Descriptive quantitative study examines students' perceptions of a team game tournament approach in English instruction, suggesting its potential benefits.
The increasing demand for interactive English instruction in vocational schools is often constrained by limited resources and unequal access to digital tools. This study investigated vocational high school students’ perceptions of the Team Game Tournament (TGT) as a conventional non-digital strategy in English instruction. A descriptive quantitative design was used to examine students’ responses after TGT classroom activities. Participants were 32 tenth-grade students in the Fashion Design program at a vocational high school in East Java, Indonesia. Total sampling was applied because all students received the same treatment. Data were collected through a closed-ended questionnaire with 15 items using a four-point Likert scale. The instrument measured perceptions of interest, motivation, vocabulary learning, collaboration, effectiveness, and learning difficulty. Data were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, and mean scores. Findings showed that students generally perceived TGT positively. High mean scores appeared in learning stimulation, teamwork, classroom interest, and overall usefulness. Students reported that TGT encouraged participation, improved collaboration, and made learning more enjoyable. Negative perceptions regarding complexity, time management, competitive pressure, and mismatch with learning preferences were relatively low. A consistency analysis comparing paired positive and negative items indicated coherent response patterns, supporting data credibility. However, results reflect perceptions only and should not be interpreted as direct evidence of effectiveness in real classrooms. These findings suggest that TGT can serve as a low-cost and engaging alternative for vocational English classrooms, particularly in schools with limited digital infrastructure. Future studies should examine long-term effects of TGT on language achievement and motivation across broader contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karima et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: