• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Presentation 1021014(v3)
 

Presentation 1021014(v3)

on

  • 288 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
288
Views on SlideShare
239
Embed Views
49

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 49

http://lms.ctl.cyut.edu.tw 49

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Presentation 1021014(v3) Presentation 1021014(v3) Presentation Transcript

    • The Effects of Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Readings on ESL Learners’ Use of Pausing, Stress, Intonation, and Overall Comprehensibility Presenter: Sze-Chu Liu Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu Date: October 14, 2013
    • Citation Tanner, M. W., & Landon, M. M. (2009). The effects of computer-assisted pronunciation readings on ESL learners’ use of pausing, stress, intonation, and overall comprehensibility. Language Learning & Technology, 13(3), 51–65. 2
    • Content Introduction Literature Review Method Results Conclusion Reflection 3
    • Introduction Definition of the Terms Background of the Study Purposes of the Study Research Questions 4
    • Definition of the Terms  CALL = Computer Assisted Language Learning  CAP = Computer Assisted Pronunciation  CPR = Cued Pronunciation Reading 5
    • Background of the Study CALL is of interest to 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) 6
    • Nearly all CAP programs focus exclusively on segmentals. If intelligibility is prioritized above accuracy, a focus on key words, stress, rhythm, and intonation may be needed. (Pennington, 1999) Background of the Study 7
    • Background of the Study Appropriate pausing patterns in native English speech had a significantly greater effect on non-native listener’s comprehension than either syntactic complexity or speech rate. (Blau, 1990) 8
    • Background of the Study When native English speech was manipulated to include incorrect lexical stress, the ability of both NS and NNS listeners to locate words in connected speech was seriously affected. (Field, 2005) 9
    • Background of the Study The importance of teaching intonation in context, preferably at a discourse-level, rather that within isolated sentences, has been emphasized. (Levis, 1999; Levis & Pickering, 2004; Jenkins, 2004) 10
    • Purpose of the Study This study aims at empirically evaluating a self-directed, computer-assisted technique that uses oral readings to improve students’ perception and production of pausing, word stress, and sentence-final intonation. 11
    • Research Questions To what extent do CPR practiced in a self-directed context affect intermediate ESL learners’…  perception of pausing, word stress, and sentence-final intonation?  use of pausing, word stress, and sentence-final intonation in controlled production?  perceived comprehensibility in spontaneous speech tasks? 12
    • Literature Review Pronunciation instruction with greater focus on prosody and general speaking characteristics can effectively change fossilized pronunciation patterns in individuals who have spent years in an English speaking environment. (Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1997) 13
    • Literature Review The global instruction (e.g., stress, intonation, rhythm) seems to provide the learner with skills that can be applied in extemporaneous speech production. (Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1998) 14
    • Literature Review If the goal of pronunciation teaching is to help students become more understandable, then instruction should include a stronger emphasis on prosody. (Derwing & Rossiter, 2003) 15
    • METHOD Participants Research Design CPR Tasks Pre- and Post- Tests Rating Procedure 16
    • Participants • No = 75 • in a university ESL program • intermediate-level proficiency • age 17-54 • studied English for 2 months - 17 years • native language backgrounds: Asian, Romance, and other languages ESL Students 17
    • Participants • No. = 10 • Baseline • 5 males and 5 females • A graduate TESOL program in western United States • Knowledge of linguistics • American English NSs Informants 18
    • Participants • No. =6 • Each taught a different class • 1-3 years of formal teaching experience • Randomly assign • 3→control group 3→treatment group Teachers 19
    • Participants • No. = 10, 5 male, 5 female • Age 21 - 52 • Novice • To evaluate spontaneous speech samples of ESL participants Listeners Group 1 • No. = 2 • expert judges • to classify segmental or suprasegmental errors Listeners Group 2 20
    • Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Participants Treatment Group Control Group 21
    • Research Design 22 Treatment Group Control Group Pretest Pretest 11-week CPR No treatment Posttest Posttest Compare Week 13 Week 1 Compare
    • CPR tasks 11 extra-credit tasks A series of Powerpoint slides Audio recordings from a NS model Suprasegmental features marked Participants readings recorded and saved 23
    • Example for CPR 24 Students hear: Students see: Students mark: Students speak and record:
    • Pre- and Post-Tests 1 Perception Task 5 Spontaneous Speech Tasks 1 Controlled Production Task 25
    • Rating Procedure 26 Perception Controlled Production Spontaneous Speech • An error was counted for pausing, word stress and final intonation if a feature was missing or incorrect. • An error was counted for stressing wrong syllables or using wrong intonation. • A five-point Liktert scale (0-4) is used to rate the comprehensibility.
    • Results - Perception Task Error Category Source df F p Perception of Pausing Treatment 1, 71 9.07 .004 Perception of Word Stress Treatment 1, 71 21.63 < .001 Perception of Sentence- final Intonation Treatment 1, 71 5.14 .027 27 Table 2. Analyses of Covariance for Perception Task
    • Results - Controlled Production Task Error Category Source df F p Production of Pausing Treatment 1, 67 2.22 .141 Production of Word Stress Treatment 1, 67 7.73 .007 Production of Sentence-final Intonation Treatment 1, 67 0.33 .570 28 Table 3. Analyses of Covariance for the Controlled Speech Production Task
    • Results - Spontaneous Speech Task ANCOVA Treatment -- the independent variable Mean gains in perceived comprehensibility ratings -- the dependent variable Pretest scores -- the covariate The results of the analysis showed no significant effect of treatment (F(1,69) = 0.06, p = .802). 29
    • Conclusion Treatment group participants made significant gains in three areas: Perception of pausing Perception of word stress Controlled production of word stress 30
    • Reflection Flow chart of my future study 31 Sampling Population Pairing Experiment Group Control Group Pretest Pretest Training /w MyET Posttest Posttest Data Analysis 1-year NKUT 70 Volunteers or system sampling Balance 11 Weeks Pretest & Posttest scores ANOVA
    • Thank you for listening!