Upload
changluchieh
View
792
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presenter: Lulu Chang 992260Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu
March 9, 2011
Developing and integrating courseware for oral presentations into ESP learning contexts
Tsai, S.-C. (2010). Developing and integrating courseware for oral presentations into ESP learning contexts. Computers & Education, 55, 1245-1258.
Citation2
3
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Findings
Discussion
Reflection
I.II.
III.
IV.
V.VI.
Introduction
4
Background• With the rapid development and fierce
competition of business and industry, business communities around the world have deemed English language skills as an important tool needed to compete in the global economy.
5
Purpose of study
• To develop ESP courseware for giving oral presentations in order to simulate real situations
• To integrate the ESP courseware which computers play a central role as the means of information delivery
• To help students to construct and promote relevant communicative ability through their direct interaction with the courseware
6
Learning strategy Learning attitude
7
Literature Review
8
Studies indicate that ESL college students often have difficulty participating in classroom discussion, debate and giving formal presentations due to a lack of trainingand language proficiency.
(Ferris, 1998; Mason, 1995; Ostle, 1980)
Literature Review
9
Oral presentation needs many of the same skills usedin daily conversation, it is more highly structured, and requires more formal language and different methods of delivery. (example as below)
1Voice manipulati
on
2Bodily action
3Organizin
g with a well-designed 1.opening,2.body and 3.conclusion
Indispensible points for a good presentation:
Literature Review
10
Methodology
11
12
Participants 85 university students (From sophomore to senior ) Semester-long 1. English for technical writing elective course 2. English for technical listening and speaking
Place Department of Applied Foreign
Languages (AFLD) of a technical University in Taiwan Time 2 hours a week for six weeks
Course focus Writing and speaking
Methodology
Curriculum design of course:
13
• The aim was to study and understand the effectiveness of preparing a speech text.
• Students who complete a simplified on-line TOEIC-like test.
• Courseware was installed in the server of laboratory.
Goal
Targetaudience
Learning content
Computerized Propositional Idea Density Rater
14
• Students took an active role to learn or practice any target content or English skills that they needed and were interested in.
• Pre- and post- written test was conducted to provide students’ learning performance or evidence. (based on CPIDR)
• After the post-test
Instruction
Assessment
Questionnaire survey
Layout for the courseware
15
Screenshot for the function of Text Print.Screenshot of the self-checking system for the cloze test with instant feedback
indicates demand
Layout of sentence restructuring test.
Correct answer
16
17
Pre-test
Senior students
(STW group)Score: 219.4
Sophomore students
(SLS group)Score:192
Post-test(Present a presentation)
2h /week six weeks in total
Questionnaire survey : 1 open-ended1 close-ended
Methodology : steps of this study1. TOEIC-like test Total score:4452. Write a speech text for four PowerPoint slides of a presentation
p value of the score = 0.003
p<0.05 significant difference
Result:
Paired samples t-test analysis of students speech tests of the STW and SLS group
Numbers of verbs, adj., adv., prep., and conjunctions
Senior group
Sophomore group
137
121
265.1
260.8
.510
.465
18
19
Result of Questionnaire 2 open-ended survey(items that students concerned)
After giving a presentation, students choose their 3 greatest concern from these 14 items.
stress 54.5%
layout 36.4%
Body movement 36.4%
pronunciationvocabulary
27.3%27.3% 42.6%
Gammar 40.4%
layout 40.4%
pronunciation 36.2%
STW= Senior group SLS= Sophomore group
Result of Questionnaire 2 open-ended survey(items that students feel improved)
1. Sentence 2. Voc.
3. Layout
4.Grammar
4. Stress
1. Layout
2. Sentence3. voc.4. Grammar 1. Voc.
20
STW= Senior group
SLS= Sophomore group
After giving a presentation, students choose their 3 greatest improvement from these 14 items.
Result of questionnaire 1 (close-ended survey)*P<.05
**p<.01
21
.429**
1.004*
.027*
Using 5-point Likert sale ranging from 1(“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”)
DISCUSSION
22
In general, most
students in both
groups were
satisfied with
their self-study
with
Courseware
integration.
REFLECTION
23
The topic is calledIntegration courseware, but wecould not see how Students practice listening.
The study didn’texplain clearly why senior group studentsare called STW, andwhy sophomore group students are called SLS.
Reflection
24
In the previous table, Some students feel improved on “stressing” whilepresenting, then how does the courseware train their speaking?
Reflection
After finishing the units on the courseware, even there are correct answers below to check on, doesn’t student wish the teacher to explain why?
25
The difference between intelligence and education is this:
intelligence will make you a good living.
~Charles F. Kettering