1 / 17

Somsri Jansom The 2006 International Symposium of CALL June 2-4, 2006, Beijing hcu.ac.th

A Comparison of the Usage of English Tenses of Undergraduate Students with Different Abilities Receiving Different Types of Error Treatment through the Use of CALL. Somsri Jansom The 2006 International Symposium of CALL June 2-4, 2006, Beijing www.hcu.ac.th www.chula.ac.th.

azizi
Télécharger la présentation

Somsri Jansom The 2006 International Symposium of CALL June 2-4, 2006, Beijing hcu.ac.th

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparison of the Usage of English Tenses of Undergraduate Students with Different Abilities Receiving Different Types of Error Treatment through the Use of CALL Somsri Jansom The 2006 International Symposium of CALL June 2-4, 2006, Beijing www.hcu.ac.th www.chula.ac.th

  2. Applying CALL to Teach Grammar in Large Classes No final results • Why CALL? • How? • The program

  3. Introduction: Previous Research • Most frequent technique used is teacher correction • TC does not establish a pattern for long-term memory • Self-correction should be promoted for greater retention

  4. Theories • Constructivism “Learners can construct their own knowledge.” Learners should be engaged more actively in their learning. • Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990) “ Noticing is the process of attending consciously to linguistic features in the input.” • Autonomous Learning Ultimate goal Congruent with the Goals set by the Ministry of Education of Thailand

  5. Why CALL? The implementation in natural setting is uneasy 1. class size 2. learning habits 3. levels of the students Soinam (1999) : students with high English proficiency level had sig. different attitudes towards Autonomous Learning. 4. research: difficult to control responses, analyze data, and give consistent feedback

  6. Advantages ofCALL privacy individualization controllable responses unbiased tireless & consistence Data collection, Examination, & Manipulation

  7. Disadvantages • Operates in a predetermined fashion, can’t cope with the unexpected. • More tiring to read on the screen • Time-consuming to develop (Kenning & Kenning, 1983)

  8. Research Questions 1. Are there any differences between the usage of English tenses of undergraduate students receiving Overt correction and Self-correction? 2. Is there any interaction effect of types of error treatment and levels of achievement on the usage of English tenses of the students? 3. What are the students’ opinions towards each type of the error treatment?

  9. Research Objectives • To compare the usage of English tenses of students receiving Overt correction and Self-correction. • compare the retention of the usage of English tenses of students receiving Overt correction and Self-correction. • To compare the usage of English tenses of students with different abilities. • To study the interaction effect of error treatment types and levels of the students on the usage of English tenses. • To see opinions of students with different abilities towards each type of the error treatment

  10. Hypotheses • The mean score from the immediate posttest of students receiving self-correction is significantly higher than that of the students receiving overt correction. • The mean score from the delayed posttest of the students receiving self-correction is significantly higher than that of the students receiving overt correction. • There is an interaction effect of error treatment types and levels of the students on the usage of English tenses at 0.05 significant level.

  11. Scope of the study 1. Population: English-major undergraduates of Huachiew Chalermprakiet University 2. Two independent variables 2.1 Error treatment type: Self-correction (SC) and Overt correction (OC). 2.2 Levels of the students: High, Moderate, and Low Achievers. 3. The dependent variable: The usage of English tenses

  12. Design and Methodology Sampling technique: Stratified random sampling for 216 students (54 from each year) Pretest and Labeling using percentile rank Matching and Random assignment to OC or SC Using t-test to assure that mean scores of OC and SC are not sig. different. LA MA HA P 70 P 30

  13. Design and Methodology Random selection + Random assignment Randomized Block Design Overt Correction Self-Correction LA LA MA MA HA HA

  14. Experimental Materials • Two CALL programs representing two different error treatments 1. Overt correction 2. Self-correction A Storyboard.doc • Drill and practice • 9 Modules, each takes around half an hour to complete • Contents: 7 English tensesPractice Your Tenses DEMO_2.0.exe

  15. Research instruments 1. The Test of English Tenses Usage(TETU) 1.1 A sentence completion task (20 items) 1.2 Grammar in context (20 items) 1.3 A guided writing (2 prompts, 10-12 sentences each) 2.The Opinionnaire: numerical Likert-type scales, * The test will be conducted through a traditional paper and pencil mode

  16. Data Collection Procedure Pretest Practice with CALL 9 modules, 5 weeks Posttest & Opinionnaire Delayed posttest (4 wks later)

  17. Data Analysis Two-way ANOVA Descriptive statistics Thank You for your attention.

More Related