study on the development of oral proficiency in efl learners under call model zheng yurong harbin...
TRANSCRIPT
Study on the Development of Oral Proficiency
in EFL Learners Under CALL Model
Zheng YurongHarbin Engineering University
Outline of the paper
Introduction Literature Review and Research
Questions Empirical study Discussions and Pedagogical
implications Conclusion
1. Introduction
International and domestic demands for university graduates;
College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR) (Ministry of Education, 2004);
A gateway to the breakthrough of oral English teaching .
2. Literature Review
Definition: Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) refers to “any process in which a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language” . (Beatty, 2005: 7)
Other related terms: CAI, CMC, CAT
2. Literature Review
Positive attitudes towards computer technology being used in the classroom and positive impact (Warden, 1995; Chen, 1988; Nash et al., 1989; Brady, 1990; Herrmann, 1987; Johnson, 1988; Phinney & Mathis, 1988).
Vocabulary learning (Liu, 1992) Grammar learning (Nutta,1998) Automatic Speech Recognition in teaching pronunciati
on(Dalby and Kewley-Port1999)
2. Research Questions
Can CALL model facilitate oral proficiency of EFL learners?
In which way is the facilitating effect obvious?
What kind of pedagogical implications can be found from their oral proficiency development?
3.Empirical Study
3.1 Subjects 67 non-English majors (26 females
and 41 males)
3.2 About the Courseware
Interactive interface involving listening, imitation and role-play;
Simulation of real situation( functional modular) ;
Speech recognition technology; Presenting in a game-like way.
3.3 Procedures
Longitudinal study: 10 months Pre-tests : Courseware placement test---Level
One Oral proficiency test--- 9-10 of 15. Post-tests: Recording and transcription Questionnaires
3.4 Instruments
Oral elicitation material--Comedy strip
Recording and transcription Oral proficiency indices Questionnaires SPSS12.0
Proficiency Indices
Temporal 1. mean length of runs (MLR) 2. average length of pauses (ALP) Linguistic 1. ratio of error-free T-units (REFT) 2. mean length of C-units after pruning
(MLCP) Performing 1. ratio of reformulation and replacement to
total repairs (RRR) 2. ratio of inaccurate pronunciation to
accurate pronunciation (RIP)(Zhang,2002)
Calculation of the Each Index
MLR=the total number of syllables/the total number of pauses ALP = the total amount of pause time/total number of pauses. REFT=the total number of error-free T-units /total number of T-u
nits. MLCP= the total number of words (after pruning) / total number
of c-units. RRR= the total number of reformulation and replacement / the tot
al number of repairs. RIP= the total number of incorrectly pronounced words/ total num
ber of correctly pronounced words
4.Findings and discussions
Students’ oral proficiency is closely related to the attainments (Levels and units) obtained in the courseware.
(p≤0.05 ) Students’ reaction to the
courseware is positive.
Post-test Students’ attainments in the courseware
7%
27% 25%31%
9%0%
50%
100%
Level2
Level3
Level4
Level5
Level6
Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 6
Post-test Students’ attainments in the oral test
20.4
10
37 39
10
0102030405060708090
100
8 9 10 11 above
891011above
Questionnaire Results
Stability of the courseware 68.77%; Design pattern of the courseware
92.39%; User-friendliness 93.86%; Interest-provoking 82.52%; Individuality 76.22%; Effectiveness on listening 66.99%; Effectiveness on speaking 71.17%;
Indices for Oral Proficiency
Top Group(27
subjects)
Bottom Group
(23 subjects)
Mean
SD Mean SD
1. mean length of runs (MLR) 6.81 1.23 4.07 2.07
2. average length of pauses (ALP)
0.79 0.76 2.02 1.12
3. ratio of error-free T-units (REFT)
0.34 0.12 0.31 0.97
4. mean length of C-units after pruning (MLCP)
9.49 1.87 8.17 2.79
5. ratio of reformulation and replacement to total repairs (RRR)
0.43 0.55 0.67 0.70
6. ratio of inaccurate pronunciation to accurate pronunciation (RIP)
0.058 0.049 0.059 0.078
Discussions
Exposure to CALL programs have improved students’ fluency considerably.
Students’ accuracy didn’t show much improvement after the exposure to CALL programs.
Pedagogical Implications
CALL courseware could, if applied properly, improve students’ oral proficiency to certain extent.
In face-to-face teaching, there should be a place for focus on forms.
Students’ autonomous learning could be facilitated by teacher’s prompt coaching.
The innovative and interactive interface should be enhanced.
Limitation of this research
Multiple variables Authentic test Shorter duration Small samples
Conclusion
Future developments in networked communication, multimedia, and artificial intelligence will likely create a potentially more central role for the computer as a tool for authentic language exploration and use in the second language classroom.
Strategy-training/inputting Individualized tutoring
