions because my classmates would think
that I was trying to show off. I wanted to be a friend of the class.
So, I did the same as most students did [sat still and listened]. (S9)
I never asked my teacher any questions, especially in class. I would
not ask my classmates next to me, either. I was afraid that the
teacher would think that we are chatting. Furthermore, the class was
so quiet. So, I could do nothing, but sit still. Once the problem
cannot be solved, it will bother me all the time. Then, I could not
concentrate. (S10)
I could not get support from my classmates. I asked my classmates
questions instead of the teacher, if I had questions. But they implied
that we should discuss these later on after classes, not in class. You
307
have more questions until the class is finished. I was getting

frustrated I feel rejected by my classmates. I felt that it was
getting more difficult to ask them after the class. (S4)
She [the teacher] is friendly and nice. She encouraged us very often
to participate actively in the learning process. But we did not know
how. She asked us if we had any questions or whether we
understood what she said. I am too shy or I should say I am afraid to
ask my teacher any questions. I used to keep all the questions in my
mind until I was overwhelmed. It seemed that all the students,
except me, understood everything the teacher said. (S3)
e) Recommendations offered:
What would have been more successful is if the teacher had focused
on teaching us the basics, as well as creating situations where we
would be forced to speak the language to find our way around or to
ask for help. (S6)
Of course, we could practise our grammar through textbook exercises
by filling in the blanks. But it was so boring to fill in the blanks or
to circle the correct answer in class. You just sat there. Nobody,
not even the teacher would notice whether or not you read the
answers from the exercises. No interaction. It was easy to be
absent-minded. And I often told myself, its OK, I might find the
answers by myself after class! (S12)
5.6 Control Students Attitude towards the Role of Grammar in Learning
a Second Language.
a) Students perceptions of the role of grammar in their learning of a Second
Language:
I may not able to use German correctly in communication, either
orally or in writing, if I am just exposed to German without any
grammar instruction. (S1)
I think teachers should teach grammar because it is difficult for us to
learn some structures or patterns after reading or hearing them many
times. (S3)
Grammatical knowledge enables students to understand more
complicated sentences and reading materials, work out
comprehensible writing, and express ourselves more clearly. (S8)
b) Students preference for communicative grammar teaching
approach/activities:
Grammar instruction should not occupy most of the class time. The
classes will turn out to be very boring. Teachers should plan some
308
communicative and interactive activities, either in small groups or

pairs. (S6)
Teachers should also be concerned about whether students achieve
accuracy and fluency in German. Emphasizing the grammatical
rules and sentence structures alone often frustrates students in
learning. We need fresh air, I mean, a comfortable or happy
atmosphere. We need more grammar activities, either in oral or in
writing, where we may practise the German grammar taught in the
classes. We need practice and practice. (S3)
We are often trained to practise various grammatical drills and to
memorize exceptional rules and then to take sample tests. It seems
that we can successfully pass the examinations. However, such
mechanical exercises often kill our interest and motivation in learning
a foreign language. (S9)
I think teachers should plan lots of challenging, interesting and
innovative grammar learning activities to sustain the students
motivation to learn grammar. Teachers may use the computer lab
more or use lots of educational media like video to teach grammar
and to increase students motivation to learn. (S5)
And fun. Most of grammar classes are very monotonous and boring.
Sometimes, you just feel tired. It is easy to lose your interestand
later on you dont have the motivation to study further. Once you
lost your interest, you wont study hard, even though you are aware
how important the learning of grammar really is. (S7)
I also think that German is learned best in the most interesting and
engaging way where students are dedicated to the learning process
itself. And so giving students very interesting tasks where the
students learn German grammar is a very good way for us to
remember the grammar points later on. I like to learn in a small
group because I feel freer to interact with my classmates or even with
teachers. So, I think that our teacher used language games in the
grammar classes. Its not a bad idea. (S8)

02 Whole

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Whole

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Whole

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECTS OF GAMES ON THE ACQUISITION OF SOME

GRAMMATICAL FEATURES OF L2 GERMAN

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

Australian Catholic University

This thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................... .7

2.8 Advantages of Learning through Games in the Language Classroom...............39

CHAPTER 3: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........................ 56

CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS .................85

CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE RESULTS...................................................169

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS,

Individual Demographic Information .......................................

Questionnaire on Classroom Atmosphere ....................................247

Questionnaire on the Two Types of Grammatical Practice ...........252

Questionnaire on the Role of Grammar and Grammar

Focus Group Interview Questions ................................................258

Appendix G Teaching Program..........................................................................260

Language Games Used in the Study..267

Extra Students Comments from Focus Group Interviews.299

Studies of Language Games in L2 Acquisition..........................................................29

Students Demographic Information ...........................................................................60

Distribution of Students According to their Entrance Performance in English

Date Collection ..........................................................................................................64

Questionnaire on Motivation: Items Employed to Assess Three Factors of

Classroom Atmosphere Scale: Items Employed to Assess Four Factors of

Overview of Data Collection .....................................................................................73

Overview of Data Collection (Continued).74

The Games Used in the Study81

The Games Used in the Study (Continued) ...............................................................82

Mean Total Scores of Entrance Examination in the Experimental and

Mean English Score of the Entrance Examination in the Experimental

Results for English as a Second Language in the Three language Levels of

ANOVA Results of Pre-test for English as a Second Language in the Three

Results for English as a Second Language in the Three Language Levels of

ANOVA Results of Pre-test for English as a Foreign Language in the Three

Mean Score of English in Entrance Examination among Three Language Level

Two-way Mix Factor Model ANOVA Test of Main Effects ....................................... 90

Results of Post-Tests of the Experimental Language Levels...................................... 92

ANOVA Results of Post-Tests of the Experimental Language Levels ....................... 92

Results of Post-Test for the Control Levels ................................................................ 93

ANOVA Results of Post-Tests of the Control Levels ................................................. 93

Post-treatment t -Test for the Outcomes of both Groups ............................................ 94

Students Reponses towards the Type of Grammar-Practice .....................................151

Students Reponses towards the Type of Grammar-Practice (Continued).................152

Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction ................159

Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction (Continued)

Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction

Students Perceptions of the Role of Grammar and Grammar Instruction

A Three-Dimensional Grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 2001, p.252)..11

Language games, Learning Theory and Learning Outcomes32

Research Design of the Experiment...58

Group Means on the Grammar Accuracy by the Three Language Levels in

The Development of the Motivation Factor Enjoyment in both Groups .....................103

The Development of the Motivational Factor Effort in Both Groups..........................104

The Development of the Motivation Factor Capability in both Groups......................106

Overall Changes in Motivation in both Groups ..........................................................107

The Change of the Motivational Factor Enjoyment in both Groups ..........................114

The Change of the Motivational Factor Effort in both Groups ...................................115