Download - Presentation 1021014(v3)
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
IntroductionLiterature ReviewMethodResultsConclusionReflection
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
ParticipantsResearch DesignCPR TasksPre- and Post- TestsRating 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 Stude
nts
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 tasksA series of Powerpoint slidesAudio recordings from a NS modelSuprasegmental features markedParticipants 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
Task25
Rating Procedure
26
Perception
Controlled Production
SpontaneousSpeech
• 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
ANCOVATreatment -- the independent variableMean gains in perceived comprehensibility
ratings -- the dependent variablePretest 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 pausingPerception of word stressControlled production of word stress
30
Reflection
Flow chart of my future study
31
Sampling
Population
Pairing
ExperimentGroup
ControlGroup
Pretest Pretest
Training /w MyET
Posttest Posttest
Data Analysis
1-year NKUT
70 Volunteers orsystem sampling
Balance
11 Weeks
Pretest & Posttest scoresANOVA
Thank you for listening!