1. Study on the Development of Oral Proficiency in EFL Learners Under CALL Model Zheng Yurong Harbin Engineering University Yurong@hrbeu.edu.cn

2. Outline of the paper Introduction Literature Review and Research Questions Empirical study Discussions and Pedagogical implications Conclusion

3. 1. Introduction International and domestic demands for university graduates; College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR) (Ministry of Education, 2004); A gateway to the breakthrough of oral English teaching.

4. 2. Literature Review Definition: Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) refers to “ any process in which a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language ”. (Beatty, 2005: 7) Other related terms: CAI, CMC, CAT

5. 2. Literature Review Positive attitudes towards computer technology being used in the classroom and positive impact (Warden, 1995; Chen, 1988; Nash et al., 1989; Brady, 1990; Herrmann, 1987; Johnson, 1988; Phinney & Mathis, 1988). Vocabulary learning (Liu, 1992) Grammar learning (Nutta,1998) Automatic Speech Recognition in teaching pronunciation(Dalby and Kewley-Port1999)

6. 2. Research Questions Can CALL model facilitate oral proficiency of EFL learners? In which way is the facilitating effect obvious? What kind of pedagogical implications can be found from their oral proficiency development?

7. 3.Empirical Study 3.1 Subjects 67 non-English majors (26 females and 41 males)

8. 3.2 About the Courseware Interactive interface involving listening, imitation and role-play; Simulation of real situation( functional modular) ; Speech recognition technology; Presenting in a game-like way.

9. 3.3 Procedures Longitudinal study: 10 months Pre-tests : Courseware placement test---Level One Oral proficiency test--- 9-10 of 15. Post-tests: Recording and transcription Questionnaires

10. 3.4 Instruments Oral elicitation material--Comedy strip Recording and transcription Oral proficiency indices Questionnaires SPSS12.0

11. Proficiency Indices Temporal 1. mean length of runs (MLR) 2. average length of pauses (ALP) Linguistic 1. ratio of error-free T-units (REFT) 2. mean length of C-units after pruning (MLCP) Performing 1. ratio of reformulation and replacement to total repairs (RRR) 2. ratio of inaccurate pronunciation to accurate pronunciation (RIP)(Zhang,2002)

12. Calculation of the Each Index MLR = the total number of syllables/the total number of pauses ALP = the total amount of pause time/total number of pauses. REFT=the total number of error-free T-units /total number of T-units. MLCP= the total number of words (after pruning) / total number of c-units. RRR= the total number of reformulation and replacement / the total number of repairs. RIP= the total number of incorrectly pronounced words/ total number of correctly pronounced words

14. 4.Findings and discussions Students ’ oral proficiency is closely related to the attainments (Levels and units) obtained in the courseware. (p ≤0.05 ) Students ’ reaction to the courseware is positive.

15. Post-test Students’ attainments in the courseware

16. Post-test Students’ attainments in the oral test

17. Questionnaire Results Stability of the courseware 68.77%; Design pattern of the courseware 92.39%; User-friendliness 93.86%; Interest-provoking 82.52%; Individuality 76.22%; Effectiveness on listening 66.99%; Effectiveness on speaking 71.17%;

18. Indices for Oral Proficiency Top Group (27 subjects) Bottom Group (23 subjects) MeanSDMeanSD 1. mean length of runs (MLR)6.81 1.23 4.07 2.07 2. average length of pauses (ALP) 0.79 0.76 2.02 1.12 3. ratio of error-free T-units (REFT) 0.34 0.12 0.31 0.97 4. mean length of C-units after pruning (MLCP) 9.49 1.87 8.17 2.79 5. ratio of reformulation and replacement to total repairs (RRR) 0.430.550.670.70 6. ratio of inaccurate pronunciation to accurate pronunciation (RIP) 0.0580.0490.0590.078

19. Discussions Exposure to CALL programs have improved students ’ fluency considerably. Students ’ accuracy didn ’ t show much improvement after the exposure to CALL programs.

20. Pedagogical Implications CALL courseware could, if applied properly, improve students ’ oral proficiency to certain extent. In face-to-face teaching, there should be a place for focus on forms. Students ’ autonomous learning could be facilitated by teacher ’ s prompt coaching. The innovative and interactive interface should be enhanced.

21. Limitation of this research Multiple variables Authentic test Shorter duration Small samples

22. Conclusion Future developments in networked communication, multimedia, and artificial intelligence will likely create a potentially more central role for the computer as a tool for authentic language exploration and use in the second language classroom. Strategy-training/inputting I ndividualized tutoring

23. Criticisms and suggestions are welcome! Thanks ! Yurong@hrbeu.edu.cn