developing and integrating courseware for oral presentations into esp learning contexts

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