This is rehearsal for thesis proposal, presented on Dec 16, 2013.

1. Effectiveness Evaluation of
Learning Pronunciation With
Computer Assisted Pronunciation
Instruction for
Vocational College Students
Presenter: Sze-Chu Liu
Advisor: Dr. Po-Yi Hung
Committee: Dr. Chin-Ling Lee
Dr. Chin-Ying Lin
Date: December 31, 2013

2. Content
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
2013/12/31
2

3. 3

4. Introduction
Background of the Study
Purposes of the Study
Research Questions
Significance of the Study
2013/12/31
4

5. Background of the Study
EF English Proficiency Index 2012
Intermediate-low
30
■ 台灣
52.42
(Education First, 2012)
2013/12/31
5

6. Background of the Study
Global TOEFL Scores in 2012
Total
Reading
Listening
Speaking
Writing
Region
and
Country
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
2013/12/31
(Educational Testing Service, 2013)
6

7. Background of the study
Average Scores of 2011 TOEIC
638
700
600
567
557
507
434
500
400
300
200
100
0
Overall
2013/12/31
(ETS statistics, 2012)
National
Comp.
Universities
Private
Comp.
Universities
National
Tech.
Universities
Private Tech.
Universities
7

8. Background of the study
Taiwanese’s poor English speaking skill
Common among Asian learners of English
Grammar-Translation Method
Joint University Entrance Examination
2013/12/31
(Cappelle & Curtis, 2000; Jones, 1995;Lin, 1995)
8

9. Background of the study
Speaking ability was considered as the one that
should be improved by 83.7% of the college students.
(Wang, 2003)
University students in higher classes perceived
speaking skill as more important than reading.
(Chia, Johnson, Chia, & Olive,1999)
Most of the college interviewees thought of “poor
English pronunciation” as the common problems
encountered during English learning.
(Wu, 2000)
2013/12/31
9

10. Background of the Study
The importance of teaching
pronunciation is emphasized
by Audioligualism and Oral
Approach. (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 2010)
2013/12/31
10

11. 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.
(Nagata, 1993)
2013/12/31
11

12. 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.
(Huang, 2003; Pang, 2005)
Very few studies on applying computer
technology to the pronunciation teaching of
vocational college students are conducted.
2013/12/31
12

13. 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
2013/12/31
13

14. 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?
2013/12/31
14

15. Significance of the Study
Students of
private
technological
universities
Computer
Assisted
Pronunciation
Instruction
2013/12/31
To improve
pronunciation
quality
To
enhance
English
oral skills
To inspire
passion of
learning
English
15

16. 16

17. Literature Review
Components of Teaching Pronunciation
Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training
(CAPT)
Effectiveness of CAPT
Hypotheses
2013/12/31
17

18. Components of Teaching
Pronunciation
An central idea of structural
linguistics was that the primary
medium of language is oral:
“Speech is language.”
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 55)
2013/12/31
18

19. Components of Teaching
Pronunciation
The aspects of teaching pronunciation
Segmental
• Individual phones (phonemes)
Suprasegmental
• Stress (force of articulation)
• Intonation (patterns of pitch on
words or longer utterances)
• Rhythm(timing)
2013/12/31
19

20. Segmental features
Phonological errors were the most frequent and the
most difficult parts to resolve in inter-language
communication.
(Jenkins, 2002)
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.
(Saito and Lyster, 2012)
2013/12/31
20

21. Suprasegmental features
Suprasegmental features
(e.g., stress, intonation, rhythm) are the key
factors of predicting speakers’ proficiency
and comprehensibility. (Kang, Rubin, & Pickering, 2010)
The suprasegmental instruction seems to
provide the learner with skills that can be
applied in extemporaneous speech
production.
(Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1998)
2013/12/31
21

22. Balanced aspects
2013/12/31
(Celce-Murcia, Brinton, &
Goodwin, 2010;
Derwing, Munro, & 22

23. Computer Assisted
Pronunciation Training (CAPT)
The advantages of computer-based
pedagogy
Self-paced learning
Patient tutoring
Immediate and individualized instruction
Detailed records of achievement
(Nunan, 2011)
2013/12/31
23

24. Computer Assisted
Pronunciation Training (CAPT)
Computer
Assisted
Pronunciation
Training
(CAPT)
Exposure to
oral demonstrations
Extension of the teacher’s
speech in class
Virtual interaction with
native speakers
(Derwing & Munro, 2005)
2013/12/31
24

25. Effectiveness of CAPT
Pronunciation of difficult and unknown words
was significantly improved after computer
assisted pronunciation training.
(Neri et al., 2008)
Acquisition of second language prosody and
generalization to segmental accuracy and
novel sentences with automatic visual display
of the speaker’s intonation was observed.
(Hardison, 2004)
2013/12/31
25

26. Hypotheses
RQ1: Is computer assisted
pronunciation
instruction effective in
improving
pronunciation
quality for students of
private technological
students?
2013/12/31
H1: Pronunciation quality of
students in a private
technological university
is significantly
improved after
computer assisted
pronunciation training.
26

27. Hypotheses
RQ2: Are the students able
to increase the
awareness of the
feature in their
pronunciation after
receiving computer
assisted pronunciation
instruction?
2013/12/31
H2:
The students’ perception
students’
on phonological
perception on features
is increased after using
phonological features is
computer assisted
increased after a
pronunciation training.
training course using
computer assisted
pronunciation
instruction.
27

28. Hypotheses
RQ3: Do the students think
of computer assisted
pronunciation
instruction as useful
tools to improve their
pronunciation?
2013/12/31
H3:
The students perceive
computer assisted
pronunciation instruction
as a useful tool to improve
their pronunciation after
computer assisted
pronunciation training.
28

29. Hypotheses
Framework of the Study
H1
Learning
Pronunciation
with CAPT
H2
H3
2013/12/31
Pronunciation
Quality
Phonological
Awareness
Perception on
Usefulness
29

30. 30

31. Methodology
Experimental Design
Participants
Instruments
Procedures
Pilot Study
Data Analysis
2013/12/31
31

32. Experimental Design
Week 1
Pretest
Compare
12-week MyET
Week 14
2013/12/31
Posttest
Pretest
No treatment
Compare
Posttest
32

33. Participants
EFL
Students
2013/12/31
• No = 70
• First-year in a technological
university
• Aged 19
• Below elementary-level
proficiency
• Studied English for at least 6
years
• Chinese native speakers
33

34. Participants
Teachers
2013/12/31
• No. = 3
• Teach first-year General
English in the university
• At least 3 years of
formal teaching
experience
34

35. Participants
Raters
2013/12/31
• No. = 3
• Expert judges
• To score the productions
of the participants in the
pre- and post- tests
35

36. Participants
Sampling
College 1 & 2
College 3
College 4
Class A1
Class A3
Class A5
Class A2
Class A4
Class A6
A Level
Sampled
Class B1
Class B5
Class B7
Class B6
Class B8
Class C1
Class C3
Class C5
Class C2
Class C4
Class C6
B Level
Class B2
~50%
Class B3
Class B4
C Level
2013/12/31
36

37. Participants
Matching
Class B2
Class B6
Class B7
2013/12/31
Pretest
Pretest Scores
37

38. Participants
Matching
Experimental Group
Control Group
Equal Pretest Score
Class B2
Class B6
Volunteers
Class B7
2013/12/31
38

39. Instruments
MyET
2013/12/31
39

40. Instruments
The Scoring System in MyET
Stage 1:
Database
constructing
2013/12/31
Stage 2:
Phonic symbol
labeling
Stage 3:
Pronunciation
comparison
40

41. Instruments
Questionnaire
Part 1
• Personal information
Part 2
• Awareness of phonological
features (8 items)
• Perceived usefulness (10 items)
(Hardison, 2005; Tanner & Landon, 2009)
2013/12/31
41

42. 2013/12/31
42

43. 2013/12/31
43

44. Procedures
Pretest
2013/12/31
Training
Procedure
Posttest
44

45. Training Procedure
Items
Number of
samples
Profile
Course
Teacher
Material
Teaching
activities
Treatment
2013/12/31
Experiment group
Control group
~35
~35
•19-year-old Chinese native speakers
•At least 6 years of EFL classes
General English (2-credit, 2 hrs/wk)
Same teacher (pairwise)
Same curriculum and material (pairwise)
Same instruction (pairwise)
40-minute extra practice per
No extra treatment
week learning with MyET
45

46. Training procedure
Learning
with
MyET
2013/12/31
• 12-week extra-class learning
sessions
• Tasks
• Repeating (4 lessons)
• Answering questions (6 lessons)
• Reading aloud(2 lessons)
• Mock tests (8 times)
46

47. Testing Procedure
An example item for MyET test
Students hear:
Students speak and record:
2013/12/31
47

48. Testing Procedure
S1
S2
S 50
Sentence#1
Audio file #1
Sentence #2
Audio file #2
Sentence #50
Audio file #50
The pronunciation quality of each utterance is scored on a 100-point scale.
2013/12/31
48

49. Testing Procedure
Score of MyET
Score
Pronunciation
Intonation
Fluency
Waveform of teacher’s sound
2013/12/31
Waveform of student’s sound
Volume
49

50. Testing Procedure
Human rater’s score
Item
Percentage
Individual sound quality
35%
Intonation
25%
Fluency
25%
Volume
15%
2013/12/31
50

51. Pilot Study
Approximately 30 students
Take pretest provided by MyET
Respond to the questionnaire afterwards
Spring 2014
2013/12/31
51

52. Data Analysis
Cronbach’s
α Test
ANOVA
(F-test)
2013/12/31
• To test the reliability of the scores
given by three raters and MyET
• To test the reliability of the
questionnaire
• To examine the difference of pronunciation
improvement
• Between pre- and post- tests
• Between the experimental and control groups
• Between overseas experience of different
durations
H1
52

53. Data Analysis
Descriptive
Statistics
Regression
Analysis
2013/12/31
• On the questionnaire results
• To investigate the phonological
awareness and perceived
usefulness of the students
• To examine the relationship
between phonological
awareness, perceived
usefulness and the improvement
of pronunciation
H2
H3
53

54. Thank you for listening!