Improve the first-Year students’ english speaking performance at thai nguyen university of agriculture and forestry through language games

r elementary to middle-school-aged 
children, because at this age, they do not think 
it is childish to play games. 
Games in the language classroom can help to 
involve learners actively in the learning 
process, provide a challenge which 
encourages learners to stretch themselves, 
help learners to forget they are studying: they 
lose themselves in the fun of the game and the 
activity motivates them, encourage 
collaborative learning, provide variety of 
pace, give extra practice without inducing 
boredom [2]. 
Using games, the students became more 
interested, actively involved and motivated in 
the learning activities. Games also help the 
students in building a good relationship with 
their friends as well as increasing their 
achievement in learning English [3]. Games 
can be a very useful teaching technique for 
the effective and joyful learning. Games are 
also believed to give the positive effect on the 
students’ interest and motivation in studying 
English as well as to increase their speaking 
ability. Games are viable method to achieve 
many educational objectives such as 
reinforcement, review, reward, relax, 
inhibition, reduction, attentiveness, retention 
and motivation [4]. The value of language 
games lies not only in the great number of 
games that have been invented or in the 
variety of levels they serve but in the useful 
and purposeful language practice they 
provide. That is why teachers should make 
optimal use of games in their language 
teaching to increase students’ work and 
motivation and to offer them meaningful 
practice. Provided that teachers can select or 
design and organize good games in terms of 
language and type of participation, they will 
achieve these worthy aims. This study 
therefore was conducted to find out the 
effectiveness of using language games in 
developing speaking skills for first-year 
students at Thai Nguyen University of 
Agriculture and Forestry (TUAF). 
2. Subjects and research methodology 
This study utilizes the quasi experimental 
design. Two groups composed of 60 students 
were used as the respondents of this study. 
They were purposively selected based on their 
mental ability, age and gender. They are 
divided into two groups: experimental and 
control groups of 30 students each. The 
Nguyen Lan Huong et al TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 51 - 55 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 53 
control group was taught with traditional 
method while the experimental group was 
given lessons using language games 
approach. The two groups were evaluated at 
the beginning (pre-test) and at the end (post-
test) of the lessons to find out the significant 
difference of two methods on the 
achievements of the students. The difference 
between the mean score of the two groups 
was then computed and tested for 
significance. 
The data collection instruments of this study 
were questionnaires and observation. During 
the process of working on the research, the 
researchers spent time on observing the 
students’ attitudes towards learning. The 
questionnaires were designed for distribution 
to students for the research. In combination 
with the ones mentioned above, the pre-test 
and post- tests were administered to measure 
the ability of the students before and after the 
lessons. Tests are categorized into five areas: 
grammar, vocabulary, intonation, stress as 
well as pronunciation. 
Legend: 
Marks Description (VI) 
9-10 Excellent 
7-8 Good 
5-6 Fair 
1-4 Poor 
3. Findings and discussion 
3.1. Mean performance in pre-test & post-
test mean scores of the control and the 
experimental groups 
As shown in table 1, the pre-test mean scores 
of 1.43, SD= 0.41 and 1.30, SD= 0.45, 
indicates that the grammar and pronunciation 
with verbal interpretation of good, while the 
pre- test mean scores of 1.06, SD=0.40, 0.82, 
SD= 0.28 and 0.89, SD= 0.25, reveals that the 
vocabulary, intonation and stress has rated as 
fair. The mean post-test scores of 1.65, 
SD=0.31 and 1.55, SD= 0.40 reveals that the 
grammar and pronunciation was rated as 
excellent and the post-test mean score of 1.42, 
SD= .35 respectively was “good”. 
With regard to the control group, pre-test and 
post-test it revealed that the mean scores of 
1.3, SD=0.35 and 1.16, SD= 0.34 
respectively was “good” while the mean 
scores of 1.35, SD= 0.28, .75, SD= 0.21 and 
0.81, SD= 0.24, .36 was rated as “fair” 
while the post-test, the mean of 1.38, SD= 
0.39, - 1.27, SD= 0.37, 1.06, SD=0.27 
respectively as good and the mean of 0.97, 
SD=0.21 rated as the stress as “fair”. 
The average mean of 1.098, SD= 0.35 and 
1.4, SD= 0.35 reveals that the mean 
performance in the pre-test and the post-test 
mean scores of the experimental group was 
good while the average are 0.944, SD= 0.284 
and 1.24, SD= 0.294 reveals that the pre-test 
and the post-test mean scores was good. 
Table 1. Mean Performance in the Pre-test and Post-test of the Experimental and Control Groups 
Speaking Skills 
Experimental Group Control Group 
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test 
X SD VI X SD VI X SD VI X SD VI 
Grammar 1.43 0.41 G 1.65 0.31 E 1.3 0.35 G 1.52 0.36 E 
Pronunciation 1.30 0.45 G 1.55 0.40 E 1.16 0.34 G 1.38 0.39 G 
Vocabulary 1.06 0.40 F 1.42 0.35 G 0.95 0.28 F 1.27 0.32 G 
Intonation 0.82 0.28 F 1.20 0.35 G 0.75 0.21 F 1.06 0.27 G 
Stress 0.89 0.25 F 1.18 0.34 G 0.81 0.24 F 0.97 0.21 F 
Average X 1.098 0.35 F 1.4 0.35 G 0.944 0.284 G 1.24 0.294 G 
Nguyen Lan Huong et al TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 51 - 55 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 54 
Legend: 
Mark Description 
2.0 Excellent 
1.5 Good 
1.0 Fair 
0.5 and below Fair 
3.2. Significance of the Difference in the Performance on the Pre-test 
Table 2. Test of difference between the Mean of Pre-test Scores 
of the Language Games and the Control Group 
Group Mean Var Df Q- stat P-Value VI 
Experimental 1.10 0.07 
9 0.41 0.54 Not Significant 
Controlled 1.002 0.05 
p>.05-not significant p< .05-significant 
Table 2 reveals the result of the one-way analysis of variance rendered to test the significance of 
the difference in the subjects’ performance on the pre-test. 
Results obtained show a computed t- value of 0.41 and a p-value of 0.54 which is greater than α= 
0.05 which led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in 
the subjects’ performance on the pre-test. This implies that as far as the pre-test results are 
concerned, there is no marked difference in the performance exhibited by the experimental and 
controlled groups. 
3.3. Significance of the Difference between the Mean Post-test Scores of the Language Games 
(experimental) and Control Group 
Table 3. Significant Difference between the mean Post test scores of the Experimental and Control group 
Group Mean Mean diff t-value P-Value VI 
Experimental 7 
8 2.08898 0.47 Significant 
Controlled 6.2 
p>.05-not significant p< .05-significant 
It can be seen from the table that the 
experimental and the control group have a 
mean score of 7 and 6.2 with a mean 
difference of .8. the computed t- value of -
2.08898 had p- value = 0.47 which is 
significant at .05 alpha level of significance 
The computed t- value of 2.08 and p-value of 
.047 which is less than α=0.05 led to the 
acceptance of the null hypothesis that there is 
a significant difference in the subjects’ 
performance on the post –test. This implies 
that as far as the post–test results are 
concerned, there is marked difference in the 
performance exhibited by the experimental 
and controlled group. It implies that the 
language game approach is better than the 
traditional approach in developing the 
speaking skills of the students. 
4. Conclusion and recommendations 
The results of the study indicate that the mean 
performance in the pre-test and post-test 
scores of both experimental and control group 
were “good”. There is no significant 
difference between the mean pre-test scores 
of the experimental and control group. But 
there is significant difference between the 
mean post-test scores of the experimental and 
the control group. 
Based on the results of the study, some 
recommendations are suggested. Firstly, the 
perceptions of the two groups of subjects did 
Nguyen Lan Huong et al TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 51 - 55 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 55 
not differ significantly on the speaking 
lessons given them. Studies of this kind in the 
future are encouraged to exhaust the 
possibility of utilizing a syndicated 
instrument if there is any or to make use of 
standardized forms. Secondly, the 
performance of the two groups of subjects did 
not differ significantly for both the pre-test and 
the post-test. This may be due to the fact that 
the approach was used only in the motivational 
strategy. Results would have been different if 
the lessons were designed to be totally 
different in a way that the experimental 
approach was used in all parts of the lesson 
and not just in a single phase. Studies of this 
kind are encouraged to take up this limitation 
in order to improve the results. Finally, more 
researches on using language games should be 
conducted to teach four skills (listening, 
speaking, reading and writing). 
REFERENCES 
[1]. Hayriye Kayi, “Activities to Promote 
Speaking in a Second Language”, the Internet 
TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No. 11, November 
2006. 
[2]. Clare Lavery, Language Assistant, British 
Council ELT, 2001. 
[3]. Hoang Tat Truong, Basic English lexicology, 
National University Publisher, Viet Nam, 2
nd
ed., 2000. 
[4]. Wright, Andrew et al., Games for Language 
Learning, Cambridge University Press, 4th, 
2004. 
Nguyen Lan Huong et al TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 51 - 55 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 56