Proposal presentation v2 1020107
Transcript of Proposal presentation v2 1020107
Presenter: Sze-Chu Liu
Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu
Date: January 7, 2013
Outline
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Proposal Presentation 2
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Purposes of the Study
Research Question
Definition of the Terms
Proposal Presentation 3
Background of the StudyA report recently released shows that the
proficiency of English of Taiwan adults is ranked 30 and categorized into “intermediate-low level”, falling behind neighboring countries such as Japan and Korea.
(Education First, 2012)
Proposal Presentation 4
Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this study is to evaluate
the effectiveness of computer-assisted pronunciation training in English for vocational college students in Taiwan, evaluating the improvement of pronunciation quality.
Proposal Presentation 5
Research QuestionAre computer-assisted pronunciation
training tools effective in improving pronunciation quality for vocational college students?
Proposal Presentation 6
Definition of the TermsCAPT = Computer Assisted Pronunciation
Training
CALL = Computer Assisted Language Learning
Proposal Presentation 7
Literature ReviewAn important tenet of structural
linguistics was that the primary medium of language is oral: Speech is language.
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001:p.55)
Proposal Presentation 8
Literature Review The areas where CALL-based pedagogy outpaces
conventional materials are in the provision of: individual plans
anywhere / anytime instruction
patient tutoring
a private space to make mistakes
immediate, individualized instruction
detailed records of achievement
self-paced learning.
(Nunan, 2011:p.216)
Proposal Presentation 9
Literature ReviewNeri et al. (2008) A CAPT system is used to teach a group of 11-year-old
native Italian children in English as a foreign language.
The improvement made by experimental group and control group was comparable.
The time used by experimental group is half of control group.
Teaching with CAPT helped experimental group improve their pronunciation of difficult and unknownwords significantly.
Proposal Presentation 10
Literature ReviewHardison (2004) A CAPT tool with automatic feedback of the speaker’s
intonation in form of filtered oscillograms on computer screen is used.
Experimental results revealed significant effects of computer-assisted training in the acquisition of second laguage prosody and generalization to segmental accuracy and novel sentences.
A real-time visual display received positive comments from participants.
Proposal Presentation 11
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Research Design
Instruments
Procedures
Pilot Study
Statistical AnalysisProposal Presentation 12
ParticipantsExperimental
GroupControl Group
ParticipantsSecond-year students in a vocational
university
Numbers 45 45
Sampling
Ranked and listed according to
their averaged scores of first-year
General English courses
Systematic sample with a random
start combined with stratification
from the middle 60%Proposal Presentation 13
Research Design
Proposal Presentation 14
Instruments
MyET
Proposal Presentation 15
Procedures
Proposal Presentation 16
Pre-testTraining
ProcedurePost-test
Training Procedure
Proposal Presentation 17
Experimental
GroupControl Group
Teacher Taught by the same teacher
Syllabus Elementary level oral practice
Period One session per week for 12 weeks
Sampling
Blended
teaching with
CAPT
40 minutes
teach-led
40 minutes
with CAPT
Traditional
teaching
80 minutes per
session
Rating Procedure
Sentence#1
Sentence #2
Sentence #50
S2S1 S90
Audio file #1
Audio file #2
Audio file #50
The pronunciation quality of each utterance is scored on a 100-point scale.
Rating Procedure
Proposal Presentation 19
Pilot StudyTwo small groups of students with similar
demographic background will be studied in the pilot study.
Proposal Presentation 20
Statistical AnalysisCronbach alpha test On the scores given by three raters and MyET
To test the reliability of measurements
ANOVA (F-test) On the pretest and posttest scores
To examine the difference of teaching effectiveness between experimental groups and control groups
Proposal Presentation 21