國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所博士論文

國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所

博士論文

指導教授：張國恩博士

侯惠澤博士

Applying a role-playing strategy to enhance learners’

writing and speaking skills in EFL courses using social

networking platform and VoIP tool

研究生：顏嬿真撰

中華民國一〇六年十月

i

摘要

整合角色扮演策略、網路語音通訊與社群軟體促進英文寫作與口語

技巧

顏嬿真

在亞洲英文為外國語言(EFL)教學面臨了許多挑戰，因為多元文化和環境因

素，諸如缺乏互動對話的環境、重視測驗分數和外語焦慮。本研究進行一個英

文為外語教學的課程，藉由整合角色扮演教學策略、Facebook(社群軟體)和

Skype(網路語音通訊軟體)作為學習環境，來促進英文寫作與口語技巧能力，並

觀察學習成效與口說錯誤行為。本研究計劃由兩個子研究組成。在研究一，我

們目標是在研究應用Facebook和Skype及結合角色扮演教學策略作為強化英文

為外國語言學習者的口語和寫作技巧方法之效果。這研究由 42 位受試者組成，

他們都選修了在臺灣一所商業大學的英語會話課程，我們將進行學習成效分

析、相關分析和學習過程的質性內容分析，並且將會探索和討論學習者是否提

升他們的口語和/或寫作技能。

在研究一，我們主要聚焦在學習者的英文口語和寫作成效，但沒有對

不同類型的口說錯誤類別進行深度分析。因此在研究二，我們將整合角色扮演

教學策略和 Skype 來確認其對於學習者在英文口語進步上的影響，本實驗將對

52 位在相同的大學，已選修英語會話課程的英文為外國語言學習者進行研究。

ii

這些學習者們將會被隨機且均等分配在實驗組或控制組裡，此研究嘗試找出是

否學習者在 Skype 的學習環境裡會比面對面(face-to-face)的環境裡提升他們口

語表達能力，及減少口說錯誤的次數。實驗組將透過 Skype 進行線上口語討論

活動，而控制組要在面對面的環境進行口語討論，本研究將在這兩種環境中分

別逐字記錄所有學習者口語討論的內容，並編碼分析每個句子裡所出現的口說

錯誤，也將探索學習者是否在 Skype 的學習環境或面對面學習環境裡會降低其

口說錯誤的次數和提升口語表達能力。

關鍵字：電腦輔助語言學習、英文為外國語言、角色扮演、網路語音通訊、社

群軟體

iii

Abstract

Applying a role-playing strategy to enhance learners’ writing and

speaking skills in EFL courses using social networking platform and

VoIP tool

Yen, Yen-Chen

English as a foreign language (EFL) instruction faces many challenges in Asia

because of many cultural and environmental factors, such as the lack of interactive

speaking environments, emphasis placed on test scores, and foreign language

anxiety. The purpose of this research is to conduct an EFL instructional course by

integrating Facebook (social network service) and Skype (voice over IP) as learning

environment through which learners perform role-playing based learning activities

and to observe the effects of the course on the challenges mentioned above. This

research proposal consists of two sub-studies. In the study 1, we aimed to investigate

the effectiveness of applying the role-playing instructional strategy to Facebook and

Skype as a means to enhance learners’ speaking and writing skills in an EFL class.

This study consisted of 42 participants who enrolled in an English conversation

course in a business university in Taiwan. We conducted a learning performance

analysis, correlation analysis, and qualitative content analysis of learning process,

and explored and discussed whether the learners improved their speaking and/or

writing skills.

In study 1, we mainly focused on learners’ speaking and writing performance

and did not have an in-depth analysis of different type of speaking error category.

iv

Therefore, in study 2, we integrated role-playing and Skype to determine their

impacts on the learners’ English speaking improvement. This experiment conducted

on 52 young adult EFL learners registered in an English conversation course in the

same university. These learners were randomly and equally assigned into the

experimental or the control group. The research tried to find out whether the learners

in the Skype learning environment outperform the learners in the face-to-face

environment in terms of the occurrence of speaking errors in their oral productions.

The experimental group undertook the tasks via Skype and the control group

perform the tasks in a face-to-face environment. Verbatim data from the learners’

recorded utterances in two environments were analyzed. This study explored

whether learners in the Skype learning environment and the face-to-face

environment reduced their speaking errors and improve their oral performance.

Keywords: CALL, Skype, Facebook, EFL, Role-playing

v

Dedicated to My Beloved

Parents,

My Husband

and

My Lovely Daughter

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors, Prof. Kuo-En

Chang and Prof. Huei-Tse Hou for their patience, motivation, inspiration, and

continuous support of my Ph.D. study and research. Thanks for guiding me to find

the right track and always being supportive and helpful in my study.

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my dissertation

proposal and final defense committee, Prof. Yao-Ting Sung, Prof. Jie-Chi Yang, Prof.

Yuan-Chen Liu, for their encouragement and insightful comments.

Additional gratitude is given to my respectful mentor, Master Tin-Yin for

her mental and spiritual support, and valuable guidance. She guided me to the

straight path and taught me to how to cultivate myself. I truly appreciate her great

wisdom and immense knowledge that she imparted to me.

Finally, I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my father

Vincent and mother Alice for their love, encouragement, endless confidence, and

wise counsel throughout all my studies. Many thanks to my younger sister Anita and

my younger brother Alex for cheering me up all the time. Thanks for always being

there for me. Another special thanks to my husband Randy and my lovely daughter

Lyla for their unwavering support, caring, and patience. I would never have been

able to finish my study without the guidance of my advisors, help from friends, and

fully support from my parents, siblings, husband, and daughter.

vii

Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. x

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xi

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Statement of the problem .................................................................................. 1

1.2. Statement of the purpose ................................................................................... 9

1.3. Research Questions ........................................................................................... 9

1.4. Hypothesis ....................................................................................................... 10

2. Literature Review ................................................................................................ 11

2.1. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) ............................................ 11

2.2. English as a Foreign Language (EFL) ............................................................ 13

2.3. CMC for EFL .................................................................................................. 15

2.4. SNS for EFL ................................................................................................... 18

2.4.1. SNS for Education ................................................................................... 18

2.4.2. Facebook for EFL .................................................................................... 19

2.5. VoIP for EFL ................................................................................................... 21

2.5.1. VoIP for Education ................................................................................... 21

2.5.2. Skype for EFL .......................................................................................... 22

2.6. Speaking Errors ............................................................................................... 24

2.7. Role-playing .................................................................................................... 27

3. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 30

3.1. Study 1 ............................................................................................................ 30

3.1.1. Participants ............................................................................................... 30

3.1.2. Research Design ....................................................................................... 30

3.1.3. Instructional Design and Procedures ....................................................... 30

viii

3.1.4. Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 40

3.1.5. Content Analysis ...................................................................................... 41

3.2. Study 2 ............................................................................................................ 41

3.2.1. Participants ............................................................................................... 41

3.2.2. Research Design ....................................................................................... 42

3.2.3. Instructional Design and Procedures ....................................................... 42

3.2.4. Error Type Category ................................................................................. 47

3.2.5. Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 50

3.2.6. Speaking Error Analysis .......................................................................... 51

3.2.7. Qualitative Content Analysis ................................................................... 51

4. Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 52

4.1. Study 1 ............................................................................................................ 52

4.1.1. Learning Performance Analysis ............................................................... 52

4.1.2. Correlation Analysis ................................................................................. 52

4.1.3. Qualitative content analysis of writing process: peer-to-peer and

self-correction .......................................................................................... 55

4.1.4. Qualitative content analysis of speaking process: peer-to-peer and

self-correction .......................................................................................... 58

4.1.5. Attitude Analysis ...................................................................................... 61

4.1.6. Discussion ................................................................................................ 62

4.2. Study 2 ............................................................................................................ 64

4.2.1. Learning Performance Analysis ............................................................... 64

4.2.2. Speaking Error Analysis – Experimental Group ...................................... 67

4.2.3. Speaking Error Analysis – Control Group ............................................... 71

4.2.4. Qualitative content Analysis – Experimental Group ............................... 74

ix

4.2.5. Qualitative content Error Analysis – Control Group ............................... 76

4.2.6. Discussion ................................................................................................ 78

5. Conclusions and Future Works .......................................................................... 80

5.1. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 80

5.2. Future Works ................................................................................................... 82

References .................................................................................................................... 84

Appendix A: Writing Pretest Question (Study 1) ................................................... 102

Appendix B: Speaking Pretest Questions (Study 1) ............................................... 103

Appendix C: Writing Posttest Questions (Study 1) ................................................ 104

Appendix D: Speaking Posttest Questions (Study 1) ............................................. 105

Appendix E: Attitude questionnaire form (Study 1) .............................................. 106

Appendix F: Vocabularies for the International Food Fair Activity (Study 2) ... 110

Appendix G: Food Adjectives Worksheet (Study 2) .............................................. 112

Appendix H: Example Questions for Discussion in Week 3 (Study 2) ................. 114

x

List of Tables

Table 1.1 The framework of study 1 and study 2 ............................................................ 6

Table 3.1 IELTS 9-band scale ....................................................................................... 32

Table 3.2 Pretest’s sample questions. ............................................................................ 34

Table 3.3 Delayed posttest’s sample questions ............................................................. 40

Table 3.4 Speaking Error Category ............................................................................... 48

Table 4.1 Paired t-tests of the pre- and posttest scores ................................................. 52

Table 4.2 Correlation analysis of learners’ performance and discussion frequency ..... 53

Table 4.3 Qualitative content analysis –Examples of learners’ peer-to-peer and

self-correction in Facebook discussions ....................................................................... 56


self-correction in Skype discussion .............................................................................. 59

Table 4.5 ANCOVA for pretest among control and experimental group ..................... 65

Table 4.6 ANCOVA for the control and experimental groups on the pretest ............... 66

Table 4.7 Paired t-tests of the pre- and posttest scores for each group ......................... 66

Table 4.8 Experimental group-comparison of all errors among stages ......................... 67

Table 4.9 Control group-comparison of all errors among stages .................................. 72

Table 4.10 Examples of experimental group learners’ SS, ART, and PN in Skype

discussions .................................................................................................................... 75

Table 4.11 Examples of control group learners’ PN and SS in face-to-face

discussions .................................................................................................................... 77

xi

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Study 1 – Experimental procedure .............................................................. 31

Figure 3.2 Study 1 - Team division ............................................................................... 35

Figure 3.3 Snapshot of the discussion on the Facebook “Wall”. .................................. 36

Figure 3.4 Snapshot of the students engaged in the role-playing activities using

Skype. ............................................................................................................................ 39

Figure 3.5 Study 2 - Experimental procedure ............................................................... 44

Figure 3.6 Study 2 - Team division ............................................................................... 45

Figure 3.7 Snapshot of the control group students engaged in the face-to-face

role-playing activities. ................................................................................................... 46

Figure 3.8 Snapshot of the experimental group students engaged in the role-playing

activities using Skype. .................................................................................................. 47

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Statement of the problem

Due to globalization and the advancement of technology, people use English

almost everywhere for international relations, local and foreign businesses, as the

language is one of the global language today (Crystal, 2003). In non-native speaking

countries, many students choose to learn English as a foreign language (EFL).

English has become an important common language of communication among the

people of different cultures. In order to provide better English teaching

environments, the traditional teaching methods have been slowly changed with the

development of multimedia technology (Pun, 2014). The modified types of teaching

environment with technology, EFL learners would gain more confidence learning

English.

An essential strategy to the development of a foreign language is to incorporate

social and cultural interactions for language learners. In Taiwan, English as foreign

language learners are constantly challenged by the environment as it lacks a

practical and suitable environment for students to practice their language

development. A proper environment is one of the key elements for improving new

language ability; hence students in Taiwan face obstacles of finding an appropriate

environment to practice and improve English. (Yang & Chang, 2007). Therefore,

EFL learners have less opportunities to collaborate, interact, and engage in

classroom activities (Cloete, De Villiers & Rootd, 2009).

Higgins (1995) suggested that technology played an important role addressing

environment related challenges for EFL learners. For a long time, tools like

computers have been utilized in learning forms of communications including oral,

2

listening. There seemed to be reduced availability of foreign language departments

offering distance learning classes due to budget cuts, but seemingly the enrollments

have increased resulting shortage of spaces for those who are interested, (Banados,

2006; Chenoweth, Ushida & Murday, 2006; Kraemer, 2008; Sanders, 2005; Strambi

& Bouvet, 2003). The integration of technological advancement in communication

and new EFL strategies called the Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is

the new uprising method and has contributed many benefits to EFL instruction.

The “Internet revolution” opened new opportunities for CALL applications

such as text chats in which studies found helpful in language development, (Alwi,

Adams & Newton, 2012). A popular product resulted from the “internet revolution”

is the introduction of Social Networking Services (SNSs). These are web-based

social networking platforms that enable users to grow and development a

personalized social network through websites that allow users to share information,

interact with others, and develop communities with similar interests. One of the

most pronounced SNSs is Facebook. Despite the growing popularity with SNSs,

there are not enough research studies on the potential usefulness of SNS in

education and EFL instructions. Limited studies have concluded that Facebook and

other SNSs have demonstrated significant potentials on how it may benefit EFL

instruction.

It is advised by many research studies that Facebook is powerful platform for

EFL teaching used to enhance the students learning experience (Kabilan, Ahmad &

Abidin, 2010). SNSs platform related studies suggested both entertainment and

social perspectives is motivational for conducting EFL learning activities. It can

keep the students interests and engaged with functions like instantaneous messaging

between individuals and multiple members of a group. Yancey (2009) also suggested

3

that Facebook was a mean for students to improve their writing by linking the gaps

between theoretical “writing” and outside “communication” providing learners with

an authentic and personalized setting to practice. Writing skills are much

emphasized in Facebook group participation, this tool could be helpful in enhancing

and improving students’ writing skills (Yunus, Salehi, Sun, Yen, & Li, 2011).

According to Hamada (2013), students more keen on becoming independent learners

as Facebook could help students study and better their English ability feeling more

effortless or less involuntarily. Consequently, Facebook effectively enhanced the

EFL students’ writing abilities and helped them build positive attitudes toward

language learning (Suthiwartnarueput & Wasanasomsithi, 2012). Overall, Facebook

cultivated a positive environment and developed a system suitable for students to

obtain new knowledge and thoughts from countless sources available on the

platform (Al-Shehri, 2011).

Most experts consider the speaking and listening aspects of EFL learning to be

most essential. There are 3 ways of oral practices that could help students improve

target learning language: comparisons of own oral production to target language, or

by challenging the target language in various ways or by discussions about the

language (Satar & Ozdener, 2008; Gánem Gutiérrez, 2003; Swain, 1997). In

addition, many sociocultural studies recognized that speaking is a cognitive skill that

can be used to regulate self, others, and objects such as language and tasks (Brooks,

Donato, and McGlone, 1997). Vygotsky (1978) claimed that mental functions are

developed through social settings, and that interactions with higher intellectual

speakers would help build mental developments. The need for socialization may be

satisfied with the introduction of voice over IP (VoIP) platforms, which is a great

tool that transmits voice and multimedia over the Internet. It allows users to make

4

free or cheap reliable telephone calls worldwide. The technological advances, as

Chun (2008) mentioned, are beneficial for research purposes as well as helpful in

improving students’ pronunciation and speaking competence. A VoIP tool like Skype

has embedded functionalities such as text and voice exchange, which can be used as

a practice agent. The enabled function for verbal conversations can enhance the

dimensions to EFL activities like listening and speaking. Skype provides the

surveillance of multiple users’ voices, facial expressions, gestures and body

language in real-time. Through network online chat-based interaction, learners can

demonstrate improved grammatical competence (Lee, 2002; Pellettieri, 2000), build

complex language structures (Sotillo, 2000), develop oral communication skills

(Blake, 2000; Lee, 2002) and higher lexical capacity (Dussias, 2006). As a result,

some students feel less pressure and become self-confident (Elia, 2006) speaking

English via Skype rather than classroom setting, as there is no physical presence of

the communicating party or parties (Bikowski & Kessler, 2002). Skype also can

provide a cost effective means to practice English conversation courses anywhere at

anytime.

Another focus of this study is role-playing instructional strategy, which is

critical for learners’ experience. Role-playing is an important strategy as it focuses

on the ability to speak and communicate by playing different roles in real-world

situation. It can correct stereotype concerns in China that college students can

succeed in English classes because they are good test-takers but are poor

communicators (Li, 2001). A common approach used to teach a foreign language is

grammar translation approach where it targets on mastering language structure,

vocabulary and understanding literature at the expense of speaking and

communicating (Aliakbari & Jamalvandi, 2010). The trade-off is that students can

5

reproduce responses in predictable situational patterns but is challenged

communicating effectively when put in unpredictable situations outside the

classroom (Nunan, 2001). The task-based approach is a solution to improve

speaking ability with optimal circumstances to “communicate effectively” and

“communicate meaningfully” (Luchini, 2004).

Both Skype and other VoIP platforms have also received attention for their

potential in education and instructional design. Skype has voice and video functions

and chat capabilities over the Internet; VoIP platforms actively engages listening and

speaking during EFL activities. The benefit of the platform being Internet-based has

many advantages, such as hosting a conversation class without teacher and students

in a physical class and increased flexibility of course time and schedules. The

combination of Skype and Facebook is a potential solution to overcome the

limitations of online CALL strategies of EFL. The combination can create a familiar

and less stressful environment used to practice the target language. This research

proposal consists of two sub-studies as follows.

Study 1:

We focus on learners’ English speaking and writing performance. This study

aims to investigate the effectiveness of applying the role-playing instructional

strategy to Facebook and Skype as a means to enhance learners’ speaking and

writing skills in an EFL class (see framework in Table 1.1). We explore and discuss

whether the feature of Facebook and Skype demonstrate a platform that enhance

learners’ learning experience and increase their motivation in EFL learning activities.

During the role-playing interaction, we also analyzed whether learners experience

peer-to-peer correction and realize self-correction processes. We conduct a

6

quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the learning process and discuss

whether learners improve their speaking and/or writing skills. There is one

experimental group which Facebook and Skype are used to compare learners’

speaking and writing performance. Although there is no control group in this study,

we planned to include it in our second study for an in-depth analysis of speaking

error category.

Table 1.1 The framework of study 1 and study 2

(Part 1)

Brief description

Study 1 1. We focused on learners’ English speaking and writing performance.

2. We integrated Facebook and Skype as learning environment.

3. We applied role-playing instructional strategy to Facebook and

Skype to enhance learners’ English speaking and writing skills.

4. We analyzed whether the unique feature of Facebook and Skype

demonstrate a platform that enhance learners’ experience and increase

their motivation in the activities.

5. We analyzed whether learners experience peer-to-peer correction and

realize self-correction processes.

6. We used oral interviews as the pre-test and post-test in this study.

7. We conducted a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the

learning process.

8. There were one experimental group, no control group.

9. Facebook and Skype were used for the experimental group.

7

(Part 2)

Brief description

Study 2 1. We focused on learners’ English speaking performance and speaking

errors.

2. We compared the effects of two different environments, i.e., Skype

and face-to-face, on learners’ English speaking performance by

assessing the frequency of errors (e.g., pronunciation, verb tense, and

sentence structure) occurring in the learners’ oral productions during

role-playing.

3. We applied role-playing instructional strategy in Skype and

face-to-face to train learners’ speaking abilities and observe their

interactive discussions.

4. We analyzed whether the learners’ could gradually reduce the

number speaking errors and help improve their speaking skills in both

Skype and face-to-face environments.

5. We analyzed whether the learners reached a peer-to-peer correction

mechanism in order to reduce their speaking errors.

6. We used oral interviews as the pre-test and post-test in this study.

7. We conducted a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the

learning process.

8. There were one experimental group and one control group.

9. Skype was use for the experimental group and face-to-face is use for

the control group.

8

Study 2:

Although qualitative research has been studied on EFL learning through CALL

using role-playing based learning activities, there is not much quantitative research

on the type and frequency of errors made and whether there is an improvement in

error rate. This study mainly focuses on the Skype and its effectiveness towards

English speaking errors. We divide errors into different classifications. In fact,

language learning through online discussion on Skype has been extensively studied,

but there is little quantitative research on the errors that these EFL learners made

during the instructional course. In study 1, we discuss that learners might experience

peer-to-peer correction. During the role-playing activity, learners might attempt to

correct their partner’s grammar errors (e.g., pronunciation, sentence structure, verb

tense…etc.) In study 2, we analyze whether the learners reached a peer-to-peer

correction mechanism in order to reduce their speaking errors. We also compare the

effects of Skype and face-to-face environments on learners’ English speaking

performance by assessing the frequency of errors and the number of errors gradually

reduced occurring in the learners’ oral productions during role-playing (see

Framework in Table 1.1). The experimental group would be taught how to speak

effectively by using the modern technological tools mainly Skype whereas the

control group would be taught traditionally. Using a process-based quantitative

content analysis and qualitative content analysis, we explored the effect of VoIP in

EFL instruction through role-playing based activities on students’ speaking skills

and whether they would help to reduce the number of errors.

9

1.2. Statement of the purpose

Study 1 (S1) :

S1-1. To conduct an EFL instructional course empirically by integrating Facebook

and Skype as platforms through which students engage in role-playing based

learning activities.

S1-2. To explore and discuss whether the learners improved their speaking and/or

writing skills in a SNS and VoIP environment.

S1-3. To use SNS and VoIP to design an instructional activity to train EFL students’

speaking and writing abilities and observe students’ interactive discussions.

Study 2 (S2) :

S2-1. To use process analysis to carry out a quantitative and qualitative content

analysis on the speaking errors made by EFL students over the entire EFL class.

S2-2. To explore EFL learners’ speaking errors in the activity and determine which

errors are reduced from pre to post-stage.

1.3. Research Questions

Study 1 (S1) :

S1-1. Will conducting an EFL instructional course by integrating Facebook and

Skype as platforms through which learners engage in role-playing based

learning activities improve their speaking and/or writing skills?

S1-2. Will the use of Facebook and Skype learning tools increase learners’

motivation in EFL learning?

10

Study 2 (S2) :

S1-1. What are the types of speaking errors resulting from using CALL in

role-playing based learning activities?

S2-2. Do the learners in the Skype learning environment outperform the students in

the face-to-face environment in terms of the occurrence of linguistic errors in

their oral productions?

S2-3. Will EFL learners’ speaking errors be reduced due to the instructional

role-playing activities in Skype?

S2-4. To what extent, do the learners in the Skype learning environment and the

face-to-face environment improve their speaking skills?

1.4. Hypothesis

Study 1 (S1) :

S1-1. Learners improve their speaking and writing skills through the combination of

role-playing activities and the use of Facebook and Skype learning tools.

S1-2. The unique feature of Facebook and Skype demonstrate a platform that

enhance learners’ experience and increase their motivation in the activities.

Study 2 (S2) :

S2-1. Speaking errors are reduced by using Skype in EFL instruction through

role-playing based activities.

S2-2. Learners in Skype group show more improvement in their oral performance

than learners in face-to-face group.

11

2. Literature Review

2.1. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Technology has played a major role in addressing the above challenges faced

by EFL learners and has transformed educational teaching and learning to the next

level since the third millennium (Vrabcova, 2015). Technologies together with the

introduction of Internet and electronical devices have changed the way we interact

and collaborate with each other. Thus, the increased demands to learn English and

growth in technological advancements, it is important to integrate both of these to

help the learners.

CALL is a form of language learning and teaching approach, in a highly

interactive environment incorporating listening speaking, reading and writing skills

Jafarian, Soori & Kafipour, 2012). The integration of instructional design into a

CALL approach is therefore essential. The effectiveness of various CALL materials

depends on instructional designs and how teachers apply these materials. When

CALL and EFL pedagogy are appropriately used, learners can see improvements in

their learning process have changed (Warschauer and Healey, 1998; Jafarian, Soori

& Kafipour, 2012).

In traditional language teaching, EFL teachers have limited time for error

corrections and feedback for each individual EFL learner. CALL provides

individualized instruction and immediate feedback as they complete the language

learning tasks (Nagata, 1993). For instance, spelling errors and verb tense errors, can

be identified and corrected in real time. This learning and teaching approach can

overcome some shortcomings of traditional methods on feedback about errors and

12

recommendations in timely manner (Jafarian, Soori & Kafipour, 2012). Furthermore,

CALL allows students to learn the target language at self-determined progress

omitting the possible face-to-face interactions and it eliminates the anxiety of

in-person interactions (AbuSeileek, 2007; Bikowski & Kessler, 2002).

The technology has many benefits. CALL can customize the responses

according to individuals and deliver contents and instructions repetitively without

being tired. As we add the computer component into language learning, students

would be more encouraged to contribute in live conversations.

The increased Internet connectivity with evolved fresh learning methods for

people. The network advancement enabled variations of CALL approaches like

teaching in virtual environment unveiled the potential of technology has on EFL tool.

(Gorjian, Moosavinia, Kavari, Asgari & Hydarei, 2011). Technology can connect

larger groups of people for cooperative learning activities with the help of

computerized instructions (Schcolnik & Kol, 1999). This ability of connecting

people in more dynamic environment has increased learner satisfaction worldwide.

The research had shown high CALL satisfaction scores amongst Italian and

Japanese. (Morton, Davidson & Jack, 2008).

Computer-based learning has limitations; the method is relatively new and

requires further research. According to Blake (2008), extensive training of teachers

and students is required to optimize the benefits of new learning technique since it is

not a natural form of communication (Blake, 2008). Another limitation of CALL is

the preferential challenge of virtual instructions instead of face-to-face instructions

where most prefer in-person (Sanders, 2005). According to Baralt and

Gurzynski-Weiss (2011), the result revealed that students’ foreign language anxiety

13

was not significant lower in iChat interaction than face-to-face interaction. Therefore,

the traditional method of face-to-face interaction might still be a beneficial form of

communication among the students. This limitation should need more attention

when using CALL with other strategies and different platforms.

2.2. English as a Foreign Language (EFL)

Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (1978) emphasized that social and cultural

environment play a fundamental role in the development of an individual’s cognitive

and mental function. Therefore, an appropriate learning environment would be

essential for EFL learners to improve oral communications (Yang & Chang, 2007).

Traditionally, English learning has been taking place in a classroom setting.

However, most of these schools focus on the mastery of paper-and-pencil tests and

sometimes neglected the students’ oral communication competence (Baker &

Westrup, 2003). The shortage of interaction would affect other areas critical to

language learning. In summary, deficient of an appropriate environment for

language learning might hinder learners’ cultural experience and language

acquisition and motivation (Kormos & Csizer, 2007).

There are many research conducted on EFL instruction with respect to effective

strategies and challenges (Shen & Suwanthep, 2011; Aliakbari & Jamalvandi, 2010;

Liu & Jackson, 2008). Firstly, the interactive speaking and listening are important

aspects of the learning experience since students have minimal opportunities to

speak or write in English outside of the classroom. In traditional classrooms,

students are asked to reproduce exactly what the teachers have taught in the class.

Students taught in these classes have weaker communications due to infrequent use

14

of English outside the classroom (Li, 2001). Hence, it is imperative to optimize

classroom time and cultivate skills development related to speaking and writing

(Erten & Altay, 2009).

Language is a social mechanism of communication well connected with many

cultural and social dynamics that have important consequences on the learning

experience and learners often experience the “foreign language anxiety”. The

anxiety would affect, emotions that control the students’ attention, influence their

learning motivation, modify their choice of learning strategies and affect their

self-regulation of learning (Pekrun, 2014). It is believed that learners with academic

anxieties are faced with wide arrays of cognitive and emotional challenges that

negatively affect completion of the task (Cassady, 2010). According to Macintyre

and Gardner (1994), foreign language anxiety is complex and multidimensional

referencing to “feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated with

second language contexts, including speaking, listening, and learning.” Horwitz,

Horwitz, and Cope (1986) recognized three anxiety components of learning a new

language: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative

evaluations. The test anxiety is associated with academic factors, which impacts

test-taking ability rather than language skills. As per McCroskey (1977), the

definition of communication apprehension is “the individual’s level of fear or

anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person

or persons.” When such anxiety reaches high level, learners would “withdraw from

and seek to avoid communication when possible” (McCroskey, 1977). Another

major concern is the cultural and academic emphasis on tests and quantifiable results

in language learning. The emphasis rewards test-taking ability and English

knowledge, instead of communication skill. The focus on test-taking ability adds

15

stress using English learning experience measured based test marks to compare with

peers, which hinders students’ motivation. This is especially prevalent in Asian

cultures. The cultural stigma associated with English in Asia creates unnecessary

levels of stress and self-consciousness within EFL learners.

Moreover, research shows that communication apprehension is common among

language learners (Matsuoka, 2008) and Taiwan is no exception. Taiwanese EFL

learners find it daunting to speak English because they are shy and anxious. They are

afraid to receive negative evaluations and have the fear of being judged by others

(Chu, 2008). These negative experiences and fear of negative judgment from others

might hinder learners’ language learning and development (Hiew, 2012). A study by

Chu (2008) showed a positive relationship between foreign language anxiety and

learning where language proficiency of anxious language learners was often

underestimated. However, Hadley (1992) mentioned that a moderate feeling of

anxiety in EFL learning could help learners excite a passion for learning, and to get

them to put more efforts to acquire the target language. There has been extensive

research associated with new instructional strategies and technologies facing EFL

challenges.

2.3. CMC for EFL

The introduction of computer-mediated communication (CMC) platforms

addresses socialization needs, in which it provides opportunities for EFL learners to

interact with other language learners or native speakers from all over the world.

CMC is believed to provide a more relaxed environment, where students are less

concerned about making mistakes, encourage peer learning, and feel less anxious

16

(Kern, 1995). CMC would be a valuable tool cultivating learning from interaction

between diverse and dispersed students in the form of online discussions (Wang,

2005).

CMC can be categorized into two modes: synchronous or asynchronous. These

two categories adopt extensive negotiation time between learners with increase

talking time per learner, and more vocabulary variations compare to face-to-face

communications (Abrams, 2003). Research studies show that both methods can

effectively support language learning and teaching (Sun & Yang, 2015) and help

EFL learners to develop social interaction both in and outside of the classroom

(AbuSeileek & Qatawneh, 2013). Synchronous CMC mode may allow learners to

participate in a real-time interaction and require immediate response by using tools

such as Skype, FaceTime, or Zoom. Asynchronous CMC mode may allow learners

to have more time to think, response, and uses external resources when they

participate in an online conversation such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, MySpace,

or Line (Abrams, 2003). The use of Internet technologies platforms for educational

purposes can assist teachers with various possibilities to engage students to

cooperate, collaborate knowledge building and knowledge sharing sessions (Sun &

Yang, 2015). These platforms support the use of Internet technologies for

educational purposes. It increased variations of teaching methods to engage students

in cooperative and collaborative knowledge building and sharing environment (Sun

& Yang, 2015).

As for synchronous CMC, a research project was launched to understand online

language exchange between Chinese English learners and Australian Mandarin

learners (Tian and Wang, 2010). A survey responses from both groups indicated that

language exchange via Skype improved their linguistic and intercultural competence.

17

Another project as per Yanguas (2010) compared conversations derived from

task-based audio, video and face-to-face communications. The results in both audio

and video communications had similar patterns to face-to-face communication,

which indicated that this medium could be potentially be used for EFL teaching. The

study by NetSupport School, developed an oral course based on cooperative CMC

learning found that students had greater positive attitudes about the course and better

linguistic abilities than those in a teacher-fronted CMC or traditional non-CMC

classroom (AbuSeileed, 2007). According to Doughty and Long (2003), the main

advantage of CMC language learning is learner’s experience in collaborative

learning to interact, modify, elaborate conversations.

As for asynchronous CMC, Godwin-Jones (2007) notes that YouTube is

resourceful for language learning as the platform contains a huge multimedia

database of real language use by real people. As suggest by Mayora (2009), the

feature to post comments engages language learners in authentic writing tasks while

practice listening skills browsing through the videos.

Facebook is one of the asynchronous CMC, which provides individualized web

space for learners. Several researches had shown effectiveness of this method. As

Shih (2011) stated that Facebook’s blended learning experience was effective for

EFL learners, who had moderate to high positive attitudes toward the instruction.

The experience of the learners showed improvements in paragraph organization,

content, vocabulary, spelling, and grammar. Facebook facilitated implicit peer

assessment and serves as a motivation for EFL learners increase participation.

Furthermore, Lai and Gu (2011) found that Facebook was one of the most frequently

used communications methods outside the classrooms. From Facebook, students can

self experiment with the target language tasks like self-evaluation on English

18

proficiency and connect speakers of the target language.

2.4. SNS for EFL

2.4.1. SNS for Education

Social Networking Systems (SNS), is web based social networking tool that

offers the opportunity for users to flexibly re-structure hierarchies, inform and

reconfigure communication, and maintain relationships of knowledge and people

(Beer and Burrows, 2007; Cloete, De Villiers, & Roodt, 2009; Boyd & Ellison, 2010;

Lim, 2012). The tool has the capability for users to uniquely reorganize knowledge

according to users preference and understanding. One of the main educational

benefits of using SNSs is that it provides learners with interactions opportunities that

mirrors real-life common issues such as negotiating (Razak, Saeed & Ahmad, 2013).

Another benefit of using SNSs s users can sign-up for new active learning

environments of collaborative and interactive learning, often based on their interests

and affinities which doesn’t have to be directly catered for in their immediate

educational environment. Moreover, according to Beer and Burrows (2007), despite

the current findings of the potential of SNSs learning methods, the areas around EFL

context of SNS are yet fully explored. However, today, EFL learners have more

opportunities to access SNS environment to learn and practice English. SNS

encourages knowledge and information sharing through groups or communities

(Selwyn, 2007). Essentially, SNSs provides EFL learners with the environment to be

involved in online learning communities while practicing English and writing skill.

This study adopted Facebook as a SNS language learning tool instead of other

SNS platforms was because it is more suitable for online discussion. Unlike Twitter,

19

it only allows users to update their messages up to 140 characters.

2.4.2. Facebook for EFL

Facebook has gained not only popularity, but also in utility in the past few

years. The initial audience target was for the younger generation used as a mean to

stay connected with each other. As the platform evolved, it became a mechanism of

more than social interactions but that of international social change, organization,

information exchange, and even trade. Facebook enabled peer-to-peer

communication and collaboration (Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson & Freynik,

2014). The fundamental functions allows individuals to express and tell their own

stories to their social network instantaneously; users can also expand their network

within their own interest groups, and maintain these relationships easier (Selwyn,

2009). It has become a staple in sustaining the basic human need to stay connected

and be relevant in society. From these basic functions, it has progressed into a place

to propagate individual and group thoughts and ideas, to coordinate meetings and

discussions, even to organize social movements en masse.

Facebook is one of the technology tools, which often used in EFL learning.

Alsulami (2016) demonstrated that Facebook could easily develop learners’ writing,

communication, and reading skills. Facebook’s powerful ability to group people and

provide educational purpose simultaneously provoked this a subject interest in many

previous studies (Kabilan, Ahmad & Abidin, 2010; Madge, Meek, Wellens &

Hooley, 2009; Selwyn, 2009; Shih, 2011). The results from studies identified many

great attributes of Facebook beneficial to EFL instructional strategies. For instance,

the interface is familiar to many users, a ready-made, trustworthy communication

20

platform where it would not require long adaption period. Although Facebook for

educational purposes is not a new concept, it is only in its infant stages of research.

Facebook now has roughly 850 million active users, a median that is familiar to

many household and easy to grasp on with its user friendly interface. The easy

accessibility and many fun factors do very well at engaging and retaining its

audience. In Facebook, there are no pressures for immediate responses and

apprehension from in-person communication. (Liu & Jackson, 2008). The lag gives

the user time to formulate responses without pressure from negative evaluation;

thereby decreased anxious behaviors associated with typical EFL students and are

more inclined to communicate (Liu & Jackson, 2008). These factors make

Facebook a viable candidate as a platform to build context for EFL learners to

improve writing techniques (Shih, 2011).

One of the key features of Facebook is its ability to allow multiple users to

connect to the same group, each with the ability to contact all or individuals within

group and share information. The feature allows users to conduct private and open

group discussions online, an ideal platform for situated learning or role-playing

instructional activities. Situated learning is defined as the acquisition of knowledge

through a social or situational context (Brown, Collin, & Duguid, 1989).

The use of Facebook (Shen & Suwanthep, 2011; Shih, 2011; Coll-Garcia &

Linser, 2006) and content-based instruction (Deneme, 2011) are added incentives to

EFL learning. As Facebook successfully engage its users, it indirectly increases the

motivational effects on learners as well. Facebook can strengthen confidence and

collaborative efforts but with limitations given its nature (Omar, Embi & Yunus,

2012). A limitation is that Facebook cannot cover full aspects of EFL learning, it is

only effective for reading and writing and would require a different SNS tool to

21

cover the speaking and listening aspect of language learning.

2.5. VoIP for EFL

2.5.1. VoIP for Education

VoIP is synchronous CMC, which allows language learners with network

access to communicate with other learners or speakers of the target language (Kern

and Warschauer, 2000). VoIP tools provide voice and text chat for users anywhere in

the world anytime. This specific feature makes VoIP a potential tool when teaching

and learning English. For many learners, one of the primary purposes to learn a

foreign language is to speak it. Thornbury (2005) affirms that speaking represents a

real challenge to most language learners. When being able to speak a foreign

language, communicating with people of other countries, ethnic groups, races, etc.

becomes possible, the act of speaking a foreign language also might help individuals

to build confidence, self-esteem, comprehension, and more (Vaseki, 2013). Lamy

and Hampel (2007) affirm that VoIP fosters peer collaboration and can be use to give

feedback to students. In addition, it helps learners to practice improve speaking,

listening, writing and reading skills (Marín Ortiz, 2015).

Agreed by many language teachers that speaking ability is sought to be one of

the most difficult skill to obtain and teach when learning a new language. Regarding

this, Brown and Yule (1983) stated, “learning to speak a foreign language is often

considered to be one of the most difficult aspects of language learning for the

teacher to help the student with.” Therefore, language teachers should try to create

more circumstances to help students strengthen speech in the target language.

Consequently, more interactive opportunities with others in various linguistic and

22

social settings could practice language subsystems appropriately and spontaneously

(Pawlak, Waniek-Klimczak, & Majer, 2011). VoIP tools provide many synchronous

communications approaches for language teachers between students. The tool might

help students who want to better their speaking skills by participating in online chats

with native speakers or web lessons designed by the teachers.

This study adopted Skype as a VoIP language learning tool instead of other

VoIP platforms because it is a free, downloadable communication tool, and easier for

learners to communicate in a cost-effective way.

2.5.2. Skype for EFL

Speech error provokes the highest anxiety amongst the four language skills by

L2 learners (Macintyre & Gardner, 1991; Kessler, 2010). For many students,

speaking practice takes place only in classroom settings due to lack of

English-speaking environment. Consequently, the lack of practice hinders

proficiency development hence increases anxiety source from self-awareness.

(Peacock & Ho, 2003; Pong, 2010; Sun, 2009).

Many real-time communication technologies can be used to train foreign

language speaking skills, amongst that Skype is a popular tool with roughly 600

million users worldwide (Digital Company Statistics, 2016). Skype is a computer

mediated synchronized communication platform (CMC) that links people from

different places and is a great tool for learning language. In our study, we explored if

instructional activities incorporating Skype could be useful for interactive learning

when students are familiar with CMC environment. Skype generates fairly relaxing

EFL learning environment, where the students are less apprehensive compared to the

23

physical classroom environment (Kern, 1995). The use of Skype as a voice-based

CMC tool may increase learners’ motivation, let to higher linguistic achievement,

and keep learning fresh and enticing. (Alastuey, 2011).

One advantage of Skype is that it links people real-time from different places. A

main feature is the real-time voice-message transmission and visual video

connections from participating members and allows. Skype also facilitate learners to

participate and interact via text chat, voice chat, voiced bulletin boards, or audio

blogs (Levy, 2009). Learners can simply have a conversation, send text chat, or post

a voice message in Skype. These features can combine with three important EFL

activities: speaking, listening, and writing tasks. Payne and Ross (2005) claimed that

instantaneous text chats might indirectly develop speaking ability, and enhance oral

language production (Okuyama 2005; Payne & Whitney 2002).

In Hussein and Elttayef (2016) study, Skype was chosen to motivate classrooms

and demonstrate the friendly technology to learners used to learn the English

language. This study was a mix of 70 males and female from Yarmouk University in

Jordan; the goal was to use social tool like Skype to experiment on students to see

the effects on English competency development. The results showed that learners in

Skype chat group performed better on the post-test than those in the control group

and had a positive impact on their discourse competence. In addition, the findings

revealed that the learners acquired speaking skill more efficiently and effectively

from Skype group chats.

Another research by Gruban (2016), explored the types of e-Learning and

learners’ attitude toward Skype lessons. This study investigated if learners find

Skype lessons to be more interesting and educational compared to traditional lessons.

24

The results showed that learners are more satisfied with Skype lessons and found

them more interesting, more encouraging, and less tedious (Gruban, 2016). By

comparing with regular lessons, findings showed that learners are more active in

Skype lessons, and are more encouraged to speak up and express their ideas.

In addition, Alsulami (2016) conducted a study to understand the association of

SNS, online audio, and online video tools (i.e., Skype, Facebook, YouTube, MP3

players, smartphone) on learning English as a foreign language among 36 female

EFL students at Effatt College. The findings revealed that 31 students (86.1%)

agreed that online video and audio tools helped enhance their listening and speaking

skills and have positive impact on their English language learning.

Per study by Guth & Marini-Maio (2010), another advantage of adopting Skype

in EFL learning is its potential for collaborative learning and for learners to interact,

modify, elaborate their inputs, while engaging in meaningful “conversations”

simultaneously. In the study, the learners pointed out that Skype could increase the

accuracy in their oral skills and had helped them overcome the fear of speaking. The

atmosphere may be more relaxed and EFL learners can communicate more freely.

Therefore, most of the students enjoyed their language learning experience by using

Skype (Ockert, 2015).

2.6. Speaking Errors

Ellis (2003) claimed that there are three good reasons to study learners’ errors:

first, we would know why learners make errors; next, they could help teachers have

better understanding of what type of errors learners usually make; lastly, learners

learn to how to self-correct the errors they make. Brown (2000) believes that if

25

learners do not make errors or receive any feedback on errors, their learning

progression would be hindered. In fact, making errors is a natural process of

language learning (Eskey, 1983; Darus & Subramaniam, 2009) and is part of

learning curve (Olasehinde, 2002). Therefore, the significance of studying these

errors help highlights to teacher and students the weaker areas that requires attention

during learning a new language.

Otoshi (2005) highlighted five major error categories in grammar errors: verb

errors, noun-ending errors, article errors, wrong words and sentence structures. He

claimed that these error categories happen most frequently in learning

second/foreign language.

Dagneaux, Denness, and Granger (1998) mentioned that there are seven major

error category codes in the order of, lexico-grammatical, formal, lexical, register,

grammatical, word redundant and style; and are followed by one or more sub-codes.

Examples include, GA for articles, GN for nouns, GV for verbs, GVT for verb tense

errors, GVV for voice errors, etc.

Chen (2006) developed a structured-linguistic error taxonomy, which divided

into15 major categories inclusive of subgroups for each. The major error types are:

errors in the use of nouns, articles, pronouns (incorrect case forms, missing

possessives), verbs (tense, subject-verb agreement, auxiliary, verb omitted),

prepositions (prepositions omitted, wrong prepositions, unnecessary prepositions),

and conjunction (coordination, subordination, missing).

According to Ferris and Roberts (2001), there are five major types of errors

normally made by students:

26

noun endings errors - incorrect or unnecessary use of plural or possessive

ending

verbs errors- occur in the verb tense and form as well as errors related to

subject-verb agreement

article errors - the incorrect and/or unnecessary use of articles or other

determiners such as some, any, etc.

sentence structure errors -all errors related to sentence/clause boundaries, for

example: run-ons, fragments, comma splices, word order, omitting words or

phrases from a sentence and/or insertion of unnecessary words or phrases, and

word choice errors -all types of lexical errors i.e., errors arising from the

inappropriate use of prepositions and pronouns.

In language learning errors types, speaking error categories are similar to

writing error categories, except that the spelling error category is omitted, as they

cannot be evaluated via Skype. As there are many different types of errors, for our

study, we focus on the study of speaking errors. Different approaches have been

developed to describe language error types. The researchers found that EFL learners

tend to make pronunciation errors on second language phonemes, which do not exist

in their first language (L1) (Yoon, Hasegawa-Johnson & Sproat, 2010). Lyster (1998)

separated errors into four categories, including grammatical error, lexical error

(inaccurate choice of words), phonological error (misinterpretation leading to

mispronunciation), and unsolicited used of L1 (errors not associated to content).

According to Hiew (2012), those EFL learners hesitant to speak English with

their teacher or classmates in and/or outside the classroom, they feel embarrassed

27

about their low language proficiency and worried about making grammatical errors.

Some researchers have observed that errors occur mainly caused by to first language

(L1) influence (Chen, 2006; Lee, 2001; Lin, 2002; Kao, 1999). Therefore, the

identification of speaking error types is significant for specific teaching and learning

progression.

Garett (1975) and Hamrouni (2010) claimed that there are nine types of speech

errors: deletion, anticipation, shift, exchange, stranding, substitution, blend, and

accommodation errors. Skype offers a platform that allows verbal conversation, so

learners spelling of used words cannot be verified.

2.7. Role-playing

The many benefits of Skype and Facebook can offer, an appropriate

instructional strategy is crucial to students’ experience and understanding.

Role-playing is a great way to practice speaking and communication abilities. The

use of role-playing instructional strategy increases students’ attention (Hou, 2011). It

simulates a situation, requires students to focus on playing the role, hence, it diverts

the attention to the act rather than the language used to complete the act. This

strategy simulates real-world scenarios and puts learners on the spot and act out the

position, known as task-based approach.

Role-playing is a task-based approach learning that uses tasks to spark

evocative interactions and negotiations (Aliakbari & Jamalvandi, 2010; Richards,

1999). For instance, a simulation task can be to replicate an act using the target

language. Role-playing is a form of interactive learning, commonly used to help

improve communication skills and develop problem-solving skills (Hou, 2012;

28

Chien, Muthitacharoen & Frolick, 2003). Role-playing decreased levels of foreign

language anxiety (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) or anxiety rose from

face-to-face interactions (Bikowski & Kessler, 2002). Larsen-Freeman and Anderson

(2011) also indicated that role-playings are very important in communicative

language teaching because they give students the opportunity to communicate in

different social contexts and social roles. Role-playing resembles life more closely

than other training procedures (Shaw, Corsini, Blake, & Mouton, 1980). As

Ladousse (1987) stated, role-playing does not only encourage peer learning but also

ask the teacher and students to share the responsibility in the learning process.

Many studies has been focused on role-playing instructional strategies and

situated scenario strategies from Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to

Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) and the web-based applications (Shen &

Suwanthep, 2011; Aliakbari & Jamalvandi, 2010; Coll-Garcia & Linser, 2006).

These strategies are based on Constructivism, the theory argues that humans build

knowledge through experience used to train areas such as teamwork and

professional skills such as negotiation. Situational learning dictates that scenarios

are developed to emulate experiences for the learner. The scenarios may be applied

in two ways. First, the scenario can be an instruction to engage in collaborative

discussions with peers to resolve the problem. Second, it can be roles of the

hypothetical scenario assigning roles to the students whereby the problems is

resolved together by acting out of the situation from their own relative perspectives

(Hou, 2011).

The study by Hou (2011), indicated that role-playing would increase the

students’ level of focus as it would train students to concentrate on the task at hand,

rather than on the language used to complete the task. These situated scenarios could

29

be applied in multifaced like in first-person (role-playing) format or through

third-person discussion (Hou, 2011) and provide a learner with learning opportunity

in many dimensions. The combination of high acceptance platform like Facebook

and popularity and motivational tool like Skype could be an effective alternative to

role-playing strategy for EFL instructional tool. This study aims to test the impacts

of role-playing strategy on the learner’s experience and results.

30

3. Methodology

3.1. Study 1

3.1.1. Participants

The study involved 42 students registered to participate in an English

conversation course at a Taiwanese business university. The students have sufficient

functional familiarity with Facebook and Skype platforms.

3.1.2. Research Design

This study used quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the use of

Facebook and Skype as a learning tool for online discussion to help students

enhance their English proficiency and to understand students’ writing and speaking

performance in two different environments. Three analysis methods: learning

performance analysis, correlation analysis, and qualitative content analysis of

learning process were adopted in this study. A single group pre-test and post-test

design was used for learning performance analysis and Pearson correlation

coefficient was used for correlation analysis. Among which, qualitative content

analysis explores learners’ interaction in the role-playing speaking and writing

activities. This seems to suit the purpose of this study as it aimed at seeking deeper

insights and further understanding of the EFL learners’ speaking and writing skills.

3.1.3. Instructional Design and Procedures

The experiment breakdown into four phases: pretest and the initial classroom

31

lecture, Facebook private discussions within subgroups, Skype negotiations with

opposing groups, and delayed posttest. The key research tool to assess the success of

EFL strategy is framed by pretest and posttest conducted in writing and speaking

forms. The entire process lasted 11 weeks (see Figure 3.1), and two hours class for

each week.

Figure 3.1 Study 1 – Experimental procedure

32

Phase 1: Pretest/lecture (weeks 1 to 5)

In the first phase, every participant was given an IELTS-based test, which

created by an EFL expert to assess the initial English writing and speaking levels.

The course design is similar to IELTS focused on vocabulary, grammar, writing

skills and composition requirements; individualized adjustments were made

according to students’ English language level and learning needs. IELTS rates test

scores on its 9-band scale (IELTS band scores, 2012), as shown in Table 3.1. The

test emphasized on business-related vocabulary and communication skills in

preparation for role-playing activities (see Appendix A). The speaking and the

writing pretest would be conducted in week 1 and week 2, respectively (see Figure

3.1).

Table 3.1 IELTS 9-band scale

(Part 1)

Score Description

9 Expert user: has fully operational command of the language: appropriate,

accurate and fluent with complete understanding.

8 Very good user: has fully operational command of the language with only

occasional unsystematic inaccuracies and inappropriacies.

Misunderstandings may occur in unfamiliar situations. Handles complex

detailed argumentation well.

7 Good user: has operational command of the language, though with

occasional inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings in some

situations. Generally handles complex language well and understands

detailed reasoning.

33

(Part 2)

Score Description

6 Competent user: has generally effective command of the language despite

some inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings. Can use and

understand fairly complex language, particularly in familiar situations.

5 Modest user: has partial command of the language, coping with overall

meaning in most situations, though is likely to make many mistakes. Should

be able to handle basic communication in own field.

4 Limited user: basic competence is limited to familiar situations. Has

frequent problems in understanding and expression. Is not able to use

complex language.

3 Extremely limited user: conveys and understands only general meaning in

very familiar situations. Frequent breakdowns in communication occur.

2 Intermittent user: no real communication is possible except for the most

basic information using isolated words or short formulae in familiar

situations and to meet immediate needs. Has great difficulty understanding

spoken and written English.

1 Non-user: essentially has no ability to use the language beyond possibly a

few isolated words.

0 Did not attempt the test: no assessable information provided.

The four sub-dimensions of IELTS test were integrated into role-playing tasks,

which include Listening, Reading, Writing, and Speaking. The writing test of IELTS

incorporated more contents related to daily life, and the speaking part was tested

in-person with each student (see Appendix B).

The course designed closely aligned to IELTS test, which is standardized

34

worldwide by applying in-person conversation testing methods to evaluate the

speaking skills. This test arrangement mimics test takers for real-life situations. This

might be particularly relevant to the students’ future career (when taking part in the

job interviews, etc.). Thus, IELTS-based test was chosen instead of other assessment

forms. English proficiency tests are crucial to non-native English speakers as they

pave ways to future education. Therefore, this course would train students to take

IELTS test also a requirement to the students to take it after they complete the course.

This test was designed based on participants’ English levels. Table 3.2 shows the

pretest’s sample questions.

Table 3.2 Pretest’s sample questions.

Type of the test Question

Writing Pretest Your friend, Sally, is coming to visit Taiwan for 4 days and

3 nights. She needs you to arrange a one-day meeting for

her with Dr. Wu. She'd also like to go sightseeing, have

dinner at a nice restaurant, and go shopping. Please reply

her with a detailed schedule by email.

Speaking Pretest Have you bought anything over the phone? If not, would

you? Why?

As shown in Figure 3.2, participants were put through a regimen of classroom

lectures in week 3 to week 5. The lectures entailed learning the target language

applying role-playing scenario (business-to-business, B2B, buyer/seller scenario).

They also practiced speaking and writing in target language. Participants were

expected to familiarize with the target language but not to the extent of fluency. The

35

goal of lectures was to introduce lexis required for subsequent role-playing activities.

The students were not expected to have sufficient practice time in the classroom to

fully acquire the target language by significant degree. Tasks to form teams, assign

roles, and set-up scenario were completed in 5th

week of this phase.

Phase 2: Facebook discussions /Role-playing (weeks 6 and 7)

Before entering second phase, the students were separated into two teams

forming a buyer team and a seller team. The seller represented an office equipment

company, and the buyer side represented a publishing company looking to setup a

new department. The two teams were further separated into four subgroups

representing product team consisted of 5- to 6-person in each subgroup. Each

subgroup was assigned a leader to coordinate the buying or selling of an item listed

as follow: a desktop computer, a printer, a camera, and a laptop (see Figure 3.2).

Participants for an item could either role-play as a seller or a buyer. Hou (2011)

hypothesized that as role-playing progressed, it was expected that the acts of

self-correction and peer-to-peer correction would occur.

Figure 3.2 Study 1 - Team division

36

Each subgroup of a team created a private chatroom on Facebook used for team

discussions. Students were authorized to use Facebook functions such as

commenting on “Wall” posts, and sharing information either by copying links,

photos or ’sharing’ websites from other sources on Facebook. The “Wall” was used

as an expression containing team thoughts and comments (See Figure 3.3). The

students were prohibited to use private messages or text-based chats in order to

ensure information are evenly distributed to the participants. Each communication

posted by a member would be available for everyone to see and comment. The

exercise would ensure everyone fully participates and engaged in collaborated

discussion as studies showed that as Facebook is a mean to enhance learners’

confidence and increase collaborative efforts (Omar, Embi, & Yunus, 2012). All

communication would be in English only.

Figure 3.3 Snapshot of the discussion on the Facebook “Wall”

37

The teams were assigned tasks and objectives. The objectives were based on

the overall scenario designed for this role-playing:

1. a publishing company is in strategic interest to set-up a new marketing

department, and it requires basic office equipment for new incoming staff;

2. an office equipment company carries surplus inventory of some products and it

needs to sell-off surplus items before launching a new product line.

Both sides had to decide in advance what was the preferred brand and model of

the items they were going to buy/sell. Challenges included getting the best price

quotes possible for the buying team, meanwhile, the selling team had to make sure

they attract customers without giving unreasonable discounts (possibly, by offering

alternative products, free accessories, etc.)

The above scenario is a mimic to a professional occurrence in a mid-sized

company. The scenario was designed to develop various outlooks and strategies in

multifaceted forms. The roles in the play entailed many elements for participants

experience and sparks different interactions in each group. It is expected that each

meeting group, participants would learn to adapt and respond with the focus

language.

The following two weeks prior to making contacts with opposing team, the

teams were expected to assess the situation, to draft solutions to obstacles and

establish a strategy plan to move forward. The leader of each team was instructed to

ensure actions of the individual members when communicated and aligned for

one-on-one negotiations on Skype. The teams were evaluated on the act of

buying/selling of a particular product at price collectively agreed by the team. The

participants hosted meetings on Facebook to determine the collective team price.

38

This asynchronous online discussion aimed to give students an opportunity to

improve reading, written communication, and build team work skills. The private

discussions enabled students to apply target vocabulary introduced during phase one.

Phase 3: Skype /Role-playing Negotiations (week 8)

As the teams completed and established the buying or selling strategies, third

phase was initiated. During this week, the group negotiations of each purchase or

sell item would happen in meetings applying the pre-defined strategies on

negotiations. There could only be one buyer and one seller for a product. Each

negotiation is conducted using Skype, containing conversations to 10 minutes (see

Figure 3.4). Instant messaging function was disabled and prohibited. The

participants had to bargain and agree to price offered by either selling or buying side

could decline. All conversations were in English language only.

In this phase, the participants could experience the assigned role from at least

two angles: a staff member or manager of a sales person or client. The role everyone

played used the target language differently, from different perspectives in different

scenarios; it enabled the development of their oral communication and negotiation

skills. The third phase required extensive use of vocabulary introduced in phase one.

Role-play increased the exposure of various scenarios would stimulate language

production in many forms rather than repeating language.

39

Figure 3.4 Snapshot of the students engaged in the role-playing activities using

Skype

Phase 4: Delayed posttest (week 10 and 11)

The posttest was allotted one-week delay to let participants absorb and digest

the acquired role-play experience. The speaking delayed posttest (see Appendix D)

was conducted in week 10 and the writing delayed posttest (see Appendix C) was

conducted in week 11. The delay posttest would allow the language acquired to

settle, and filter out language that was not actually obtained. The posttest is designed

by the same EFL professional that designed the pretest also IELTS-based to ensure

consistency for more eloquent results. Table 3.3 showed the speaking and writing

delayed posttests’ sample questions.

40

Table 3.3 Delayed posttest’s sample questions

Type of the test Question

Writing Posttest Your company (Banana Daily / Orange Information

Technology) is organizing a Year End Party, which will be

on December 31, 2011. Since you are the event coordinator,

you need to decide what to purchase for this event. Your

budget is NT$500,000. Please write an email to place an

order.

Speaking Posttest What's the most important quality in a good sales person?

Lastly, a questionnaire was distributed asking about their personal experience

about the course. The attitude assessment was consisted of open-ended questions

aiming for feedback related to personal performance, peer performance and the

effectiveness of the program.

3.1.4. Data Analysis

Quantitative and qualitative content analysis were both applied to answer the

research questions in this study. Since this research adopted single group pre-test

and post-test design, the pair t-test was used to compare the difference between

participants’ pre-test and post-test scores. The conversation between the participants

was recorded for qualitative content analysis. The recorded messages were then

transcribed and coded by a rater of the research group. In order to test the reliability

of the coding contents, we invited a second rater to analyze and ensure reliability of

the coding.

A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to check for the inter-rater

41

reliabilities rated by two EFL experts about the pretest and the posttest (including

the EFL expert who designed the tests). The inter-rater reliability estimates for the

speaking pretest and posttest were (r = 0.884, p < 0.01) and (r = 0.927, p < 0.01). As

for the writing pretest and posttest, the inter-rater reliability estimates were (r =

0.938, p < 0.01) and (r = 0.895, p < 0.01), respectively. In cases of the alpha

coefficients for the speaking pretest, speaking posttest, writing pretest, and writing

posttest were 0.824, 0.826, 0.827, and 0.819, respectively.

3.1.5. Content Analysis

We analyzed qualitative data through learners’ Facebook text and Skype voice

conversations (Skype voice conversations were first converted to transcript) to

support the results of the quantitative analysis and understand the reasons for the

learners’ improvements. From the analysis of writing (text) and speaking (voice)

conversations, we were able to deduce the following important points. We found that

the learners used peer-to-peer and self-correction techniques. Some peer-to-peer and

self-correction examples have been extracted and organized in the following section.

3.2. Study 2

3.2.1. Participants

The study recruited 52 students from an English conversation class (level one)

in a business university in Taiwan consisted of 25 males and 27 females. All the

participants have sufficient familiarity with the functions and usage of Skype.

42

3.2.2. Research Design

This study used quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the use of

Skype as a learning tool for online discussion and traditional method of face-to-face

discussion to help students enhance their English proficiency and to understand

students’ speaking errors in two different environments (face-to-face speaking and

speaking on Skype). Three analysis methods: learning performance analysis,

speaking error analysis, and qualitative content analysis of learning process were

adopted in this study. This study used quasi-experimental design, which includes

pre-test and post-test with the control and experimental group. In order to assess the

effect of training between the two groups of learners, it was important to look at in

the present study to check homogeneity is whether the pre-test scores of the two

groups were more or less similar to each other. To compare the control group and the

experimental groups, the pre-test scores were subjected to a one-way ANCOVA.

Data were analyzed by one-way ANCOVA using the scores of the pre-test as

covariance. Non-parametric method and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test

were used to analyze learners’ speaking errors during pre-, mid-, and post-stages of

the Skype conversation. Among which, qualitative content analysis explores

learners’ peer-to-peer correction in the role-playing speaking activities. This seems

to suit the purpose of this study as it aimed at seeking deeper insights and further

understanding of the EFL learners’ speaking errors in both experimental and control

group.

3.2.3. Instructional Design and Procedures

This experimental study lasted for four weeks: a pretest and a posttest were

43

administered in the first and the last week to measure the students’ English

proficiency levels and to assess their improvement. In weeks 2 and 3, an

instructional session was organized in a classroom setting followed by a practice

session when the experimental and control groups practiced using English in their

respective environments of Skype and face-to-face. The procedure of this

experiment is shown in Figure 3.5.

Week 1: Pre-test

As shown in Figure 3.5, the pre-test was conducted in week 1 to assess the

learners’ English proficiency. Each participant was interviewed by the researcher in

an face-to-face environment, which lasted 3-5 minutes (260 minutes in total).

During the interview, the participants were asked four questions: 1. What kind of

food do you like? Name and describe the food you like. 2. What is your most

favorite country so far? What do/don’t you like about it? (e.g., food, culture, and

people) 3. What is your favorite event or activity in school? And why? 4. If you have

to participate in an event, would you like to be a planner or a purchaser? And why?

The vocabulary and grammar used were taken from IELTS and adjustments

depending on the students' English language and learning needs. As stated

previously, the IELTS 9 Band Scale was adopted in this study to assess the

participants’ utterances in English on a scale of 1 to 9, from non-user to expert-user.

For example, Band 4 indicated a limited-user who frequently encountered troubles

understanding in the target language (see Table 3.1). However, it should be noted

that business-related vocabulary and communication skills were more emphasized.

IELTS was used in this study because it is one of the most used language proficiency

44

examination worldwide.

Figure 3.5 Study 2 - Experimental procedure

Week 2: Pairwork

The participants were put into groups and attended an instructional session for

three hours in Week 2. The main objective of this was to help the participants

familiarize themselves with the topic of an International Food Fair and with the

vocabulary for the role-playing activity (see Appendix F). For example, participants

worked in pairs; one played as a purchaser, and the other acted as a planner (see

Figure 3.6), discussing what to sell at the fair. The researcher presented lexical items

(e.g., spaghetti, popcorn, booth, and budget) and the question formations (e.g.,

“What is your favorite food?”) relevant to the topic. In order to help the learners to

45

gain a better understanding of the word usage, they are asked to work on the food

adjective worksheet (see Appendix G). The learners are also expected to use those

words in various situations during week 3.

The participants would not know what roles they would play or what group

they were in Week 3. The purpose of this design was to avoid the participants’

planning their speech beforehand.

Figure 3.6 Study 2 - Team division

Week 3: Role-playing / Face-to-face and Skype discussions

After the pairwork, participants were divided into the experimental (Skype) and

control (face-to-face) group as shown in Figure 3.6. Students were asked to go to

different rooms for role-playing based on the groups, i.e., the control and

experimental group (see Figure 3.7 and 3.8). Both groups were prohibited to carry

any notes, use private messaging or any text-based chats as to avoid information

asymmetry. Then, participants were grouped in pairs (13 pairs per group) and

46

characters for the role-playing were also assigned. Two roles, either a purchaser who

needed to buy all the necessary things or a planner who planned for the food stand.

The scenario for the role-playing was that students needed to prepare a food stand

for the International Food Fair in a school. Participants needed to discuss related

issues, such as budgeting, decorating, advertising, and buying for their own food

stands (see Appendix H). For example, students should work together within a given

budget to attract customers to buy their foods. The conversation was recorded by

each student and ongoing for about 15 minutes. All conversations were conducted in

English and participants were required using the newly taught topic and the related

vocabulary. This activity would only test participants’ English proficiency but also

train participants experience of real-life situations.

Moreover, the study enhanced EFL learners’ confidence and ensure their

participation and team collaboration, communication among all members were

allowed (Omar, Embi, & Yunus, 2012).

Figure 3.7 Snapshot of the control group students engaged in the face-to-face

role-playing activities

47

Week 4: Posttest

The post-test session was conducted through oral interview form and it was

identical to the pre-test. The purpose of the post-test was to assess the oral

performances and identify if there were English speaking improvements. The

performances were also measured based on the IELTS 9-band scale for a more

accurate comparison.

Figure 3.8 Snapshot of the experimental group students engaged in the

role-playing activities using Skype

3.2.4. Error Type Category

The table 3.4 below represents speaking error categories, which were used to

analyze student’ errors during Skype conversation activities.

Table 3.4 represents the speaking error category based on Ferris (2006) and

Dagneaux, Denness, and Granger (1998). Pronunciation error type was added to

define phonetically misrepresented words during the speech conversation. The

speaking error category did not include punctuation, spelling, and run-on sentences

48

as these errors were not documented in a speaking environment.

Table 3.4 Speaking Error Category

(Part 1)

No. Error type Code Description Example

1 Pronunciation PN Phonetic errors Sree, dree, tree (three).

Somesing (something).

2 Verb tense VT Improper verb form

regarding time

They arriving (arrived)

yesterday.

He will giving (give) me

an apple.

3 Verb form VF Improper verb

choice

The boy is moving (flying)

across the ravine.

The teacher is destructing

(instructing) the class.

4 Word form WF Excluded verb

form errors

I haven’t seen you on (for)

a while.

Did you mail the letter

with (to) your friend?

5 Articles Art Missing article I went to United States

(…to ‘the’ United…).

I have a (an) apple.

6 Singular-plural S/P Referred to noun

ending errors

These are the boy’s (boys’)

jackets.

This is the womans’

(woman’s) purse.

49

(Part 2)

No. Error type Code Description Example

7 Pronouns PR Mis-using subject

title

She is good with his (her)

sword.

He (They) are good people.

8 Fragment FR Incomplete

sentence

Too much every day

working (There is too

much work to do every

day).

Like a computer screen

(His head looks like a

computer screen).

9 Sentence

structure

SS Included missing

and unnecessary

words and phrases

and word order

problems

Excluded run-ons,

comma splices and

fragments

The girls like shopping to

go (The girls like to go

shopping).

Potatoes in the bag there

are (There are potatoes in

the bag).

10 Word choice WC Excluded spelling

errors, pronouns,

informal and

unidiomatic usage

He is coming (from)

America.

She is in (on) the chair.

50

3.2.5. Data Analysis

This study conducted quantitative and qualitative content analysis of learners’

English speaking errors. We did pretest and posttest on two groups of students. Data

were analyzed by one-way ANCOVA using the scores of the pretest as covariance.

For the qualitative content analysis, all verbal interactions between the participants

were recorded. The recorded messages were then transcribed and coded by a rater of

the research group. The researcher took the messages from Skype and face-to-face

conversation, deviated into three parts, which were organized into three stages:

pre-stage, mid-stage and post-stage. At each stage, the errors were coded according

to the types shown in Table 3.4. Errors made during Skype and face-to-face

activities were classified based on the error category in Table 3.4. The coding was

helpful in the later analysis, where we counted the number of times each error was

made at each stage, the number of errors each student made, and the error rate in

activities progression. In order to test the reliability of the coding contents, we also

invited a second rater to analyze and ensure reliability of the coding.

From the oral interview data, a Pearson correlation analysis was used to check

the inter-rater reliability of the two EFL experts who rated pretest and posttest. This

analysis was used to refine human judgement, which shows the homogeneity and

reliability in the ratings given by the judges. The inter-rater reliability for the

experimental group was r=.989, p<.01 in the pretest and r=.994, p<.01 in the posttest.

As for the control group, the inter-rater reliability was r =.961, p<.01 in the pretest

and r =.993, p<.01 in the posttest respectively. In cases of the alpha coefficients for

the experimental group’s pretest, posttest, control groups’ pretest and posttest

were .960, .948, .929 and .896, respectively.

51

3.2.6. Speaking Error Analysis

Two EFL expert instructors examined the conversation content by manually

coding the messages for the experimental and control groups used to determine the

errors based on Table 3.4. The inter-rater kappa value for the face-to-face and Skype

conversation message errors were k=.974, p<.01 respectively. The coding showed

the number of errors learners made in each error type category. The experts analyzed

whether the students had reduced their speaking errors as they progressed into

different phases. The coded face-to-face and Skype messages were then selected as

units for analysis at each of the three stages, pre-, mid- and post-stages. Each stage

was compared with the other stages to determine if the students’ errors decreased

over time. In each error category, we explored whether error rates at each stage have

reached significant difference statistically.

3.2.7. Qualitative Content Analysis

Two autonomous EFL experts collected and reviewed qualitative data from the

recorded face-to-face and Skype conversations of control and experimental groups.

The recorded conversation was transcribed for analysis. To better understand the

above quantitative content analysis and the changes in the number of errors,

qualitative content analysis was used for data triangulation.

52

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Study 1

4.1.1. Learning Performance Analysis

The results from the posttests were analyzed using a paired t-test to compare

the students’ performance on posttest, shown in Table 4.1. The final results revealed

a significant improvement in the scores in English writing posttest (t = -5.20, p <

0.001) and English speaking posttest (t = -4.71, p < 0.001). The results reflected a

pronounced and meaningful improvement in the participants’ English writing and

speaking abilities.

Table 4.1 Paired t-tests of the pre- and posttest scores

Mean SD t p

Writing Pretest 4.14329 1.354379 -5.20***

.000

Writing Posttest

Speaking Pretest

Speaking Posttest

5.19105

3.78657

4.69105

1.825447

1.35315

1.675460

-4.71***

.000

Note: ***

p<.001

4.1.2. Correlation Analysis

A Pearson correlation coefficient was conducted to analyze the correlation

between discussion engagement (i.e., discussion frequency on Facebook/Skype) and

learning performance (i.e., scores on overall Facebook/Skype discussion quality and

posttest). The quality of students’ discussion was reviewed by the teacher based on a

53

five-point Likert scale (0 = low to 5 = high). Each Facebook/Skype message was

scored based on grammar, pronunciation, and articulation to evaluate the discussion

quality. As shown in Table 4.2, Facebook exercises was more focus on writing skills,

a higher level of discussion frequency on Facebook was also potentially linked to

the writing scores on the posttest (r = 0.527, p < 0.01). Subsequently, the level of

overall discussion frequency on Facebook also showed positive correlations with

Facebook overall discussion quality (r = 0.465, p < 0.01), indicating that the levels

of participation on Facebook may improve the writing skills in asynchronous

discussion and on the posttest.

Table 4.2 Correlation analysis of learners’ performance and discussion

frequency

(Part 1)

Speaking

Posttest

Writing

Posttest

Overall

Score

(Skype)

Overall

Score

(Facebook)

Discussion

Frequency

(Skype)

Discussion

Frequency

(Facebook)

Speaking

Posttest 1

Writing

Posttest .618

** 1

Overall

Score

(Skype)

.784**

.492**

1

54

(Part 2)

Speaking

Posttest

Writing

Posttest

Overall

Score

(Skype)

Overall

Score

(Facebook)

Discussion

Frequency

(Skype)

Discussion

Frequency

(Facebook)

Overall

Score

(Facebook)

.450**

.593**

.636**

1

Discussion

Frequency

(Skype)

-.163 -.162 -.330* -.192 1

Discussion

Frequency

(Facebook)

.386* .527

** .231 .465

** -.112 1

Note: *p<.05 **p<.01

With respect to Skype, this platform in EFL learning was hypothesized to

enhance speaking skills, but findings showed that the discussion frequency in Skype

had a negative correlation with the overall score in Skype (r = -0.330, p < 0.05); and

had non-significant negative correlations with speaking scores on posttest. This may

suggest that the frequency over Skype speaking is less important as a factor in

learning performance.

It is suggested that there was a positive correlation between test scores of

posttest (from speaking and writing) have with the overall discussion quality scores

55

using Facebook. Findings also suggested positive correlation between test scores of

posttests (from speaking and writing) have with the overall Skype discussion quality

score. This indicated that the discussion quality from writing on Facebook and

conversing on Skype would affect the writing and speaking scores on posttest.

Hence, the experiment demonstrated that the integrated environment helped to

promote writing and speaking skills simultaneously. Furthermore, regarding the

level of participation; increased participation on Facebook had a positive influence

on students’ learning effects; however, levels of participation on Skype had a

negative correlation on students’ learning effects. Most of learners expressed and

spoke a lot more in online discussion because they felt comfortable. According to

Busch (1982), when learners spoke more might make more mistakes at the same

time. This explained that those who interacted more during Skype discussion did not

show to necessarily increase learning.

Through the aforementioned performance and correlation analysis, we realized

that the strategy of using role-playing scenarios combined with Skype and Facebook

in EFL learning may contribute to higher quality discussions and enhanced learning

performances.

4.1.3. Qualitative content analysis of writing process: peer-to-peer and

self-correction

The Facebook stage of the study was monitored directly through the platform

known as the “Wall,” where all groups held their discussions. The “Wall” function

served as the meeting venue as well as the meeting recorder. Every conversation in

its entirety was recorded and could, therefore, be analyzed in detail. We noticed

56

learners were engaged in many peer-to-peer and self-correction behaviors during the

activity on Facebook learning environment.

The major findings are the following: (1) Case I (see Table 4.3) showed an

example of a self-correction behavior; (2) Case II and III showed the examples of

peer-to-peer correction behavior during the online discussion on Facebook.


self-correction in Facebook discussions

Case Student ID Content

I 29

Hey guys long time no see, the moment when I Liberation,

I think I'm in the PARADISW

45 PARADISE?

45 if you say heaven then I would understand faster.

29 I think I’m in the PARADISE.

II 29 but our boss is W-Y Wei

29 he will be responsible for it

21 why you use "but"

29 ok, our boss is W-Y Wei.

III 38 what do you meen

37 I'm serious!!!

37 Meen? What?

43 Mean

38 Mean

37 Just a mistake - -)

57

Several instances of peer-to-peer correction occurred in written conversations

on Facebook are shown in Table 4.3. For example, in Table 4.3, Case I, student 45

corrected his peer by writing, “if you say heaven then I would understand faster,”

giving student 29 a more suitable word to use than “paradise.” In Table 4.3, Case II,

student 29 wrote, “but our boss is W-Y Wei,” and student 21 replied, “why you use

‘but,’” questioning and noting a possible error in student 29’s use of the word “but.”

In Table 4.3, Case III, student 38 wrote, “what do you meen,” and both students 43

and 38 replied, with “mean,” correcting the spelling error of student 38. These

examples exhibited students could self-correct or peers were able to recognize and

correct another peer instantaneously in role-play interactions over Facebook, this is

the expected in language learning. Another interesting finding was participants were

more expressive, less hesitation over Facebook environment compared to classroom

lectures. (Nadzrah & Mickan, 2003). It is suggested that the absence of any pressure

to express face-to-face increased the freedom to express themselves in English. In

Facebook conversation, the occurrences of students recognizing and errors made in

group discussions had lower anxiety level, if not marginal, compared to the anxiety

level would have appeared in face-to-face discussion.

Parts of the learning process included self-correction. The following example

from the Facebook conversations showed evidence of self-correction by the students.

In the case of Table 4.3, Case I, student 29 wrote, “I think I’m in PARADISW” then

proceeded to self-correct writing, “PARADISE?” While writing in their

conversations on Facebook, the students can see their own mistakes and make the

necessary corrections.

58

4.1.4. Qualitative content analysis of speaking process: peer-to-peer and

self-correction

Role-play via Skype sought many instances of peer-to-peer and self-corrections

were identified (as shown in Table 4.4). The major findings are the following: (1)

Case I, II, VI, and VII showed the examples of peer-to-peer correction behavior; (2)

Case IV and V showed the examples of peer-to-peer correction behavior in

pronunciation; (3) Case III and VIII showed the examples of self-correction

behavior during Skype discussion.

For instance, in Table 4.4, Case I, student 7 searched for a word to replace

“discount” by saying “how. . . how can I say? Um...,” and student 24 replied with

“cheaper...hahaha....”. Student 7 acknowledged the suggestion and responded, “Yes,

cheaper. I think this is the cheapest, uh...is the cheapest price that you can get.” In

this example, student 7 accepted the feedback and converted the suggested word into

the superlative form for a more accurate use of the word. In Table 4.4, Case II,

student 47 made an error in the sentence by saying “uh. . .how. . .can. . .can you tell

me. . .how kind computer you want to buy?” and Student 30 corrected the error by

saying, “you mean what kind of computer?”. In Table 4.4, Case III, a student’s

listening ability was adjusted by another student. In this example, student 21 said,

“yeah, just these two,” and Student 6 made a listening error and said “six two?”.

Student 21 then replied, “uh. . .just ‘these’ two and we need four.” The above

demonstrated that peer-to-peer and self-corrections could be used beyond the

technical aspect of English and could also use for listening. The next example

showed how peer-to-peer correction may be applied in pronunciation. In Table 4.4

Case IV, Student 42 said, “did you have the bre-ti lite?” Student 27 replied with

“bre-ti lite..bre-ti. . .what? You mean ‘battery life’?” During a speaking exercise,

59

peer-to-peer corrections had more variations when used to correct beyond grammar

and vocabulary, same is applied for listening and pronunciation. Another example of

this is in Table 4.4, Case V, where student 42 said, “ok. . .can you repeat the piece of

it?”. Student 27 attempted to adjust for the error with, “repeat. . .repeat what?

Price. . .price. . .?”


self-correction in Skype discussion

(Part 1)


I 24

um…umm…if we want to buy six computers, then can

you give me more discount…for us?

07 um…umm…no maybe if I give you

more…um…num.num.num…how to say…

24 uh…discount

I 07 how…how can I say? Um..

24 cheaper…hahaha…

07 Yes, cheaper. I think this is the cheapest, uh…is the

cheapest price that you can get

II 30 I'm sorry what do you mean, can you say…it again?

47 uh…how…can…can you tell me…how kind computer

you want to buy?

30 you mean what kind of computer?

47 Yes

60

(Part 2)


III 21 yeah, just these two

06 six two?

21 uh…just “these” two and we need four

IV

42 did you have the bre-ti lite?

27 bre-ti lite...bre-ti…what? you mean “battery life”?

42 yeah…yeah…yeah…battery life

V 42 ok…can you repeat the piece of it?

27 repeat…repeat what? Price…price…?

42 Yes…Price…Price…sorry…

VI 42 ya…uh…I have a change

27 change? You want to change?

42 yeah…I want to change

VII 08 Can you give me more?

23 more discount?

08 Yes

VIII 49 So, how many days do you need?

22 How…how many days do I need?

49 Yes

22 Days?? What days??

49 um…wait me a later…

22 OK… Wait…Oh…oh…I see…haha…you mean how

many days…do I need…the computer.

49 Yes.

61

The results above were voice conversations as opposed to written conversations,

results suggested that student anxiety levels were not significantly altered by the

voice conversations or mistakes made during conversations. The students mainly

corrected for pronunciation and listening skills for Skype conversations.

The study was able to identify self-correction instances but fewer cases. For

instance, shown in Table 4.4, Case VIII. Student 49 asked, “So, how many days do

you need?” Student 22 iterated the question with, “How. . .how many days do I

need?” and Student 49 confirmed with “yes.” Confused, Student 22 asked, “Days??

What days??” After a pause, Student 22 was understood what Student 49 was

referring to. “Ok..wait.. oh..oh..I see..haha..you mean how many days..do I need..the

computer.” In this instance, Student 22 seemed slightly confused and needed a

longer response time to comprehend coherently the context of the conversation.

When appropriate time is given, the student reoriented himself and continued the

conversation. A notable observation is that, when there is sufficient response time

given in role-playing exercise, it increases self-correction occurrences.

4.1.5. Attitude Analysis

In summary, the responses from the open-ended attitude questionnaire (see

Appendix E) were positive towards the course and how the course evaluated the

result. Student 35 commented on the usefulness of this course “because in this

activity of role-playing on Facebook, I learn some vocabulary.” Student 49

commented that this course was interesting “because we will find something we have

to sell, and when we used English talk with our classmates, it’s really funny.”

The questionnaire also asked for peer evaluation and self-evaluation on overall

62

course effectiveness for their English learning. In self-evaluation about the level of

English ability, most students were conservative with their answers and some even

criticized their own English ability. For example, Student 14 commented on his/her

own weakness in English when he was asked to evaluate his/her peers. “Yes, some of

my classmates are good in English, they know difficult words and use them. My

English is poor, so sometimes I can’t understand.”

The evaluation on course effectiveness (useful, interesting, motivating)

received overwhelming positive notes about the course. The students stated that

integrating Facebook and Skype into the course was stimulating and fun experience

to learn English. For example, Student 37 said it was interesting because “I first use

English vocabulary to live.” Student 17 also thought it was interesting because “The

topic was selling and it was new.” Many students stated that role-play scenario

through Facebook and Skype was particularly relaxing and that they are more

enticed to communicate with peers and felt overall more motivated. Student 30

commented on the role-playing, “It’s very interesting to play as a seller”, and

Student 09 said it was interesting “because we can work together.”

4.1.6. Discussion

Test scores on pretest and posttest were compared; speaking and writing skills

had estimated 10.0% and 11.5% improvements respectively. This represented

significant development in the overall communication abilities within the course

period. The improvements between participants were very similar and the factors

that contributed to these improvements differ between speaking and writing. The

correlation analysis results suggested that certain parts of the course had more

63

influences on the development compared to other parts.

The study expected that speaking improvements conducted through Skype

would have most prominent effect. As per Shen and Suwanthep (2011), constructive

role-playing would induce improvements on language speaking quality and

language production. Role-play required participants to actively involve learning the

language not passively. According to theory of constructivism, learning is an

interactive and effective process when a learner is actively engaged in the

construction of knowledge, rather than passively accepting the knowledge (Shen &

Suwanthep, 2011). The instructional strategy utilizing Skype and role-play might

prove as the key reason of speaking improvements.

The correlation analysis also found correlation between participation level on

Facebook had impacts on learning how to write. Nevertheless, a negative correlation

was found between Skype participation level and learning effects on speaking. The

result indicated that instantaneous responses and participation levels do not have

direct relationship with each other; another word, speaking more does not

demonstrate better learning on how to speak. Study also suggested that participants

given enough response time could respond more accurately compared to those that

required instant responses and that response time is the key element to improve

speaking. This might be a good reference for teachers when they apply and engage

in EFL teaching activities using Skype.

The course was a combination of instructional design of role-play strategy on

Facebook and Skype; it suggested that discussion qualities via the two medians had

positive correlations with leanings of writing and speaking on posttests. The result

indicated that an integrated learning environment with instructional design strategies

64

have potentials to increase EFL learning effectiveness.

The analysis also explored for deeper understanding about how participants

improved their writing and speaking skills during these activities. Main

improvements resulted from peer-to-peer corrections include spelling, word choice,

grammar and pronunciation. The list of examples related to spelling and word choice

were predominately from Facebook conversations, which were detailed in Table 4.3.

The examples related to grammar and pronunciations were mostly from Skype

conversations, listed in Table 4.4. Skype allowed for pronunciation corrections,

which Facebook does not allow for. An important take away from these conclusions

is that peer-to-peer correction is an essential part of language learning. By allowing

mistakes to be made during an activity and with a counterpart acknowledging those

errors would provide the participants with motivations and focus to correct their own

mistakes.

All the participants were well familiar with Facebook and Skype platform

before the start of the course. High familiarity with these communication tools

allowed the participants to focus on the target language instead of having an

additional anxiety due to technology-related stress. A recommendation for EFL

instructors would to utilize software that is well-known to the students or to devote

substantial efforts giving instructions on how to operate in case of new learners.

4.2. Study 2

4.2.1. Learning Performance Analysis

The one-way ANCOVA and paired-sample t-test were adopted to determine

whether Skype based role-playing generated better learning performance than

65

face-to-face based role-playing on pretest and posttest scores. This section also

examined whether online discussions led to significant impacts on the learning

performance of students. The effect of prior knowledge of language learning might

influence learners’ speaking skill. Therefore, the pretest scores were used as

covariables.

In order to check whether the pretest scores of the two groups were more or

less similar to each other, the first step is to analyze the homogeneity of regression

coefficient. In Table 4.5, the test of the homogeneity of within-group regression

coefficients showed that Groups-Pretest score (F = 0.000, p = .984 > .05) did not

reach the level of significance. They were consistent with the homogeneity of

within-group regression coefficients of the covariables. Thus, the ANCOVA could be

continued.

Table 4.5 ANCOVA for pretest among control and experimental group

Source SS df MS F P

Groups * Pretest 0 1 0 0 0.984

Error 41.941 48 0.874

The result of ANCOVA shown in Table 4.6 indicated that the Groups-Pretest

scores did not reach the level of significance (F = 1.739, p = .193 > .05). In other

words, the results revealed that teaching methodology did not influence the posttest

results of the two groups (face-to-face and Skype). The learning effectiveness

between control and experimental groups did not show significant differences.

66

Table 4.6 ANCOVA for the control and experimental groups on the pretest

Source SS df MS F P

Pretest 107.262 1 107.262 125.314***

.000

Group (Control/Experimental) 1.489 1 1.489 1.739 .193

Error 41.941 49 .856

*** p<.001

Table 4.7 below is the paired-sample t-test results of learning performance of

all students from face-to-face and Skype groups. The results suggested significant

improvement in the scores on English speaking posttest of both experimental and

control group (p<.000). The results reflected a significant and meaningful

improvement in the participants’ English speaking abilities.

Table 4.7 Paired t-tests of the pre- and posttest scores for each group

Mean SD t p

Experimental group - Pretest 2.62 1.267 -11.329**

.000

Experimental group - Posttest 4.69 1.850

Control group - Pretest 2.46 .948 -8.538***

.000

Control group - Posttest 4.15 1.567

** p<.01,

*** p<.001

The study also demonstrated the differences in speaking performances of the

experimental and control groups; errors made by the learners in the groups were

examined both quantitatively and qualitatively in the sections below.

67

4.2.2. Speaking Error Analysis – Experimental Group

The study had smaller sample size; the learners were divided into thirteen pairs.

The result used non-parametric method and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank

test to analyze student errors during pre-, mid-, and post-stages of the Skype

conversations. The frequency of errors at the three stages was compared.

The result indicated a significant decrease (p=.008) in ALL errors from

mid-stage to post-stage, showing that EFL learners’ performance improved. The

result also exhibited a significant decrease in ALL errors (p=.023) from the mid-post

(z=-2.66) and post-pre stage (z=-2.27), as shown in Table 4.8. This suggested that

EFL learner made significantly less errors with the use of role-playing and VoIP in

EFL learning.

Table 4.8 Experimental group-comparison of all errors among stages

(Part 1)

Error Mean

SD Z value

Pre-Mid

Z value

Mid-Post

Z value

Post-Pre

All-Pre

All-Mid

All-Post

16.15

17.15

11.38

6.18

8.52

7.11

-.65

-2.66*

-2.27*

PN-Pre

PN-Mid

PN-Post

2.62

1.69

1.15

2.22

1.93

1.28

-1.80

-1.19

-2.06*

VT-Pre

VT -Mid

VT -Post

.23

.23

.54

.44

.44

.88

-.000 -1.625 -1.134

68

(Part 2)

Error Mean

SD Z value

Pre-Mid

Z value

Mid-Post

Z value

Post-Pre

VF-Pre

VF -Mid

VF -Post

.08

.00

.00

.28

.00

.00

-1.00 .00 -1.00

WF-Pre

WF-Mid

WF-Post

.92

.54

.46

.95

.97

.97

-1.32 -.21 -1.22

ART-Pre

ART-Mid

ART-Post

.38

.00

.00

.51

.00

.00

-2.24* .00 -2.24

*

S/P-Pre

S/P -Mid

S/P -Post

1.62

1.31

1.15

1.45

1.49

1.95

-.95 -.57 -1.37

PR-Pre

PR-Mid

PR-Post

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00 .00 .00

FR-Pre

FR-Mid

FR-Post

.15

.15

.08

.56

.38

.28

.00 -1.00 -.45

SS-Pre

SS-Mid

SS-Post

8.00

10.46

6.15

3.72

5.47

4.16

-1.94 -2.98* -1.79

WC-Pre

WC-Mid

WC-Post

2.15

2.77

1.85

1.07

2.24

1.77

-.72 -1.68 -.80

*p<.05

69

From this experiment, error types in three areas include pronunciation (PN),

articles (ART) and sentence structures (SS) showed significant improvements.

In Table 4.8, the pronunciation (PN) results indicated significant decrease

(Mean=2.62, SD=2.22, p=.04<.05) from the post- to pre-stage (z=-2.06), showing

the improvement of this linguistic feature. On the other hand, improvements from

pre- to mid- stage and mid- to post- stage were gradual. EFL learners displayed

significant improvements on PN errors from post- to pre- stage with the use of

role-playing and VoIP during EFL learning. The lower error rate implied that when

EFL learners were more engaged in role-playing activity, they often corrected

themselves due to pressure. EFL learners made corrections by repeating words they

heard from their peers. In summary, CMC tools such as Skype and role-playing had

helped develop speaking skills and engaged students in a multi-modal approach of

learning environment. Moreover, CMC tools also helped enhance listening skills as

students might have higher concentration, benefits of peer-to-peer help to discover

and correct errors in a CMC environment. In articles (ART) errors, the result

indicated a significant decrease (z=-2.24, p=.025<.05) from the pre- to mid-stage,

showing that EFL learners improved their performance (see Table 4.8). The result

also indicated a significant decrease in errors (z=-2.24, p=.025<.05) from post- to

pre-stage. Unlike a speaker who can use facial expressions, gestures, and body

language during face-to-face interactions to convey a message (Harmer, 2001), EFL

students in the Skype meeting only convey ideas through voice. This allowed the

EFL students to express themselves more carefully

Error type sentence structure (SS) demonstrated significant decrease in errors

from mid- to post-stage (z=-2.98, p=.003<.05), as shown in Table 4.8. The finding

indicated that Skype might enhance SS understanding. Greater improvements were

70

observed as EFL learners were more engaged in the activity and when after they

were no longer shy, afraid and reluctant to speak due to less interruption. Moreover,

the combination of role-playing and Skype presumably reduced speaking anxiety as

it allows EFL learners to communicate interpersonally via a computer instead of

face-to-face. Studies showed that communication via a computer would help reduce

speaking anxiety and therefore increase the proficiency (Gleason & Suvorov, 2012).

Cheon (2003) also showed that EFL learners reduced the anxiety from participating

in discussions had higher motivation to use the target language. These findings also

suggested that technologies such as computers give EFL learners more opportunities

to utilize target language and enrich linguistic capacities.

Note that improvements were insignificant from post to pre-stage due to time

control. EFL learners were given an objective to complete the conversation within a

time limit; as a result, less attention was paid to sentence structuring.

In conclusion, all error types showed improvements. However, there was no

significant difference in error rate for VT, VF, WK, S/P, PR, FR and WC. This might

be due to the influence of the learners’ first language (L1). Sun (2014) reported that

Chinese EFL learners often struggle with English tenses as Chinese is a tense absent

language. Thus, verb tenses can be confusing for Chinese speaking learners. Some

research have been conducted over the years and Chen (1998) reported that most

Chinese EFL learners have difficulties applying English tenses due to the absence of

verb conjugation in Mandarin. According to Yang, Ma, and Cao (2013), wrong word

choice was also due to the influence of the mother tongue. Chinese learners tend to

perform word-for-word translation and take it for granted that English words have

the same meaning and connotation with their Mandarin definitions.

71

4.2.3. Speaking Error Analysis – Control Group

For the control group, students were asked to have face-to-face role-playing

discussion. As shown in Table 4.9, language speaking improvement was not

observed as the p value in the three stages of pre-mid, mid-post, and pre-post did not

reach a significance level (p<.05). Therefore, it can be concluded that the students’

English speaking grammar errors were not reduced in a face-to-face setting. Despite

this, pronunciation (PN) and sentence structure (SS) errors have shown some

significant impact. The result indicated a significant decrease (z=-2.23, p=.026<.05)

in PN errors from mid- to post-stage, showing that EFL learners performance

improvements (see Table 4.9). The result also showed a significant decrease in errors

(z=-2.01, p=.044<.05) from post- to pre-stage. A possible reason for the decrease in

PN error from the mid to post-stage is that the students have the tendency to imitate

the mouth movements of the person they were talking to. By doing so, students

would try to pronounce it the same way as the speaker and eventually pronouncing

the words properly. It is important to note that improving speaking skills in a

face-to-face setting might only be applicable to certain students. Students were shy

and anxious from pre- to mid-stage and that improvements were not significant, but

progression was observed from the pre- to post-stage when the students were more

confident in speaking English.

72

Table 4.9 Control group-comparison of all errors among stages

(Part 1)

Error Mean SD Z value

Pre-Mid

Z value

Mid-Post

Z value

Post-Pre

All-Pre

All-Mid

All-Post

18.08

21.31

19.85

9.87

9.22

12.86

-1.46 -.67 -1.02

PN-Pre

PN-Mid

PN-Post

3.23

3.31

1.77

3.27

2.78

2.24

-.24 -2.23* -2.01

*

VT-Pre

VT -Mid

VT -Post

.62

.38

.69

.87

.51

1.11

-.91 -1.10 -.14

VF-Pre

VF -Mid

VF -Post

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00 .00 .00

WF-Pre

WF-Mid

WF-Post

.62

.46

.15

.87

.66

.38

-.82 -1.63 -1.90

ART-Pre

ART-Mid

ART-Post

.15

.38

.31

.38

.87

.86

-.71 -.28 -.38

S/P-Pre

S/P -Mid

S/P -Post

1.23

1.15

1.69

1.30

1.52

2.87

-.12 -.70 -.18

73

(Part 2)

PR-Pre

PR-Mid

PR-Post

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00 .00 .00

FR-Pre

FR-Mid

FR-Post

.15

.15

.00

.38

.56

.00

.00 -1.00 -1.41

SS-Pre

SS-Mid

SS-Post

9.00

11.54

11.62

4.69

5.03

7.92

-2.51* -.12 -1.89

WC-Pre

WC-Mid

WC-Post

3.08

3.92

3.62

1.89

2.69

2.40

-1.05 -.32 -.84

On the contrary, Skype conversations was not conducted face-to-face in which

the anxieties among groupmates were less and therefore fastened the progress of

speaking correctly.

As for sentence structure, students made more errors. This might be because

structuring a sentence was considered a complex process, which required different

linguistic components, such as a subject, verb, and an object. Furthermore, students

were affected by the environment where they could not concentrate on what they

were doing and saying. Another possible reason that learners showed less progress

in a face-to-face setting in oral performance was that verbal expressions were not the

only means to convey messages and they could employ other non-verbal expressions

simultaneously like body language. In contrast, in Skype communication, a lack of

non-verbal expressions encouraged the learners to verbalize their ideas or thoughts

by using more accurate sentences.

74

4.2.4. Qualitative content Analysis – Experimental Group

By using Skype, students were able to make corrections and improve their

sentence structure, articles, and pronunciation errors. The major findings are the

following: (1) Case I (see Table 4.10) showed an example of self-correction

behavior in sentence structure error; (2) Case II showed an example of

self-correction behavior in articles error; (3) Case III showed an examples of

peer-to-peer correction behavior in pronunciation error.

In Table 4.10, Case 1: Student 11 did not state his question clearly by not

formulating the sentence correctly and said “Let think what we going to sell first.”

Student 47 replied “oh.. sell first. Huh? What?” Then this helped Student 11 to

rethink for an alternative way to reformulate the question clarify himself “ah… What

kind of food do you want to sell?” By doing so, Student 11 got the answer, which

was a steamed sandwich. This observation is in line with Elms (1969) argument that

role-playing can change ones’ attitude. On the other hand, Student 23 in Case 2 did

not put the right article in his sentence while asked and said “Do you think it's

expensive or cheap for plate if it's fifty dollars?” thus making Student 05 confused

and asked a follow up question “uhh? cheap for plate? a plate?” This conversation

ended with the peer correction as Student 05 replied “Ya..ya…cheap for a plate.”

EFL learners also benefited from real-time language exchanges via Skype,

where they could ask questions in a foreign language. This can be seen in Table 4.10,

case III. Student 12 mispronounced the word “discuss” by saying “Let's disuque

(discuss) International Food Fair,” and Student 30 replied “Huh? Can you speak

again?” Student 12 answered by adding an article in the sentence but still

mispronounced the same word “Let's discuh (discuss) the International Food Fair.”

75

After student 30 replied “Ok, discuss what type of food do we want to sell?” Student

12 pronounced the word “discuss” correctly for the rest of the discussion. We further

assume that due to the lack of time pressure or distraction from other non-verbal

communication in Skype, the learners focused on their own utterances.

Godwin-Jones (2008) also found that EFL learners reacted well to VoIP peer

interaction in a scenario without time constraints or the fear of an EFL teachers’

presence. Apart from that, there are more other advantages for learning in the given

environment. One of those was mentioned by Batstone (2010) that oral corrective

feedback allowed more dynamic responses to learner errors, and this could be

effective to construct affordances and push learners to self-regulate.

Table 4.10 Examples of experimental group learners’ SS, ART, and PN in Skype

discussions

(Part 1)


I 11 Let think what we going to sell first.

47 oh.. sell first. Huh? What?

11

47

ah.. What kind of food do you want to sell?

I want to sell.. steamed sandwich.

II 05 Do you think it's expensive or cheap for plate if it's fifty

dollars?

23 uhh? cheap for plate? a plate?

05 Ya..ya…cheap for a plate.

76

(Part 2)

III 12 Let's disuque (discuss) International Food Fair.

30

12

30

12

Huh? Can you speak again?

Let's discuh (discuss) the International Food Fair.

Ok, discuss what type of food do we want to sell?

Yes, discuss!

4.2.5. Qualitative content Error Analysis – Control Group

By using face-to-face techniques, students were able to make corrections and

improve their sentence structure and pronunciation errors. The major findings are

the following: (1) Case I (see Table 4.11) showed an example of peer-to-peer

correction behavior in pronunciation error; (2) Case II showed an example of

self-correction behavior in sentence structure error.

In Table 4.11, case I, Student 07 mispronounced “budget” as “bu-get” in “how’s

your bu-get (budget)?” then Student 18 responded “What? Say.” Although Student

07 pronounced budget incorrectly again, he changed the sentence from “how is the

bu-get?” to “what is the bu-get?” What Student 7 did was help others understand

what he was trying to say. A correct pronunciation was supplied by Student 18 by

saying “Budget!” which assisted Student 07 to produce the word correctly “Budget!

Oh! Haha!”

In Table 4.11, case II, Student 20 first uttered “how much?” Student 32 was

then repeating what Student 20 said to verify what the speaker intended to say.

Afterwards, Student 20 gave more information “How much, ah… how much food?

Hmm” that allowed Student 32 to reply. Intriguingly, such exchange illustrated that

77

the interlocutors generated their turns by negotiating and exchanging ideas with each

other For example, Student 20 replied “I think morer. Haha!” after Student 32

offered a price “Forty?” On the other hand, the students made numerous errors

regarding sentence structures, which might be a cause from their nervousness or

anxiety while communicating with each other in English.

Table 4.11 Examples of control group learners’ PN and SS in face-to-face

discussions


I 07 How's your bu-get (budget)?

18 What? Say..

07

18

07

What is the bu-get (budget)?

Budget!

Budget! Oh! Haha!

II 20 How…much?

32 How much?

20 How much ,ah.. how much food? Hmm.

32 Thirty?

20 Thirty? More more little more more a little more. Haha!

32 Forty?

20 I think morer. Haha!

32 One hundred?

20 No. Too much too much!

32 Fifty?

20 Okay. I think fifty is… is okay okay. Haha! It's very okay.

so... rice cake fifty. Bibimbap fifty and korean kimchi fifty.

78

4.2.6. Discussion

The study showed that student errors during discussions decreased with the

help of VoIP. In addition, students felt more liberated to express their ideas (Nadzrah

& Mickan, 2003) less hesitation in the Skype environment. EFL learners were more

likely to enjoy their time learning with Skype. Studies showed that technology

integration can promote academic performance, motivation and learning (Chen,

2006).

In this designed VoIP activity, EFL learner errors decreased in all errors (ALL),

pronunciation (PN), sentence structure (SS), and article (ART). The instructional

methods using Skype offered EFL learners a new way to improve their speaking

skills in the present study. A technology-enhanced environment can increase

participant’s attention to be more expressive and encourage collaborative work of

language errors (Alwi, Adams, & Newton, 2012).

In the face-to-face role-playing activity, EFL learner errors decreased in PN and

SS. A face-to-face environment might promote certain speaking skills. EFL learners

in the study revealed peer-to-peer correction. When they had more exposure to

authentic/natural language environment, it helped improve the word choice,

sentence structure, and pronunciation (Wang, Berger, & Szilas, 2012). An example

of article, sentence structure, and pronunciation were seen in experimental group, in

Table 4.10. The environment of Skype allowed students to communicate without

fear and time constraints. Skype encouraged students to play active roles in language

learning (Tsukamoto, Nuspliger, & Senzaki, 2009) instead of passive listeners. EFL

learner interactions on Skype were seen as the idea of Constructivism (Проценко,

2010). Skype forced the students to shift their focus away from passive listeners to

79

active participants. The Skype online discussion appeared to have a positive effect

with decreased error counts made by EFL learners.

These platforms provided a fun learning environment for EFL learners to

correct each other. Both EFL learners and teachers benefited from improved

technology with more confidence by using technology in the classroom (Eaton,

2010). These findings may show that technology had enhanced student learning by

increasing motivation to learn and engaging in diverse activities by integrating

different learning styles to retain necessary skills in today’s technological society

(Chantra, 2011).

80

5. Conclusions and Future Works

Based on the results, comprehensive discussions, and suggestions of the above

two studies, we now draw conclusions about this research and determine directions

of future research.

5.1. Conclusions

In study 1, the suggested findings of quantitative, qualitative, behavior analysis

is to further explore EFL learning and provide new techniques and strategies that can

be applied to improve EFL teaching. The study focused on three strategies:

Facebook, Skype, and role-playing. First, role-playing allowed the learner to apply

language actively rather than passively. It increases learning motivation, and reduces

anxiety levels while cognitively immersing the learning into a context. The

synchronous nature of role-playing promotes learning; as noted by Jauregi and

Bañados (2008), it forces students to learn and fill information gaps, understand

unpredictability of communication and collaborate to construct meaningful idea

exchanges. The instructional activity that incorporates Facebook, Skype, and

role-playing showed valuable results in formulating EFL learning. As Chen (2011)

also found that, interactions with a computer, as opposed to in-person creates a less

stressful, more comfortable speaking environment. By applying the right

role-playing contents, it can be just as effective for EFL learning through Facebook

and Skype used to improve writing and speaking skills. The study suggested that

future EFL lesson plans could incorporate Facebook with role-playing and/or Skype

platform as an alternative to improve speaking. As Skype promoted learning, but it

also showed limitations on learning effectiveness on the level of participation. A

81

potential reason could be the eagerness to express ideas fast, thus being less focus on

producing correct speech. There are other research studies that analyze other

behavioral patterns that can have significant value. This study explored only two

CMC platforms (Facebook and Skype) and the results are valid within the

parameters of these two applications only. Further research would be valuable to

examine CMC platforms (Facebook and Skype) independently to understand and

analyze how each affect learning and learning process patterns. Furthermore, the

understanding of Facebook or Skype for telecollaboration purposes with real-world

experts and impacts on the learning opportunities could be another valuable research

option. As noted by Nagel and Kotze (2010), we should also be attentive to

community building, social networking, and inter-personal relationships for future

research. Overall, the study concluded that these CMC combine with role-playing

could represent a viable and effective EFL teaching strategy in the future.

In study 2, this investigation is aimed to explore the effects of two

environments (Skype and face-to-face) on EFL learner’s oral performances by

comparing the error frequency (e.g., verb tenses) in the learner’s utterances. This

research discovered that the experimental group outperformed the control group as

the participants in the former group showed a significant decrease in ALL errors

from mid-stage to post-stage, which means that EFL learners reduced their speaking

errors (e.g., article and sentence structure) via the use of role-playing and VoIP in

EFL learning. In face-to-face discussion, ALL error rates did not show significant

improvement. It can be concluded that the students made more grammar errors in a

face-to-face setting. The results showed that Skype actively encouraged students to

use target language more accurately.

The context of the research deviated into two stages by two studies. Study 1

82

validated the effectiveness of integrating applying the role-playing instructional

strategy to Facebook and Skype as a means to enhance learners’ speaking and

writing skills in an EFL class. Then study 2 compared between experimental and

control groups to see if experimental group would outperform the control group.

Results of study 1 indicated the effectiveness of applying role-playing instructional

strategy to Facebook and Skype. On the other hand, study 2 indicated marginal

performance improvement. Aragon, Johnson, and Shaik (2002) suggested that

students could learn equally well in either online instructional design course or

face-to-face course. However, content errors have significantly decreased in both

experimental and control groups. In the future, if we want to increase the

effectiveness of overall performance improvements in both groups, course design

will need to be modified.

5.2. Future Works

There are some limitations in this study. First, the small sample size of these

two studies makes the results hardly be generalized to the target population. Second,

only one of the learning tasks (role-playing) was adopted in this study to assess

participants’ oral and writing performance.

Future research is recommended to analyse EFL students’ oral and writing

performance with a larger sample size using other VOIP or SNS environments and

to analyse students’ behavioural patterns, which could further validate the results of

the present research and would hold significant value. With the right role-playing

instructional content, Facebook and Skype could be a well-rounded platform for

EFL learners because, as indicated in the results, Facebook and Skype are effective

83

in increasing writing and speaking skills. As seen in these studies, Facebook and

Skype motivated EFL learners and encouraged them to write and speak freely. This

study and Cardoso and Matos (2012) showed that diverse applications in education

were effective, especially in terms of peer interactions. By monitoring behaviors and

errors in VoIP helped identify errors and make corrections easier. Teachers can

incorporate these methods into future EFL courses inside and outside of the

classroom. In conclusion, Facebook and Skype in combination with role-playing

could represent a viable and effective EFL teaching strategy in the future. And

training EFL students in online interactive discussions enriches the learning process

for EFL learners.

84

References

85

Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S. D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The influence of learning

style preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. The

American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 227-243.

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral

performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a

CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 493-514.

AbuSeileek, A. F., & Qatawneh, K. (2013). Effects of synchronous and

asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) oral conversations on

English language learners' discourse functions. Computers & Education, 62,

181-190.

Aliakbari, M., & Jamalvandi, B. (2010). The impact of ‘Role Play’ on fostering EFL

learners’ speaking ability: a task-based approach. Pan-Pacific Association of

Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 15-29.

Al-Shehri, S. (2011). Context in our pockets: Mobile phones and social networking

as tools of contextualising language learning. In mLearn 2011 Conference

Proceedings, Beijing (pp. 278-286).

Alsulami, S. (2016). The Effects of Technology on Learning English as a Foreign

Language Among Female EFL Students at Effatt College: An Exploratory

Study. Studies in Literature and Language, 12(4), 1-16.

Alwi, N. A. N. M., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat:

Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing,

21, 23-39.

Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential speaking skills. A&C Black.

Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during

86

task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication.

Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 201-229.

Banados, E. (2006). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning

EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment.

CALICO Journal, 23(3), 533-550.

Batstone, R. (Ed.). (2010). Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and

language learning. 3-23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beer, D., & Burrows, R. (2007). Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some initial

considerations. Sociological research online, 12(5), 17.

Bikowski, D., & Kessler, G. (2002). Making the most of discussion boards in ESL

classrooms. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 27-30.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish

interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.

Blake, R. (2008). Distance learning for second and foreign language teaching. In:

van Deusen-Scholl, N. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of language

and education (Vol.4, pp. 365-376). New York: Springer.

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2010). Social network sites: definition, history, and

scholarship. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 3(38), 16-31.

Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say

“It”right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign

Language Annals, 30(4), 524–541.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language (Vol. 2). Cambridge

University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principals of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New

York: Longman

87

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of

learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Bueno Alastuey, M. C. (2011). Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous

voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language

classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 419-432.

Busch, D. (1982). Introversion-extraversion and the EFL proficiency on Japanese

students. Language Learning, 32(1), 109–132.

Cardoso, T., & Matos, F. (2012). Learning Foreign Languages in the Twenty-First

Century: An Innovating Teletandem Experiment Through Skype. In Media in

Education, 87-95. Springer New York.

Cassady, J. C. (2010). Anxiety in schools: The causes, consequences, and solutions

for academic anxieties (Vol. 2). Peter Lang.

Chantra, A. (2011). Using Skype interactive book talks to support literacy learning

in young children?. Education Masters, 46. Retrieved January 31, 2017, from

http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/education_ETD_masters/46

Chen, H. C. (1998). A contrastive analysis of the language errors made by the

Chinese students of English as a second/foreign language. Journal of Wu-Feng

Applied Linguistics, 6, 224-237.

Chen, H. J. (2011). Developing and evaluating an oral skills training website

supported by automatic speech recognition technology. ReCALL, 23(1), 59–78.

Chen, L. (2006). The effect of the use of L1 in a multimidia tutorial on grammar

learning: an error analysis of Taiwanese beginning EFL learners’ English essays.

The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(2), 76-110

Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid

French and Spanish courses: an overview of Language Online. CALICO

Journal, 24(1), 285-314.

88

Chien, L. D., Muthitacharoen, A. M., & Frolick, M. N. (2003). Investigating the use

of role play training to improve the communication skills of IS professionals:

Some empirical evidence. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43(3),

67-74.

Cheon, H. (2003). The viability of computer mediated communication in the Korean

secondary EFL classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 5(1), 1738-1460.

Chu, H. N. R. (2008). Shyness and EFL learning in Taiwan: A study of shy and

non-shy college students' use of strategies, foreign language anxiety, motivation,

and willingness to communicate. Doctoral Dissertation, the University of

Texas at Austin.

Cloete, S., De Villiers, C., & Roodt, S. (2009). Facebook as an academic tool for

ICT lecturers. Research presented at the annual meeting of SACLA. Eastern

Cape, South Africa. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/849759/Facebook_as_an_academic_tool_for_ICT_le

cturers

Coll-García, J. F., & Linser, R. (2006). Web-Based Role-Play Simulations and

Foreign Language Learning: An Attitudinal Survey. EUROCALL 2006,

Integrating CALL into Study Programmes.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as Global Language, Second Edition, Cambridge

University Press.

Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., & Granger, S. (1998). Computer-aided error analysis.

System, 26(2), 163-174.

Darus, S., & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error analysis of the written English essays

of secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European Journal of

Social Sciences, 8(3), 483-495.

89

Deneme, S. (2011). A lesson model for enhancing motivation in EFL writing classes.

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(7), 785-788.

Digital Company Statistics. (2016). By the numbers: 24 amazing Skype statistics

and facts. Retrieved from

http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/skype-statistics/

Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (2003) ‘Optimal Psycholinguistic Environments for

distance Foreign Language Learning’, Language Learning & Technology, Vol.

7, No. 3, pp.50-80.

Dussias, P. E., & Cramer, T. R. (2006). The role of L1 verb bias on L2 sentence

parsing. In Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston university conference on

language development (Vol. 1, pp. 166-177).

Eaton, S. E. (2010). How to use Skype in the ESL/EFL classroom. The Internet

TESL Journal, 16(11).

Elia, A. (2006). Language learning in tandem via Skype. The Reading Matrix: An

International Online Journal, 6(3), 269-280.

Ellis, R. (2003). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Erten, I. H., & Altay, M. (2009). The effects of task-based group activities on

students’ collaborative behaviours in EFL speaking classes. Journal of theory

and practice in Education, 5(1), 33-52.

Eskey, D. E. (1983). Meanwhile, Back in the Real world . . .: Accuracy and Fluency

in Second Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 315-323.

Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the

short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F.

Hyland (Eds.): Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.

81-104). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit

http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/skype-statistics/

90

does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.

Gánem Gutiérrez, A. G. (2003). Beyond interaction: the study of collaborative

activity in computer- mediated tasks. ReCALL, 15(1), 94–112.

Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. Psychology of learning

and motivation, 9, 133-177.

Gleason, J., & Suvorov, R. (2012). Learner Perceptions of Asynchronous Oral

Computer-mediated Communication: Proficiency and Second Langauge Selves.

The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 100.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2007). Digital video update: YouTube, flash, high-definition.

Language Learning & Technology, 11(1), 16-21.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting, and assessing

writing online. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 7-13.

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S.

(2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology

types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1),

70-105.

Gorjian, B., Moosavinia, S. R., Kavari, K. E., Asgari, P., & Hydarei, A. (2011). The

impact of asynchronous computer-assisted language learning approaches on

English as a foreign language high and low achievers' vocabulary retention and

recall. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 383-391.

Gruban, I. (2016). E-learning in primary English. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of

Education, University of Zagreb.

Guth, S., & Marini-Maio, N. (2010). Close encounters of a new kind: The use of

Skype and Wiki in telecollaboration. Telecollaboration, 2, 413-426.

Hadley, O. A. (1992). Teaching Language in Context. Heinle & Heinle, Boston.

91

Hamada, M. (2013). E-learning: New technology, applications and future trends.

Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Hamrouni, N. (2010). Structure and Processing in Tunisian Arabic: Speech Error

Data.

Hiew, W. (2012). English language teaching and learning issues in Malaysia:

learners’ perceptions via Facebook dialogue journal. Researchers World, 3(1),

11.

Higgins, J. (1995). Computers and English language learning. London: Intellect Ltd.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Hou, H. T. (2011). A case study of online instructional collaborative discussion

activities for problem-solving using situated scenarios: an examination of

content and behavior cluster analysis. Computer & Education, 56(3), 712-719.

Hou, H. T. (2012). Analyzing the Learning Process of an Online Role-Playing

Discussion Activity. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 211-222.

Hussein, N. O., & Elttayef, A. I. (2016). The Impact of Utilizing Skype as a Social

Tool Network Community on Developing English Major Students' Discourse

Competence in the English Language Syllables. Journal of Education and

Practice, 7(11), 29-33.

IELTS band scores (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.ielts.org/institutions/test_format_and_results/ielts_band_scores.asp

x

Jafarian, K., Soori, A., & Kafipour, R. (2012). The effect of computer assisted

language learning (CALL) on EFL high school students’ writing achievement.

European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(2), 138-148.

92

Jauregi, K., & Bañados, E. (2008). Virtual interaction through video-web

communication: A step towards enriching and internationalizing language

learning programs. ReCALL, 20(2), 183-207.

Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: an online

environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet

and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187.

Kao, C. C. (1999). An Investigation into lexical, grammatical, and semantic errors in

English compositions of college students in Taiwan. Fu Hsing Kang Journal,

67, 1-32.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers:

Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern

language journal, 79(4), 457-476.

Kessler, G. (2010). Fluency and anxiety in self-access speaking tasks: the influence

of environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 361-375.

Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2007). An interview study of inter-cultural contact and its

role in language learning in a foreign language environment. System, 35(2),

241-258.

Kraemer, A. (2008). Formats of distance learning. In: Goertler, S. & Winke, P. (eds.),

Opening doors through distance language education: principles, perspectives,

and practices (pp. 11-42). CALICO Monograph Series. San Marcos, TX:

Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO).

Ladousse, G. P. (1987). Role Play. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with

technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335.

Lamy, M., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and

93

teaching. Springer.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & Principles in Language

Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing Learners' Communication Skills through Synchronous

Electronic Interaction and Task‐Based Instruction. Foreign Language Annals,

35(1), 16-24.

Lee. E.P. (2001). Error analysis on medical students’ writing. Retrieved from

http://www.stc.arts.chula.ac.th/itua/papers_for_itua_proceedings/eunpyo-new.p

df

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern

Language Journal, 93(s1), 769-782.

Li, Y. H. (2001). College English: integrated course 1 students’ book. Shanghai:

Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Lin, S. (2002). A case study of English writing competence of students at the Mei

Ho Institute of Technology. Journal of Mei Ho Institute of Technology, 20,

180-206

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’

unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern

Language Journal, 92(1), 71-86.

Luchini, P. L. (2004). Developing oral skills by combining fluency-with

accuracy-focused tasks: a case study in China. Asian EFL Journal, 6(4).

Retrieved from http://www.asian-efljournal.com/december_04_PL.html

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to

error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language learning,

48(2), 183-218.

94

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relationship to

other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language

learning, 41(4), 513-534.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtlen effects of language anxiety

on cognitive processingnin the second language. Language Learning, 44(2),

283-305.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration

and informal learning at University: ‘It is more for socializing and talking to

friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and

Technology, 34(2), 141-155.

Marín Ortiz, A. (2015). Analyzing Students’ Perceptions Towards Using Technology

in EFL. University of Veracruz, Mexico.

Matsuoka, R. (2008). Communication Apprehension Among Japanese College

Students. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 12(2),

37-48.

Mayora, C. A. (2009). Using YouTube to encourage authentic writing in EFL

classrooms. TESL Reporter, 42(1), 1-12.

McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: a summary of recent

theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 78-96.

Morton, H., Davidson, N., & Jack, M. A. (2008). Evaluation of a speech-interactive

CALL system. In: Zhang, F. and Barber, B. (eds.), Handbook of research on

computer-enhanced language acquisition and learning (pp. 220-240). Hershey,

PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction.

The Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.

95

Nagel, L., & Kotzé, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals

about teaching presence in a large online class. The Internet and Higher

Education, 13(1), 45-51.

Nunan, D. (2001). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Ockert, D. (2015). Increases in Japanese EFL Learners' Motivation, International

Posture, and Interest in Foreign Language Activities after Skype Exchanges.

Digital Culture & Education, 7(2).

Okuyama, Y. (2005). Distance language learning via synchronous

computer-mediated communication (SCMC): Eight factors affecting NS-NNS

chat interaction. The JALT CALL Journal, 1(2), 3-20.

Olasehinde, M. O. (2002). Error analysis and remedial pedagogy. In Babatunde S. T.

and D. S. Adeyanju (eds.). Language, meaning and society. Ilorin: Itaytee Press

and Publishing Co., Nigeria.

Omar, H., Embi M. A., & Yunus M. Md. (2012). Learners’ Use of Communication

Strategies in an Online Discussion via Facebook. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 64, 535-544.

Otoshi, J. (2005). An analysis of the use of Criterion in a writing classroom in Japan.

The JALT CALL Journal, 1(1), 30-38.

Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2

oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 35-54.

Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through

synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development.

Calico Journal, 7-32.

Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight

disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 179-200.

96

Pekrun, R. (2014). Emotions and Learning: Educational Practices Series-24.

International Bureau of Education, IBE. Retrieved from

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Educational_Pra

ctices/EdPractices_24eng.pdf

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the

development of grammatical competence. Network-based language teaching:

Concepts and practice, 59, 86.

Pong, K. H. (2010). Learners’ Anxieties on Posting Their Own Speeches on Youtube.

com: Facilitative or Debilitative?. In Selected Papers from the Third

Conference on College English: College English Issues and Trends, 3, 73-100.

Pun, M. (2014). The use of multimedia technology in english language teaching: a

global perspective. Crossing the Border: International Journal of

Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(1), 29-38.

Проценко, К. О. (2010). Web-based constructivist teaching academic writing.

Modern approaches and innovations in teaching foreign languages, 166.

Razak, N. A., Saeed, M., & Ahmad, Z. (2013). Adopting social networking sites

(SNSs) as interactive communities among English foreign language (EFL)

learners in writing: Opportunities and challenges. English Language Teaching,

6(11), 187.

Richards, J. C. (1999). Addressing the grammar gap in task work. In: Richards, J. C.

and Renandya, W. A. (eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology

of current practice (pp. 153-166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sanders, R. F. (2005). Redesigning introductory Spanish: increased enrollment,

online management, cost reduction, and effects on student learning. Foreign

Language Annals, 38(4), 523-532.

97

Satar, H. M., & Ö zdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking

proficiency and anxiety: text versus voice chat. Modern Language Journal,

92(4), 595-613.

Schcolnik, M., & Kol, S. (1999). Using presentation software to enhance language

learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(3). Retrieved from

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Schcolnik-Presentation.html

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students' education-related use of

Facebook. Learning, Media & Technology, 34(2), 157-174.

Shaw, M. E., Corsini, R. J., Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1980). Role Playing: A

Practical Manual for Group Facilitators. University Associates Inc.

Shen, L., & Suwanthep, J. (2011). E-learning constructive role plays for EFL

learners in China’s tertiary education. Asian EFL Journal, 54(1), 4-29.

Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning

English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended

learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829-845.

Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous

and asynchronous communication. Language learning & technology, 4(1),

82-119.

Strambi, A., & Bouvet, E. (2003). Flexibility and interaction at a distance: a

mixed-mode environment for language learning. Language Learning &

Technology, 7(3), 81-102.

Sun, Y.C. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language

Learning and Technology, 13(2), 88–103.

Sun, Y. C., & Yang, F. Y. (2015). I help, therefore, I learn: service learning on Web

2.0 in an EFL speaking class. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3),

98

202-219.

Sun. X. H. (2014). Ungrammatical Patterns in Chinese EFL Learners’ Free Writing.

Canadian Center of Science and Education, l7(3), 176. Retrieved Feburary 21,

2016, from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/34251/19573

Suthiwartnarueput, T., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2012). Effects of using Facebook as a

medium for discussions of English grammar and writing of low-intermediate

EFL students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(2),

194-214.

Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: its contribution to second language

learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115-132.

Tian, J., & Wang, Y. (2010). Taking language learning outside the classroom:

learners' perspectives of eTandem learning via Skype. Innovation in Language

Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 181-197.

Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Harlow, England: Longman.

Tsukamoto, M., Nuspliger, B., & Senzaki, Y. (2009). Using Skype© to connect a

classroom to the world: Providing students an authentic language experience

within the classroom. In CamTESOL conference on English language teaching:

selected papers 5, 162-168.

Vaseki, A. (2013). Learning a foreign language: A quick guide to understanding

Spanish, French and German foreign language training, special conjugations

training, verbs for training, syllables and how to learn foreign languages with

training toys. Kobo Edition (eBook). Clinton Gilkie.

Vrabcova, D. (2015). Teachers’ and Teacher Educators’ Attitudes to Educational

Changes: An Insight to the Czech Educational System. Procedia – Social and

99

Behavioral Sciences, 171, 472-481.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher mental

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, C.H. (2005). Questioning skills facilitate online synchronous discussions.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 303–313.

Wang, J., Berger, C., & Szilas, N. (2012). Pedagogical Design of an eTandem

Chinese-French Writing Course. J. UCS, 18(3), 393-409.

Waniek-Klimczak, E., Majer, J., & Pawlak, M. (2011). Speaking and Instructed

Foreign Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition). UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An

overview. Language teaching, 31(02), 57-71.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching:

Concepts and practice. Cambridge university press.

Yancey, K. B. (2009). Writing in the 21st Century. National Council of Teachers of

English.

Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, L. Y. (2007). No improvement-reflections and suggestions

on the use of Skype to enhance college students’ oral English proficiency.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 721-725.

Yang, L., Ma, A.P. and Cao, Y. (2013). Lexical negative transfer analysis and

pedagogic suggestions of native language in Chinese EFL writing. 2013

Conference on Education Technology and Management Science (ICETMS

2013), Atlantis Press. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from:

http://www.atlantis-press.com/php/pub.php?publication=icetms-13.

Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s

100

about time. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72-93.

Yoon, S. Y., Hasegawa-Johnson, M., & Sproat, R. (2010). Landmark-based

automated pronunciation error detection. In Interspeech (pp. 614-617).

Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., Sun, C. H., Yen, J. Y. P., & Li, L. K. S. (2011). Using

Facebook groups in teaching ESL writing. Recent Researches in Chemistry,

Biology, Environment and Culture, 75(1), 75-80.

101

Appendices

102

Appendix A: Writing Pretest Question (Study 1)

Introduction:

Your friend, Sally, is coming to visit Taiwan for 4 days and 3 nights. She needs you to

arrange and schedule a one-day meeting for her with Dr. Wu. For the rest of the days,

she would like to go sightseeing.

What you need to do is:

1. Reply her email with the detail information.

2. Inform her about the hotel arrangement, the meeting time with Dr. WU, the time

and venue for lunch & dinner appointments, the sightseeing places, and ......etc.

Example of an email:

To: [email protected]

Subject: Welcome to Taiwan

Dear Sally,

(Paragraph 1: Greeting.)

(Paragraph 2: Provide the detail information about the schedule you have planned

for her.)

(Paragraph 3: Confirmation of the time and venue for each schedule.)

Sincerely yours,

(Your name)

103

Appendix B: Speaking Pretest Questions (Study 1)

Interview questions:

1. Have you bought anything over the phone? If not, would you? Why?

2. Would you buy any electronic products over the phone, the Internet or in the store?

Why or why not?

104

Appendix C: Writing Posttest Questions (Study 1)

Introduction:

Your company (Banana Daily / Orange Information Technology) is organizing a

Year End Party, which will be on December 31, 2011. Fortunately, you are in charge

of the lucky draw event! Since you have a budget of NTD$500,000, you need to

decide what to buy for this event. Please write an email to place an order.

Please go to (www.target.com.tw) to check out all different kinds of products. Then

write an email to a Target’s salesperson to place an order.

(Email: [email protected])

Example:

To: [email protected]

Subject: Place an order (your English first/last name)

Dear Target Salesperson,

(Paragraph 1: Say why you are writing / introduce your company.)

(Paragraph 2: Place an order.)

(Paragraph 3: Place / Time of delivery.)

Sincerely yours,

(Your name)

(Your position)

(Your company’s name)

http://www.target.com/

105

Appendix D: Speaking Posttest Questions (Study 1)

Interview questions:

1. What would you do before you decide to buy an expensive product?

2. What's the most important quality in a good sales person?

106

Appendix E: Attitude questionnaire form (Study 1)

English name: __________________ ID: _____________ Date: _________

Answer the following questions. Where necessary, provide an explanation.

By the end of the role-playing activity:

1. Did you improve your speaking skills? If YES, what did you improve?

Confidence in giving a talk _______

Pronunciation _______

Fluency _______

English usage _______

Sentence structure ______

Word choice ______

Word form ______

Verb tense ______

Verb form ______

Pronouns ______

Articles ______

Singular/plural ______

2. Did you improve your writing skills? If YES, what did you improve?

English usage _______

Sentence structure ______

Word choice ______

Word form ______

Verb tense ______

107

Verb form ______

Pronouns ______

Articles ______

Singular/plural ______

3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of your classmates’ speaking?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of your classmates’ writing?

Peer Assessment

5. Did you find it difficult to understand your classmate's speaking? If YES, why?

6. Did you find it difficult to understand your classmate's writing? If YES, why?

Self Assessment

7. Did you find it difficult to understand your own speaking? If YES, why?

8. Did you find it difficult to understand your own writing? If YES, why?

108

9. Does online discussion on Skype make you less anxious than in class

face-to-face discussion?

10. Does online discussion on Facebook make you less anxious than in class

face-to-face discussion?

11. Do you feel tense having to communicate with your classmate on Skype?

12. Do you feel tense having to communicate with your classmate on

Facebook?

Overall Evaluation

13. Did you find the whole activity of role-play on Skype:

Useful _________ Why?

__________________________________________

Interesting ______ Why?

___________________________________________

109

Motivating ______ Why?

___________________________________________

14. Did you find the whole activity of role-play on Facebook:

Useful _________ Why?

__________________________________________

Interesting ______ Why?

___________________________________________

Motivating ______ Why?

___________________________________________

110

Appendix F: Vocabularies for the International Food Fair Activity (Study 2)

1. A List of Food Vocabulary Words

Hamburgers Spaghetti

Hot Dogs Corn Soup

Popcorn Clam Chowder

Ice Cream Dim Sum

Snow Cone Sushi

Pita Pocket Sandwich Indian Curry

Pasta with Meatballs Churros

Egg Tart Carrot Cupcake

Shave Ice BBQ

Pizza (Seafood, Pepperoni, BBQ,

Grilled, etc.)

Grilled Chicken

Kimchi Pho Noodle Soup

Bibimbap Laksa

Quiche Bake Potato

Stinky Tofu Oyster Omelette

Nasi Goreng Beef Noodle

Sausage with sticky rice Tube Rice Pudding

Potato Ice Cream Chocolate Chips

Mini Donuts Maple Bacon Funnel Cake

Scotch Eggs Pineapple Fried Rice

French Fries Seafood Paella Rice

Chicken Quesadilla S’More

Smoothies Fruit Punch

Lasagna Crêpes

Fried Chicken Nachos

Burritos Mac and Cheese

Pies (Apple, Blueberry, Raspberry, Fish & Chips

111

Pumpkin, etc.)

2. A List of Food Adjectives

Bland Creamy

Delicious Yummy

Sour Sweet

Bitter Spicy

Crunchy Oily

Crispy Hard

Soft Chewy

Salty Juicy

Tasteless Tender

Healthy Fresh

Succulent Raw

Hot Cold

Mediterranean Crumbly

Disgusting Thai

Japanese Fluffy

Round Green

Stinky Smelly

Rich Fragrant

Triangle Chinese

Indian Yellow

Purple American

Oval Cantonese

Fatty Burnt

Mexican Korean

Warm Vietnamese

Singaporean White

Brown Taiwanese

Spanish French

112

Indonesian Italian

3. A List of Marketing and Purchasing Vocabulary Words

Budget Food Vendors

Food Suppliers Discount

Booth Theme

Buyer Seller

Marketing/Public Relations Advertisement

Timetable Schedule

Service Delivery

Menu Planning

Strategy Profit

Brand Objective

Handling Technical

Support Policy

Customer Quotation

Price Tag Sponsorship

Entertainment Design

Contract Complain

Sales Promotion Pricing

Buy 1 Get 1 Free 3 for $100

113

Appendix G: Food Adjectives Worksheet (Study 2)

Bland Creamy Tasteless

Delicious Yummy Healthy

Sour Sweet Succulent

Bitter Spicy Hot

Crunchy Oily Mediterranean

Crispy Hard Disgusting

Soft Chewy Japanese

Salty Juicy Round

Mexican Stinky Tender

Warm Rich Fresh

Singaporean Triangle Raw

Brown Indian Cold

Spanish Purple Crumbly

Taiwanese Oval Thai

Green Fatty Fluffy

Italian American French

Burnt Cantonese Smelly

Korean Vietnamese Fragrant

Indonesian White Yellow

Put the adjective above under the correct tables.

Taste Color Texture Shape Origin

114

Appendix H: Example Questions for Discussion in Week 3 (Study 2)

1. What is your goal for an International Food Fair?

2. Decide what type of food you want to sell.

3. Decide a theme for your own booth.

4. What is your budget for the food fair?

5. Identify who are your target customers.

6. How would you like your booth to look like?

7. What type of food would you like to sell?

8. Will you wear uniform or costume?

國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所博士論文

Documents

Transcript of 國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所博士論文

國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所 博士論文

Documents

Transcript of 國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所 博士論文

國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所博士論文

Transcript of 國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所博士論文