Proposal rehearsal sze_chuliu 1021216(ver. 2.1)
description
Transcript of Proposal rehearsal sze_chuliu 1021216(ver. 2.1)
Effectiveness Evaluation ofLearning Pronunciation WithComputer Assisted Pronunciation Instruction forVocational College Students
Presenter: Sze-Chu LiuAdvisor: Dr. Po-Yi Hung
Committee: Dr. Chin-Ling LeeDr. Chin-Ying Lin
Date: December 31, 2013
Content
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
22013/12/31
INTRODUCTION
3
Introduction
Background of the Study
Purposes of the Study
Research Questions
Significance of the Study42013/12/31
Background of the Study
2013/12/31 5
(Education First, 2012)
EF English Proficiency Index 2012
Intermediate-low
30 ■ 台灣 52.42
Background of the Study
Region and
Country
Total Reading Listening Speaking Writing
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
Singapore 98 1 24 1 25 1 24 1 25 1
India 91 2 22 2 22 2 24 2 24 2
Republic of Korea 84 8 21 6 21 6 20 19 22 8
Taiwan 78 20 20 9 19 13 20 21 20 21
Japan 70 28 18 23 17 25 17 30 18 30
6(Educational Testing Service, 2013)
Global TOEFL Scores in 2012
2013/12/31
Overall National Comp. Uni-
versities
Private Comp. Universities
National Tech. Universities
Private Tech. Universities
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
557638
567507
434
Average Scores of 2011 TOEIC
Background of the study
7(ETS statistics, 2012)2013/12/31
Background of the study
Common among Asian learners of English
Grammar-Translation Method
Joint University Entrance Examination
8(Cappelle & Curtis, 2000; Jones, 1995;Lin, 1995)
Taiwanese’s poor English speaking skill
2013/12/31
Background of the study
Speaking ability was considered as the one that should be improved by 83.7% of the college students.
University students in higher classes perceived speaking skill as more important than reading.
Most of the college interviewees thought of “poor English pronunciation” as the common problems encountered during English learning.
92013/12/31
(Wang, 2003)
(Chia, Johnson, Chia, & Olive,1999)
(Wu, 2000)
Background of the Study
The importance of teaching pronunciation is emphasized by Audioligualism and Oral Approach.
2013/12/31 10
(Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 2010)
Background of the Study
Computer assisted language learning has attracted interest from language teachers and learners because it can provide individual instruction and immediate feedback on the correctness of a learner’s response to computerized tasks.
112013/12/31
(Nagata, 1993)
Background of the Study
In Taiwan, studies on the effectiveness of applying computer technology to teaching pronunciation have mostly focused on the learners in elementary schools and high schools.
Very few studies on applying computer technology to the pronunciation teaching of vocational college students are conducted.
2013/12/31 12
(Huang, 2003; Pang, 2005)
Purposes of the Study
To evaluate the effectiveness of learning English pronunciation with computer assisted pronunciation instruction for the students of private technological universities in Taiwan
To investigate the phonological awareness and perception of the participants on the usefulness of computer assisted pronunciation
132013/12/31
Research Questions
RQ1: Is computer assisted pronunciation instruction effective in improving pronunciation quality for students of private technological students?
RQ2: Are the students able to increase the awareness of the feature in their pronunciation after receiving computer assisted pronunciation instruction?
RQ3: Do the students think of computer assisted pronunciation instruction as useful tools to improve their pronunciation?
142013/12/31
Significance of the Study
To improve pronunciation
quality
To inspire passion of learning English
To enhance English
oral skills
15
Students of private
technological universities
ComputerAssisted
PronunciationInstruction
2013/12/31
LITERATURE REVIEW
16
Literature Review
Components of Teaching Pronunciation
Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training (CAPT)
Effectiveness of CAPT
Hypotheses
2013/12/31 17
Components of Teaching Pronunciation
An central idea of structural linguistics was that the primary medium of language is oral: “Speech is language.”
182013/12/31
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 55)
Components of Teaching Pronunciation
•Individual phones (phonemes)
Segmental
•Stress (force of articulation)
•Intonation (patterns of pitch on words or longer utterances)
•Rhythm(timing)
Suprasegmental
19
The aspects of teaching pronunciation
2013/12/31
Segmental features
Phonological errors were the most frequent and the most difficult parts to resolve in inter-language communication.
Adult Japanese learners of English improved their performance at both controlled-speech as well as extemporaneous-speech tasks after receiving explicit instruction on a target sound of English.
202013/12/31
(Jenkins, 2002)
(Saito and Lyster, 2012)
Suprasegmental features
Suprasegmental features (e.g., stress, intonation, rhythm) are the key factors of predicting speakers’ proficiency and comprehensibility.
The suprasegmental instruction seems to provide the learner with skills that can be applied in extemporaneous speech production.
212013/12/31
(Kang, Rubin, & Pickering, 2010)
(Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1998)
Balanced aspects
22
Segmental Supraegmental
(Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 2010; Derwing,
Munro, & Wiebe, 1998)2013/12/31
Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training (CAPT)
Self-paced learning
Patient tutoring
Immediate and individualized instruction
Detailed records of achievement
2013/12/31 23
(Nunan, 2011)
The advantages of computer-based pedagogy
Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training (CAPT)
24
Computer Assisted
Pronunciation Training (CAPT)
Exposure tooral demonstrations
Extension of the teacher’s speech in class
Virtual interaction with native speakers
(Derwing & Munro, 2005)2013/12/31
Effectiveness of CAPT
Pronunciation of difficult and unknown words was significantly improved after computer assisted pronunciation training.
Acquisition of second language prosody and generalization to segmental accuracy and novel sentences with automatic visual display of the speaker’s intonation was observed.
2013/12/31 25
(Neri et al., 2008)
(Hardison, 2004)
Hypotheses
2013/12/31 26
RQ1: Is computer assisted pronunciation instruction effective in improving pronunciation quality for students of private technological students?
H1: Pronunciation quality of students in a private technological university is significantly improved after computer assisted pronunciation training.
Hypotheses
2013/12/31 27
RQ2: Are the students able to increase the awareness of the feature in their pronunciation after receiving computer assisted pronunciation instruction?
H2: The students’ perception on phonological features is increased after a training course using computer assisted pronunciation instruction.
RQ2: Are the students able to increase the awareness of the feature in their pronunciation after receiving computer assisted pronunciation instruction?
H2: The students’ perception on phonological features is increased after using computer assisted pronunciation training.
Hypotheses
2013/12/31 28
RQ3: Do the students think of computer assisted pronunciation instruction as useful tools to improve their pronunciation?
H3: The students perceive computer assisted pronunciation instruction as a useful tool to improve their pronunciation after computer assisted pronunciation training.
Hypotheses
29
Learning Pronunciation
with CAPT
PronunciationQualityH1
PhonologicalAwareness
H2
Perception onUsefulness
H3
Framework of the Study
2013/12/31
METHODOLOGY
30
Methodology
31
Experimental Design
Participants
Instruments
Procedures
Pilot Study
Data Analysis
2013/12/31
Experimental Design
32
Experimental
GroupControlGroup
Pretest Pretest
12-week MyET No treatment
Posttest Posttest
Compare
Week 14
Week 1
Compare2013/12/31
Participants•No = 70•First-year in a
technological university•Aged 19•Below elementary-level
proficiency •Studied English for at
least 6 years•Chinese native
speakers
EFL Students
332013/12/31
Participants•No. = 3•Teach first-year
General English in the university
•At least 3 years of formal teaching experience
Teachers
342013/12/31
Participants•No. = 3•Expert
judges •To score the
productions of the participants in the pre- and post- tests
Raters
352013/12/31
Class A1
Class B1
Class C2
Participants
36
A LevelClass A3
Class A4
College 1 & 2 College 3 College 4
B Level Class B2
Class B3
Class B4
Class B5
Class B6
C Level Class C1 Class C3
Class A2
Class C4
Class A5
Class A6
Class B7
Class B8
Class C5
Class C6
Sampled
Sampling
2013/12/31
~50%
Participants
37
Class B2
Class B6
Class B7
Pretest
Pretest Scores
Matching
2013/12/31
Participants
38
Experimental Group Control Group
Class B2
Class B6
Class B7
Equal Pretest Score
Volunteers
Matching
2013/12/31
Instruments
MyET
392013/12/31
Instruments
Stage 1: Database
constructing
Stage 2: Phonic symbol labeling
Stage 3:
Pronunciation comparison
402013/12/31
The Scoring System in MyET
Instruments
•Personal information
Part 1
•Awareness of phonological features (8 items)
•Perceived usefulness (10 items)
Part 2
41
Questionnaire
(Hardison, 2005; Tanner & Landon, 2009)
2013/12/31
2013/12/31 42
2013/12/31 43
Procedures
2013/12/31 44
Pretest TrainingProcedure
Posttest
Training Procedure
Items Experiment group Control groupNumber of samples ~35 ~35
Profile •19-year-old Chinese native speakers •At least 6 years of EFL classes
Course General English (2-credit, 2 hrs/wk)Teacher Same teacher (pairwise)Material Same curriculum and material (pairwise)Teaching activities Same instruction (pairwise)
Treatment 40-minute extra practice per week learning with MyET No extra treatment
2013/12/31 45
Training procedure•12-week extra-
class learning sessions
•Tasks•Repeating (4
lessons)•Answering
questions (6 lessons)
•Reading aloud(2 lessons)
•Mock tests (8 times)
Learning with MyET
462013/12/31
Testing Procedure
47
Students hear:
Students speak and record:
An example item for MyET test
2013/12/31
Testing Procedure
Sentence#1
Sentence #2
Sentence #50
S2S1 S 50
Audio file #1
Audio file #2
Audio file #50
The pronunciation quality of each utterance is scored on a 100-point scale.
2013/12/31 48
Testing Procedure
49
Score
Waveform of teacher’s sound
Waveform of student’s sound
Score of MyET
Pronunciation
Intonation
Fluency
Volume
2013/12/31
Testing Procedure
Item PercentageIndividual sound quality 35%Intonation 25%Fluency 25%Volume 15%
50
Human rater’s score
2013/12/31
Pilot Study
Approximately 30 students
Take pretest provided by MyET
Respond to the questionnaire afterwards
Spring 2014
512013/12/31
Data Analysis
•To test the reliability of the scores given by three raters and MyET
•To test the reliability of the questionnaire
Cronbach’s α Test
•To examine the difference of pronunciation improvement•Between pre-
and post- tests
•Between the experimental and control groups
•Between overseas experience of different durations
ANOVA
(F-test)
522013/12/31
H1
Data Analysis
•On the questionnaire results
•To investigate the phonological awareness and perceived usefulness of the students
Descriptive Statistics
•To examine the relationship between phonological awareness, perceived usefulness and the improvement of pronunciation
Regression Analysis
532013/12/31
H2 H3
Thank you for listening!