Moodle平台同儕輔助學習對國中生英文口語表達能力之影響

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文. 指導教授：何榮桂博士. Moodle 平台同儕輔助學習對國中生英文口語表達能力之影響 The Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning on Moodle on Junior High School Students’ Oral Proficiency in English. 研究生：黃紫珊. 中華民國. 九十八. 年. 撰. 六. 月.

(2) The Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning on Moodle on Junior High School Students’ Oral Proficiency in English. Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate whether peer-assisted learning (PAL) strategy on Moodle could improve junior high school students’ oral proficiency in English. We conducted a questionnaire survey to determine whether PAL strategy would have positive effects on junior high school students’ attitudes toward English learning. All procedure the researcher conducted was on Moodle. Participants were 65 students of second grade of junior high school in Taipei; they were assigned to two groups: experimental group and control group. The experimental group was engaged in online recording activities with PAL strategy in which the students were permitted to share their assignment with each other and their peers; on the contrary, the control group would practice individually and couldn’t share their assignment with each other and their peers. After practices, we conducted a posttest and questionnaire survey. The results showed that the students’ English speaking proficiency and the initiatives and perceptions of English learning would be promoted effectively by PAL strategy. However, the learners’ anxieties about English learning were increased.. Keywords: Moodle, Peer-assisted learning (PAL), peer modeling, peer sharing, attitudes towards English learning, oral proficiency in English. I.

(3) Moodle 平台同儕輔助學習對國中生英語口語表達能力之影響. 摘要本研究旨在探討國中生於 Moodle 平台應用線上錄音模組並結合同儕輔助學習策略對英語口語表達能力之成效，並透過問卷調查以了解此策略對學生英語學習態度之影響。本研究之受試者為台北市國中二年級共 65 名學生，分為實驗組與控制組，實驗組的學生可以與同儕分享其英語練習錄音作業，但控制組僅獨自練習英語口語作業而無法與同儕分享。經過練習之後，實施了後測與問卷調查。研究結果顯示，透過同儕輔助學習策略，進行同儕分享與觀摩的學生比未進行同儕分享與觀摩的學生，其口語表現有顯著提升，學生的英語口語表達能力有所助益，並且對於英語學習的主動性與對英語學習的觀點皆有顯著地影響，但在同儕分享的過程中，學生對於英語學習的焦慮感卻也增加。. 關鍵詞：Moodle、同儕輔助學習、同儕楷模、同儕分享、英語學習態度、英文口語表達能力. II.

(4) Table of Contents. List of Tables .............................................................................................................. III List of Figures .............................................................................................................. IV Chapter One Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background .................................................................................................................... 1. 1.2. Research purposes ..................................................................................................... 5. 1.3. Research questions .................................................................................................... 5. Chapter Two Literature Review.................................................................................. 7 2.1. Moodle ....................................................................................................................... 7. 2.1.1. Definition of Moodle .............................................................................................. 7. 2.1.2. Examples of Moodle for teaching and learning ...................................................... 9. 2.2. Peer-assisted learning (PAL) ................................................................................... 11. 2.3. Oral proficiency in English...................................................................................... 14. 2.3.1. Definition of oral proficiency................................................................................ 14. 2.3.2. ICT incorporating in oral proficiency in English learning .................................... 14. 2.4. Learning attitude scales ........................................................................................... 16. Chapter Three 3.1. Methodology ................................................................................... 19. Participants .............................................................................................................. 19. 3.1.1. Tryout - English Learning Experience Scale (ELES) ......................................... 19. 3.1.2. Experimental phase ............................................................................................... 21. 3.2. Experimental Design ............................................................................................... 22. 3.3. Research Instruments ............................................................................................... 23. 3.3.1. Moodle .............................................................................................................. 23. 3.3.2. Audio recorder module in Moodle .................................................................... 24. III.

(5) 3.3.3. Questionnaire module in Moodle .......................................................................... 27. 3.3.4. English oral practices .......................................................................................... 28. 3.3.5. English Learning Experience Scale (ELES) ....................................................... 29. 3.4. Experiment Procedure .................................................................................................. 37. 4.1. Results .......................................................................................................................... 41. 4.1.1 The analyses of students’ oral proficiency in English........................................... 41 4.1.2 The analyses of students’ attitudes toward English learning ................................ 46 4.2. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 50. Chapter Five Conclusion and Suggestion ................................................................. 52 5.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 52. 5.2. Suggestion .................................................................................................................... 54. References .................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix A. English Learning Experience Scale ............................................. 58. Appendix B. English oral practice1~5 & posttest ............................................ 60. IV.

(6) List of Tables. Table 2. 1. Moodle main function ................................................................................. 8. Table3. 1. Number of ELES in the tryout ................................................................... 20. Table3. 2. Number of participants in tryout of ELES ................................................. 20. Table3. 3. Number of participants in experimental phase .......................................... 21. Table3. 4. Research Design ........................................................................................ 22. Table3. 5. Item descriptive statistics (N=456) ............................................................ 30. Table3. 6. Item analysis (N=456) ............................................................................... 31. Table3. 7. Factor analysis ........................................................................................... 33. Table3. 8. Reliability statistics if item deleted of three factors .................................. 35. Table3. 9. Reliability statistics of factors.................................................................... 36. Table4. 1. Homogeneity of regression of practice 1 to practice 5 .............................. 42. Table4. 2. Descriptive statistics of practice 1 to practice 5 ........................................ 43. Table4. 3. ANCOVA of practice 1 to practice 5......................................................... 44. Table4. 4. Homogeneity of regression of posttest ...................................................... 45. Table4. 5. Descriptive statistics of posttest ................................................................. 46. Table4. 6. ANCOVA of posttest ................................................................................. 46. Table4. 7. Homogeneity of regression of factor 1, factor2, and factor3 ..................... 47. Table4. 8. Descriptive statistics of factor scores in posttest ....................................... 48. Table4. 9. ANCOVA of factor 1 ,factor2 ,and factor3 ............................................... 49. III.

(7) List of Figures. Figure 3. 1. Login screen layout ................................................................................. 23. Figure 3. 2. Entering course screen example .............................................................. 24. Figure 3. 3. Audio Recorder (before recording) screen example ............................... 25. Figure 3. 4. Audio Recorder (after recording and uploading files) screen example .. 25. Figure 3. 5. File-sharing section screen example ....................................................... 26. Figure 3. 6. Example of questionnaire module........................................................... 27. Figure 3. 7. Experimental procedure .......................................................................... 37. Figure 3.8. Entering course screen example ............................................................... 38. Figure 3. 9. Audio Recorder screen example ............................................................. 39. Figure 3. 10. Audio Recorder screen example of experimental group ....................... 39. Figure 3. 11. File-sharing section screen example of experimental group ................. 40. Figure 4. 1. Line chart for mean of experimental group and control group………...44. IV.

(8) Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Background Due to increased globalization and internationalization in recent decades, English has become the essential language of the world for its widespread use in academia, business, commerce, and technology (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). As a result, study of the English language learning has increased worldwide. In Taiwan, English as a second language (referred to simply as EFL) instruction has become one of major subjects at the elementary school level. Based on grade 1-9 curriculum guidelines in Taiwan, the curriculum goals of English emphasize on students’ basic English communication skills, interests in learning English, and appreciation with foreign cultural practices. On the other hand, in recent years, speaking has been one of the skills that would be assessed in several important English exams. For example, TOEFL, TOEIC, and GEPT have been assessing speaking proficiency in recent years. However, when learning English in Taiwan, students lacked opportunities to engage with authentic English (Tsai, 2007). Because of the limited opportunities for exposure to English, students in Taiwan could only have the chance to communicate in English in class or in cram schools. Therefore, developing students' English speaking proficiency in an EFL environment and finding out the ways to supplement the insufficiency were the difficulties teachers face. Several. studies. verified. that. multimedia. tools. or. information. and. communication technology (ICT) incorporating into language learning would have 1.

(9) significant. contribution. to. students’. language. proficiency. (Al-Ansari. &. Wigzell,1996; Liang, 2003). Based on the effects of ICT on language learning and due to the limited teaching hours in school, if teachers could incorporate computer-based tools in the language instruction, students would have more opportunities to practice language speaking proficiency outside the classroom. However, these researches did not take into consideration what appropriate learning strategies would be applied and would enhance students’ learning achievement. In the study of Liang (2003) showed that the use of voice multimedia tool significantly improved students’ English speaking proficiency. The study also suggested pedagogic implications that students’ learning strategies and teachers’ teaching method should be taken into account (Liang, 2003). Thus, the next step of the researches in language learning would put the emphasis on developing ways and strategies to promote students’ English speaking proficiency. Most studies in recent years have been proved that peer-assisted learning (PAL) had positive effects on students’ learning achievement. PAL could improve the cognitive activity of students (Hartup, 1992). PAL could also increase motivation and satisfaction (Nichols & Miller, 1994). Research suggested that PAL had excellent potential for providing students with rich, real time, and collaborative experiences both in and outside the classroom (Lan, Sung, & Chang, 2007). For example, numerous studies had confirmed the positive educational effects of collaborative learning on the instruction of English reading (Hartup, 1992; Lan, Sung, & Chang, 2007). In the book of Topping & Ehly (1998), they showed four effective methods of PAL strategy, including peer tutoring, peer modeling, peer counseling, and peer assessment. Peer tutoring is those in which carefully matched students are trained, supervised, and motivated to engage in high-quality interactions 2.

(10) on suitably challenging academic tasks. Peer modeling is the provision of an example of learning behavior by a member or members of a group that others in the group will imitate. Peers assessment means that the students assess their partners’ products or outcomes of learning formatively and qualitatively. Peer counseling is that students help others clarify general life problems and identify solutions by listening, feeding back, summarizing and being positive and supportive; due to its characteristic, it sounds like it is not suitable for the language learning research. On the other hand, in consideration of applying peer tutoring and peer assessment should be ensured that students had being trained and they had the ability to provide high-quality feedback to other members, and to effectively apply the feedback provided to them. More importantly, in this research, we considered the time control and the curriculum schedule of classes, so the aim of this study was to design that students could use the leisure time to practice and do self-learning after school without synchronization instead of learning at school. To sum up these reasons, therefore, the emphasis of this study stresses on the peer modeling. The following paragraphs of this study would be emphasized on one of PAL methods- Peer modeling. Some studies certified that PAL and collaborating learning in computer-assisted environment would have significant effects on learning. The study of Hiltz (1998) implied that putting individuals online to interact with course material was not as effective as the traditional classroom, but that using collaborative learning approaches could make online learning at least as effective as the traditional classroom. Moreover, they also proved that peer interaction with computer-based learning would be an effective use of language learning and would improve students’ cognitive processes effectively (Blake & Salem, 2004; Liang, 2003). Get back to our learning environment, we also based on the advantage of computer-assisted environment that peer interaction with computer-based learning 3.

(11) would improve the cognitive activity of children effectively. Currently, learning management system (LMS) or course management system (CMS) has been driven high attention around the world. Today, LMS is used to supplement regular face-to-face courses and it has been used in universities, schools and businesses as one of the computer-based learning tool incorporated in many instructions. However, building customized learning programs requires the use of authoring systems such as Macromedia Director, Authorware, Dreamweaver, and Flash, etc., which requires high demands on design, programming skills, and time. An alternative to use such applications is the employment of course or learning management systems like Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle (Brandl, 2005). Compared with the commercial tools such as Blackboard and WebCT, Moodle which is a free and open-source system, is emerging as a more and more popular option to teachers without a computer background. Moreover, Moodle is based on a learner-oriented philosophy called social constructionist pedagogy, in which students are involved in constructing their own knowledge by sharing or observing the activities of peers in a collaborative environment (歐展嘉，2007; Wu, 2008). With unique characteristics like easy installation, high compatibility, low technology, etc., Moodle has become more and more common in contemporary schools and presented itself as a promising instructional and learning tool since its advent (Lin & Chan, 2006; Wu, 2008). Based on the above-mentioned background, this research would incorporate Moodle into the English speaking instructions. The aim of this study was that instead of learning at school, students could use the leisure time to practice and do self-learning in Moodle and this way could solve the above problems.. 4.

(12) 1.2. Research purposes. According to the above-mentioned background, the study included two purposes as follows: 1. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether PAL strategy could improve junior high school students’ oral proficiency in English. 2. The other purpose of this study was to determine whether PAL strategy would have positive effects on junior high school students’ attitudes toward English learning.. 1.3. Research questions. Based on the above-mentioned purposes, the study addressed the following research questions: 1. Does the use of PAL strategy promote students’ oral proficiency in English? (1) Is there a significant difference between the effects of PAL strategy and non-PAL strategy on students’ oral proficiency in English during practice? (2) Is there a significant difference between the effects of PAL strategy and non-PAL strategy on students’ oral proficiency in English after practice? 2. Does the use of PAL strategy affect the students’ attitude toward English learning? (1) Is there a significant difference between the effects of PAL strategy and non-PAL strategy on the factor of initiative in English learning? 5.

(13) (2) Is there a significant difference between the effects of PAL strategy and non-PAL strategy on the factor of anxiety about English learning? (3) Is there a significant difference between the effects of PAL strategy and non-PAL strategy on the factor of perception of English learning?. 6.

(14) Chapter Two Literature Review The study investigated the effects of PAL strategy incorporating online recording on students’ oral proficiency in English and the change of their attitudes toward English learning. The PAL strategy that we used was introduced. The following sections were intended to provide a review of the literature relevant to the present study. Literature review involved several relative topics of the platform, Moodle, PAL strategy, oral proficiency in English, and learning attitude scales. Those topics and strategies, which were administered in this study, were discussed in the following sections.. 2.1. Moodle. 2.1.1 Definition of Moodle Moodle is a free and open source e-learning software platform. It is also known as a course management system (CMS) or learning management systems (LMS) for online learning. The word Moodle is originally an acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment, which was developed by Martin Dougiamas (Brandl, 2005; Lin & Chan, 2006). Among its many users, Moodle has already become a software package designed to help educators create quality online instructions (Brandl, 2005). The design of Moodle was based on social constructionist theory. It created an environment that allowed for collaborative interaction among students (Brandl, 2005). It included activity modules such as forums, resources, journals, quizzes, surveys, and etc. (Table 2.1) (歐展嘉，2007；Lin & Chan, 2006). Furthermore, 7.

(15) Moodle was modular in construction, so it could readily be extended by creating or installing plugins for specific new functionality as well (Lin & Chan, 2006).. Table 2. 1. Moodle main function (Lin & Chan, 2006). Web management. Study management. Module. Language. Account management. Assignment. Block management. Group management. Chat. Theme. Course management. Choice. Module installation. Lesson management. Database. Module development. Quiz management. Forum. Grade management. Glossary. Questionnaire management. Quiz Journal LAMS Lesson SCORM Survey Wiki Workshop. 8.

(16) 2.1.2 Examples of Moodle for teaching and learning There are three reference examples of Moodle for teaching and learning, one is Moodle Support in Taiwan (中文加油站) (http://moodle.club.tw/moodle/), another is Moodle of Tunghai university (http://elearning.thu.edu.tw/moodle/), and the other is Opensource for Educators (http://www.opensource.idv.tw/moodle/). In Moodle Support in Taiwan, the platform includes transcription for Moodle, educational application, research development, and Q&A. In this platform, many people take efforts to translate Moodle to Chinese version, and they also try to develop some modules into Moodle. On the other hand, some teachers have their own sites to develop lessons such as teaching how to use Moodle, or provide some examples of how to apply Moodle to the classes. Importantly, if you have any questions about Moodle, many people will provide and recommend many valuable solutions for you. In the Moodle of Tunghai university, the departments have own sites of Moodle, and the main functions they often applied are course management, forum, assignment, and etc. The teachers will upload the schedule and relevant information for students or report news in the bulletin. Moreover, the students will share their assignment and learn from each other's work. On the other hand, the staff and students also do the questionnaire survey in midterm and final semester by Moodle platform. There is good example of how to make good use of Moodle for English learning or language learning. The study of Su (2006) focused on why and how to use Moodle for English teachers by the example of the author’s Moodle systems – Opensource for Educators. There were already some courses in this platform developed by users and teachers around the world. In this study, the researcher used the self-introduction function in the participant’s profile section to make every registered user edit their own profiles, including a self description and a picture. Then, several modules were applied, 9.

(17) including the forum module that proceeded asynchronous discussion; the group module which students published their viewpoints in English about the issues, and teachers could force students to be subscribed a forum; the journal module that could only be seen by the teacher, who could offer feedback and grades; the glossary module which was like a dictionary that allowed participants to create and maintain a list of definitions; the assignment module which allowed students to submit files for assessment and feedback; and the quiz module which teachers could use various question types to develop quizzes for students and could easily get the reports of the activities of individual students, not only the score but also a detailed analysis of each student’s responses. On the other hand, Moodle also allowed picture, MP3 and flash to be integrated into course web so that students could practice their listening abilities of language learning by listening to the MP3 in their courses. Finally, teachers could use the information of participants’ log to keep track of students’ access to the lessons and materials. In sum, Su (2006) suggested that Moodle was a useful platform not only for students but also for teachers. Because of its characteristics, it could provide a collaborative activity online between teachers with students or students with peers to learn together, and it was worthwhile for teachers and students to apply Moodle to be a course management system.. 10.

(18) 2.2. Peer-assisted learning (PAL). Topping & Ehly (1998) explained that “PAL is people from similar social groups, who are not professional teachers, helping each other to learn and by so doing, learning themselves.” There are some PAL methods in common use, including peer tutoring, peer modeling, and peer assessment.. 2.2.1. Peer modeling. The study of Topping & Ehly (1998) indicated peer modeling was a member or members of a group with intention to imitate others in the group. Some researchers verified that it had been shown peer modeling that could have strong social and attitudinal influences by modeling enthusiasm and collaboration with peers (Bandura, 1989; Topping & Ehly, 1998). They confirmed modeling could be a highly effective means of establishing abstract or rule-governed behavior. Otherwise, peers would also model the problem-solving skills, like modeling of coping and self-correction. Peers would acquire judgmental standards, linguistic rules, styles of thinking and standards of self-evaluation among others. On the other hand, the characteristics of the models would be competent but not necessarily perfect. The research of Frid & Wood (2005) was designed to investigate teaching and learning practices demonstrated in an early childhood multiage setting with pre-primary to the second year of primary school children. The analysis showed the interactions related to peer sharing, tutoring and regulation emerged as key aspects of students’ learning practices and supported scaffolding among children for new mathematics concepts.. 11.

(19) The study of Hsu (2000) was designed to improve Taiwanese college students' self-efficacy and reading performance in English learning activities through peer modeling. The students of experimental group were able to watch a live model (refer to their peers) demonstrating the reading strategy. The results showed that the students in both the male peer model group and the female model group had significantly higher self-efficacy than those who were in the non-peer model group. On the other hand, the students in both the male peer model group and the female model group scored significantly higher in reading performance than those who were in the non-peer model group. Based on the results, Hsu (2000) suggested that teachers should make greater use of peer models in the classroom. Several researchers confirmed that learning strategies and skills by peer modeling was more effective than by an adult modeling. The study of Schunk (1998) showed that contrary to adult models or no model, peer models could enhance children’s self-efficacy to learn better. These findings suggested that higher similarity raised self-efficacy and motivation among low-achieving children since students were easy to be swayed by peer successes. It is also found that multiple models had more positive effects than a single model. Learners were able to discover they were as similar to at least one with multiple models (Schunk, 1998; Schunk & Hanson, 1989). In the research by Schunk and Hanson (1989), children were videotaped when they were solving mathematical problems and later they would review their tapes. The results found that through an instructional program, the children would have higher self-efficacy, motivation, interest, and learning achievement than those who had been videotaped but did not review the tapes or those who had not been videotaped. It was supported that experiencing self-model process would benefit the. 12.

(20) promotion of self-efficacy and achievement. On the other hand, the researcher also confirmed that observing self-model videotapes raised achievement outcome as well as viewing peer models.. 13.

(21) 2.3. Oral proficiency in English. 2.3.1 Definition of oral proficiency Chastain (1988) pointed out that speaking included two components: talking to and talking with. “Talking to” describes that the speaker is talking in real language situations but not interacting with the listeners. Therefore, the speaker’ attention is focused on speaking instead of on a serious of listening and speaking interchanges. On the other hand, “talking with” refers to the speaking activities in which speakers interact with other speakers. Compared with “talking to”, speakers must learn to produce different types of utterance and to notice many features of communication in order to participate in a conversation in a real situation.. 2.3.2 ICT incorporating in oral proficiency in English learning During these recent years, multimedia instruments or ICT incorporating in language learning have been extensively used as effective tools in English teaching and learning. Al-Ansari and Wigzell (1996) researched about the contribution of using tape-recorders to practice in EFL classes. The participants were the high school students in Bahrain. By using tapes, learners would receive the verbal cues immediately, and by means of the rewinding facility, learners were able to check their responses with the correct responses. Therefore, the means would follow the basic prescription of behaviorist theories of learning that provided the learners immediate feedback and reinforcement. In the study of Chang (2000) suggested that there were some advantages of computer-assisted language learning. Students would not be limited in class, and 14.

(22) they could do practice outside the classroom. Besides, computers could provide appropriate language learning context and multimedia instruments that would enhance students’ motivation and confidence of language learning. Liang (2003) explored the effects of interactive voice multimedia instrument on the development of English speaking proficiency for Taiwanese EFL elementary school students. The results of this study showed that the use of interactive voice multimedia tool significantly improved students’ English speaking proficiency. In addition, most of the students agreed that the use of voice multimedia tool was helpful to improve their English speaking proficiency. However, the students still felt anxious about apply the voice multimedia tool to do the exercise.. 15.

(23) 2.4. Learning attitude scales. Attitude is defined as a positive or negative sentiment, or mental state, which is learned and organized through experience. It influences on the affective responses of an individual toward some other individuals, objects or events as well (Palaigeorgiou, Konstantakis, & Tsoukalas, 2005). Various attitudes scales have been developed, including attitudes toward English, computer, mathematics, etc. The following described three kinds of attitude scales that would be relevant to this study. 1. Robyn, Kaye, & Anastasios (2007) developed the Mathematics and Technology Attitudes Scale (MTAS) which was a scale for middle secondary students that examine the five factors about learning mathematics by technology. (1) Mathematics confidence (five questions) (Cronbach’s alpha=.87) EX: I have less trouble learning mathematics than other subjects. (2) Affective engagement (five questions) (Cronbach’s alpha=.89) EX: I am interested in learning new things in mathematics. (3) Behavioral engagement (seven questions) (Cronbach’s alpha=.72) EX: I concentrate hard in mathematics. (4) Confidence in using technology (five questions) (Cronbach’s alpha=.79) (5) Attitude to the use of technology to learn mathematics (five questions) (Cronbach’s alpha=.65) EX: Graphics calculators help me learn mathematics better. 16.

(24) 2. The attitude scale developed by Lee (1999) was to measure the attitude toward English learning for the fifth grade of elementary school students. (1) Cognitive component - The view of English instrumentality. (Seven questions) EX: 為了未來的工作，我需要學英語。 (2) Affective component - The emotional situation and feeling when learning English. (Ten questions) EX: 我覺得學英語很無聊。 (3) Behavioral component - Motivated learning behavior and persistence in learning English. (Ten questions) EX: 我會主動和同學用學過的英語對話。 3. The computer attitude scales for freshmen (CASF) developed by Palaigeorgiou, Siozos, Konstantaki, & Tsoukalas (2005) was administered to the first-year students of a computer science department. CASF consisted of 27 questions. The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87, and the value of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was 0.782. (1) Anxiety about current or future interactions with computers (five questions) EX: I feel discomfort when I have to use the keyboard. (2) Computer SC (or self-efficacy) (four questions) EX: I feel I don’t have adequate knowledge to meet the department’s needs regarding computer use.. 17.

(25) (3) Beliefs about the impact of computers on social and personal life (four questions) EX: Computers make our life better. (4) Liking of the IT profession (three questions) EX: I enjoy programming. (5) Fears of long-lasting negative consequences (LNCs) of computer use (two questions) EX: I feel uncomfortable with the prospect of spending long hours in front of a computer.. 18.

(26) Chapter Three Methodology The methodology of this study was described in the following sections, including participants, experimental design, research instruments, and experiment procedure.. 3.1. Participants. 3.1.1 Tryout - English Learning Experience Scale (ELES) The tryout of ELES was proceeded in Taipei municipal Fanghe junior high school and Jing-Guo Junior High School in Taoyuan. We distributed 480 numbers of ELES to eighth grade students in these two schools. 468 numbers of ELES were collected and the response rate was 98% (Table 3.1). After eliminating the invalid data, 456 numbers of ELES were utilized, including 239 males and 217 females. All participants had received at least four years of EFL instruction in elementary and junior high school. In Taipei municipal Fanghe junior high school, the scales were distributed to 140 eighth grade students, 136 numbers of ELES were collected, and 132 numbers of ELES were valid. The participants included 68 males and 64 females (Table 3.1 & Table 3.2). On the other hand, we distributed 340 scales for eighth grade students in Jing-Guo Junior High School in Taoyuan, 332 scales were collected, and 324 numbers of ELES were valid, including 171 males and 153 females (Table 3.1 & Table 3.2).. 19.

(27) Number of ELES in the tryout. Table3. 1. Number of distributed ELES. Number of collected ELES. % of collected ELES. Number of valid ELES. 140. 136. 97%. 132. High School in Taoyuan. 340. 332. 98 %. 324. Total. 480. 468. 98%. 456. School Taipei municipal Fanghe junior high school Jing-Guo Junior. Table3. 2. Number of participants in tryout of ELES School. Taipei municipal Fanghe junior high school Jing-Guo Junior High School in Taoyuan Total. Male. %. Female. %. Total. 68. 15%. 64. 14%. 132. 171. 38%. 153. 33%. 324. 239. 52%. 217. 48%. 456. 20.

(28) 3.1.2 Experimental phase The participants in the study included 65 eighth grade students from Taipei municipal Minzu junior high school. One class was chosen as the experimental group, including 15 males and 18 females; the other class was chosen as the control group including 18 males and 14 females (Table 3.3). All participants had received at least four years of EFL instruction in elementary and junior high school.. Table3. 3. Number of participants in experimental phase. Group. Male. %. Female. %. Total. Experimental. 15. 23%. 18. 28%. 33. Control. 18. 28%. 14. 22%. 32. Total. 33. 51%. 32. 49%. 65. 21.

(29) 3.2 Experimental Design The experiment had been conducted for five weeks in Taipei municipal Minzu junior high school. In this study, the independent variable was PAL strategy, and the dependent variables were students’ English oral test scores and the scores of ELES. The experimental group and the control group practiced via different approaches. The experimental group was engaged in online recording activities with PAL strategy in which the students were permitted to share their assignment with each other and their peers. On the other hand, the control group was engaged in online recording activities without PAL strategy; in other words, they would practice individually and could not share their assignment with each other and their peers (Table 3.4). In this research, we applied the activities of peer sharing to accomplish the idea of peer modeling. By peer sharing, students would learn peers’ advantage of speaking from sharing. Therefore, we used peer sharing to accomplish the concepts of peer modeling.. Table3. 4. Research Design. Group. Pretest. Treatment. 1.English midterm exam. Experimental. scores. 1.Oral test peer sharing. 2.English Learning. 2.English Learning Experience Scale. Experience Scale 1. English midterm. Control. Posttest. 1.Oral test. exam scores. X. 2.English Learning. 2.English Learning Experience Scale. Experience Scale. 22.

(30) 3.3. Research Instruments. 3.3.1 Moodle In this research we used Moodle because the above modules and functions that would support our needs to scaffold the students’ language learning. The version of Moodle installed in the research is version 1.9.2. In this research, we used four functions of Moodle, including module installation, account management, questionnaire management, and grade management. The module installation was used to install audio recorder module and questionnaire module. The following sections will introduce the functions of these two modules. Moreover, we operated the account management to create and manage students’ accounts, conducted the questionnaire management to collect the responses from students, and used the grade management to gather students’ scores after practice. Besides, the examples of students’ login screen and entering course are presented in Figure3.1 and Figure3.2.. Figure 3. 1. Login screen layout 23.

(31) Figure 3. 2. Entering course screen example. 3.3.2 Audio recorder module in Moodle The research installed the audio recorder module in Moodle which had a flash player. The advantage of this module was that students could do the assignment online easily. They did not have to install any recorder tools to their computer; they only had to prepare a microphone and they easily did the recording. However, due to the MS ActiveX command, it could be only executed on the IE instead of Firefox (Figure 3.3). Besides, the number of summiting audio files was presented with the words “view (number) submitted audio files” on the upper right apparently (Figure 3.4), and you could press, then you could see the audio files submitted by others (Figure 3.5).. 24.

(32) Figure 3. 1. Online-recording administration screen example. Figure 3. 3. Audio Recorder (before recording) screen example. Figure 3. 2. Uploading sound file administration screen example. Figure 3. 4. Audio Recorder (after recording and uploading files) screen example. 25.

(33) Figure 3. 5. File-sharing section screen example. 26.

(34) 3.3.3 Questionnaire module in Moodle Compared with the original survey module in Moodle which has already had five unchangeable types’ questionnaires in it, this research installed the questionnaire module which users could develop new questions and questionnaires for different needs. There were nine question types that could be chosen to develop various questions in questionnaires. In this study, we used the “radio buttons” type to develop English learning experience scale (Figure 3.6).. Figure 3. 6. Example of questionnaire module. 27.

(35) 3.3.4. English oral practices. In the literature review, Chastain (1988) pointed out that speaking included two components: talking to and talking with. And in this study, we emphasized on the proficiency of “talking to”. We wished that the students would talk in real language situations and their attention would be focused on speaking instead of on a serious of listening and speaking interchanges. The materials were designed based on what they had learned in the English class. Because the students’ English teacher was the most familiar with her students and the learning content, the practice content and the questions were designed by their English teacher. At the same time, the question types of content in practice1~5 and posttest were based on the test of General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), including two types- Answering Questions and Picture Description. The content which was designed by the English teacher who taught English lessons on these two classes in Taipei municipal Minzu junior high school was associated with the English lessons. The grading standard of English speaking practices were fluency, coherence, words, grammar, accuracy, pronunciation, and the importance of the practicewhether students could express what they want to express.. 28.

(36) 3.3.5. English Learning Experience Scale (ELES). In this study, English learning experience scale (ELES) was about the students’ attitude toward English learning. English attitude here was defined as a person’s general evaluation or feeling of favor or antipathy toward English and English-related activities. The items of ELES were based on the four attitude scales developed by Robyn, Kaye, & Anastasios (2007), Lee (1999), and Palaigeorgiou, Siozos, Konstantaki, & Tsoukalas (2005). The scale used was the Likert-typed four point rating scale, which 4= strongly agree, 3= agree, 2= disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree. There were 20 items in the scale and it consisted of four dimensions, as follows: Factor1 Self-efficacy of English learning: This factor focuses on the self-efficacy when learning English. This factor is examined by six items. Factor2 Behavioral engagement active English learning: This factor focuses on the active English learning. This factor is examined by five items. Factor3 Anxiety about English learning: This factor focuses on the students’ negative emotional situation and feeling when learning English. This factor is examined by five items. Factor 4 Beliefs about the importance of English learning: This factor focuses on students’ beliefs about the importance of learning English. This factor is examined by four items. Mean and standard deviation of the items for tryout are shown in Table 3.5.. 29.

(37) Table3. 5. Item descriptive statistics (N=456) Item. Mean. SD. 1. I will answer the question on the initiative in English class.. 2.63. .98. 2. I think that English is not helpful to me.. 2.18. 1.10. 3. Compared with other subjects, I meet more questions in English class.. 2.40. 1.06. 4. I think I speak English very well.. 2.57. .96. 5. I like to learn English.. 2.37. .94. 6. I’m always absent-minded when studying English.. 2.44. 1.00. 2.62. 1.01. 8. I will be initiative to talk with students in English.. 2.60. 1.04. 9. I think that English is useful.. 2.05. 1.08. 10. Studying English is not useful in promoting knowledge.. 2.24. 1.14. 11. I am very anxious about learning English.. 2.47. 1.02. 12. I will be initiative to perform in English class.. 2.81. .94. 13. I’m afraid of speaking English.. 2.56. 1.00. 14. I can talk to people in English fluently.. 2.55. .99. 15. I feel that learning English is boring.. 2.34. 1.02. 16. I will be initiative to ask others when I meet a problem.. 2.27. .96. 17. I spend less time in learning English.. 2.4. 1.01. 18. I feel that learning English is easy.. 2.55. .99. 19. I do well in English class.. 2.51. .98. 20. I have confidence in learning English.. 2.45. .95. 49.15. 12.04. 7. I will look for some materials to study English on the initiative (e.g. English broadcast, English magazine and so on).. Total. 30.

(38) After the preliminary test, the analysis showed that all items had significant correlations with the scale’s total score (Table 3.6). Cronbach’s alpha of ELES was .904, but the analysis of Cronbach’s alpha suggested that if item 10 was deleted, Cronbach’s alpha of ELES would be .906. However, we kept item 10 first and then after doing factor analysis, we would consider whether it should be deleted or not (Table 3. 6). Table3. 6. Item analysis (N=456) Corrected. Cronbach's. Item-Total. Alpha if Item. Correlation. Deleted. .569**. .898. .397**. .903. .584**. .898. 4. I think I speak English very well.. .551**. .899. 5. I like to learn English.. .758**. .894. .581**. .898. .508**. .900. .402**. .903. .410**. .903. .317**. .906. 11. I am very anxious about learning English.. .474**. .901. 12. I will be initiative to perform in English class.. .508**. .900. Item. 1. I will answer the question on the initiative in English class. 2. I think that English is not helpful to me. 3. Compared with other subjects, I meet more questions in English class.. 6. I’m always absent-minded when studying English. 7. I will look for some materials to study English on the initiative (e.g. English broadcast, English magazine and so on). 8. I will be initiative to talk with students in English. 9. I think that English is useful. 10. Studying English is not useful in promoting knowledge.. 31.

(39) Corrected. Cronbach's. Item-Total. Alpha if Item. Correlation. Deleted. 13. I’m afraid of speaking English.. .516**. .900. 14. I can talk to people in English fluently.. .522**. .899. 15. I feel that learning English is boring.. .583**. .898. .606**. .897. 17. I spend less time in learning English.. .411**. .902. 18. I feel that learning English is easy.. .713**. .894. 19. I do well in English class.. .700**. .895. 20. I have confidence in learning English.. .724**. .894. Item. 16. I will be initiative to ask others when I meet a problem.. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).. The value of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy was .920, which meant that the final sample of items was suitable for factor analysis. This research used the principal axis factoring for extraction method (Table 3.7). The factor analysis with varimax rotation on the remaining questions provided four interpretable factors. The extracted factors corresponded satisfactorily with the ones initially drawn, and the factors would be renamed. However, the number of items in factor 4 was less than three items, so we eliminated factor 4, which included item 19 and item 20.. 32.

(40) Table3. 7. Factor analysis Factor. Explained. Item 1. 8. I will be initiative to talk with students in English.. 2. 3. 4. variation. .824. 1. I will answer the question on the initiative in English class. .746 7. I will look for some materials to study English on the initiative (e.g. English broadcast, English magazine and so on).. .743 22.13. 12. I will be initiative to perform in English class.. .720. 14. I can talk to people in English fluently.. .657. 4. I think I speak English very well.. .625. 11. I am very anxious about learning English.. .650. 6. I’m always absent-minded when studying English.. .647. 13. I’m afraid of speaking English.. .626. 3. Compared with other subjects, I meet more questions in English class.. .625. 17. I spend less time in learning English.. .517. 18.23. 9. I think that English is useful.. .856. 2. I think that English is not helpful to me.. .770. 10. Studying English is not useful in promoting knowledge.. .699. 18. I feel that learning English is easy.. 622. 5. I like to learn English.. .596. 15. I feel that learning English is boring.. .563. 16. I will be initiative to ask others when I meet a problem.. .462. 15.74. 19. I do well in English class.. .703. 20. I have confidence in learning English.. .597. 12.06 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.. 33.

(41) Finally, these three factors are described as follows and the reliability statistics of three factors are presented on Table 3.7, Table 3.8 and Table 3.9. Factor 1. Initiative in English learning. This factor focused on the active English learning. It was examined by five questions with loadings ranging between .625 and .824, and the explained variance of this factor was 22.13%. Cronbach's alpha was .897. Factor 2. Anxiety about English learning. The factor referred to students’ negative emotions and cognitions evoked in learning English. This factor was examined by six questions with loadings ranging between .517 and .650, and the explained variance of this factor was 18.23%. Cronbach's alpha was .800. The information in Table 3.8 shows that if deleting item 17, Cronbach’s alpha would enhance to be .808. Thus, item 17 was eliminated. Overall, after eliminated item17, the overall reliability Cronbach’s alpha of factor 2 was .808. Factor 3. Perception of English learning. The factor expressed students’ perception about the importance and favor of English learning. This factor was examined by seven questions with loadings ranging between .462 and .856, and the explained variance of this factor was 15.74%. Cronbach's alpha was .855. In Table 3.8, the information shows that if deleting item 18, Cronbach’s alpha would be .862. Therefore, item 18 was eliminated. On the other hand, since the item 16 was not suitable for factor 3 and was not easy to explain for factor 3, so item 16 was also eliminated. On the other hand, as 34.

(42) mentioned before, we kept item 10 in the beginning, and now it was discovered that if deleting item 10, Cronbach's alpha would decrease to be .837. Therefore, we still kept item 10. Finally, the Cronbach's alpha of factor 3 turned out to be .864. After reorganizing the data, the overall reliability Cronbach’s alpha of ELES was .856 that explains the internal consistency coefficient of ELES was ideal. The detailed information is presented in Table 3.9 and the final version of ELES is presented in Appendix A.. Reliability statistics if item deleted of three factors. Table3. 8. Cronbach's Factor. Item. alpha if Item Deleted. 14. I can talk to people in English fluently.. .876. 4. I think I speak English very well.. .878. 1. I will answer the question on the initiative Factor 1. in English class.. Initiative in. English learning. 8. I will be initiative to talk with students in. (Cronbach's alpha=.897). English. 12. I will be initiative to perform in English class.. .882. .871 .881. 7. I will look for some materials to study English on the initiative (e.g. English. .883. broadcast, English magazine and so on). 11. I am very anxious about learning English. Factor 2 Anxiety about. 13. I’m afraid of speaking English.. English learning. 3. Compared with other subjects, I meet. (Cronbach's Alpha=.800). .750. more questions in English class. 6.. I’m. always. absent-minded. when. studying English. 17. I spend less time in learning English. 35. .747. .748. .748 .808.

(43) Cronbach's Factor. Item. alpha if Item Deleted. 9. I think that English is useful.. .820. 2. I think that English is not helpful to me.. .822. 10. Studying English is not useful in Factor 3 Perception of. .837. promoting knowledge.. English learning 5. I like to learn English.. (Cronbach's alpha=.855). .825. 18. I feel that learning English is easy.. .862. 15. I feel that learning English is boring.. .828. 16. I will be initiative to ask others when I. .845. meet a problem.. Table3. 9. Reliability statistics of factors N of Factor. Cronbach's Items. Items. alpha. 1. Initiative in English learning. 6. 1.4.7.8.12.14. .897. 2.Anxiety about English learning. 4. 3.6.11.13. .808. 3. Perception of English learning. 5. 2.5.9.10.15. .864. Total. 15. 36. .856.

(44) 3.4 Experiment Procedure Draft English Learning Experience Scale. Tryout English Learning Experience Scale. Modify English Learning Experience Scale. Experimental group. Control group. Pretest. Pretest. English Learning Experience Scale. English Learning Experience Scale. Online recording. Online recording. Peer sharing. Online recording. Online recording. Posttest 1. English Learning Experience Scale 2. Oral test. Figure 3. 7. Experimental procedure 37.

(45) The experimental process of students of experimental group and the control group was detailed in the following. First, when students entered Moodle, they saw the course in the index (Figure 3.8). As long as they entered the practice course, the English speaking proficiency practices would be started.. Figure 3.8. Entering course screen example. The Audio Recorder module displayed the flash recorder, and the questions would also be displayed in the question block, therefore the students would see the questions and answer them by using the Audio Recorder module and then uploading (Figure 3.9 & Figure 3.10).. 38.

(46) Figure 3. 9. Figure 3. 10. Audio Recorder screen example. Audio Recorder screen example of experimental group. 39.

(47) After uploading the recording files, the students of experimental group would press the “view (number) submitted audio files” and they could share with peers and listen to the files of peers (Figure 3.11). On the contrary, the students of control group could not share and listen to others’ audio files.. Figure 3. 11. File-sharing section screen example of experimental group. 40.

(48) Chapter Four Results and Discussion The representation of results in the following sections was separated into two parts: English oral practices and attitude measure. First, the analyses of students’ oral proficiency in English during practice and the posttest were displayed. Then, the analyses of students’ attitudes toward English learning were presented, and the statistics of ELES was described in the following sections. Moreover, the findings and discussions were also discussed in detail in this chapter.. 4.1 Results 4.1.1 The analyses of students’ oral proficiency in English The performance of students’ oral proficiency in English contained two sections to be analyzed, including practice 1 to practice 5 and the posttest. The following would show the analyses of these two sections. To take account of the effect of students’ prior abilities on the performance of students’ speaking proficiency, this research used ANCOVAs to carry out the analyses and the students’ English midterm exam scores was taken as the covariate to analyze the effects of PAL strategy on students’ oral proficiency in English.. During practice In practice 1 to practice 5, PAL strategy would be applied in experimental group so that the students of experimental group could share their assignment with peers’; on the contrary, the students of control group could only do the recording and listen by themselves. Because the time during experiment of this research met the sports meet in 41.

(49) Taipei municipal Minzu junior high school, some students had to attend the race so that they were absent in the experiment and the number of participants during practice 1 to practice 5 was not identical. In practice 1 to practice 5, the results displayed that the analyses of homogeneity of regression were not significant (Table 4.1). Therefore, the hypotheses of homogeneity were not rejected, and ANCOVAs would be carried on.. Table4. 1. Homogeneity of regression of practice 1 to practice 5. Practice. Source group * pretest. SS. df. MS. 49.72. 1. 49.72. 4225.47. 58. 72.85. 233.43. 1. 233.43. 3979.81. 58. 68.62. 237.84. 1. 237.84. 3807.11. 58. 65.64. 263.34. 1. 263.34. 4014.57. 61. 65.81. 247.25. 1. 247.25. 4034.67. 62. 65.08. F. Sig. .68. .41. 3.40. .07. 3.62. .06. 4.00. .06. 3.80. .06. 1 Error group * pretest 2 Error group * pretest 3 Error group * pretest 4 Error group * pretest 5 Error *p<.05. Table 4.2 shows the number of participants, mean scores, and standard deviations in each experimental and control group during practice 1 to practice 5. As the information shown, the mean score of experimental group was higher than the mean score of control group. As see in Figure 4.1, BA meant before adjusted mean, and A meant adjusted mean. The line chart showed that the scores of experimental group 42.

(50) were gradually improving, especially in practice 3. However, after practice 3, the scores became stable. It meant that the effect of PAL strategy was developed ultimately and if we wanted to improve students’ scores further, we should try another strategy to apply. On the other hand, the scores of control group were not significantly changed.. Table4. 2. Descriptive statistics of practice 1 to practice 5 Before adjusted. Practice 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Covariate. Group. Adjusted. n M. SD. M. SD. Experimental. 31. 79.26. 15.55. 79.03. 1.53. Control. 30. 77.12. 24.09. 77.35. 1.56. Experimental. 31. 80.71. 14.61. 81.80. 1.48. Control. 30. 78.67. 19.61. 77.54. 1.51. Experimental. 33. 83.75. 12.95. 83.15. 1.40. Control. 28. 77.10. 18.35. 78.66. 1.52. Experimental. 33. 82.12. 14.19. 81.84. 1.40. Control. 31. 77.10. 20.66. 77.39. 1.48. Experimental. 33. 82.08. 14.19. 82.12. 1.40. Control. 32. 77.86. 20.84. 77.82. 1.47. Experimental. 33. 63.33. 15.11. Control. 32. 63.44. 22.84. 43.

(51) Figure 4. 1. Line chart for mean of experimental group and control group. Table 4.3 shows the results of analyzing ANCOVAs of practice 1 to practice 5. Instead of practice 1, F(1,58)=.45, p>.05, the difference of students’ English oral performance between experimental group and control group in practice 2 to practice 5 was tended to be significant. Thus, the information revealed that the oral performance of applying PAL strategy had a tendency to be better than that of not applying PAL strategies. Table4. 3. ANCOVA of practice 1 to practice 5. Practice Source. 1. 2. 3. SS. df. MS. group. 43.20. 1. 43.20. Error. 4232.00. 58. 72.97. Total. 24150.69. 60. group. 275.72. 1. 275.72. Error. 3937.52. 58. 67.89. Total. 17616.09. 60. group. 303.72. 1. 303.72. Error. 3741.23. 58. 64.50. Total. 14962.56. 60 44. F. Sig. .59. .45. 4.06. .04*. 4.71. .03*.

(52) Practice Source. 4. 5. SS. df. MS. F. group. 315.06. 1. 315.06. Error. 3962.85. 61. 64.97. Total. 19651.44. 63. group. 300.89. 1. 300.89. Error. 3981.04. 62. 64.21. Total. 20190.86. 64. Sig. 4.85. .03*. 4.69. .03*. *p<.05. Posttest In posttest, in order to assess the effectiveness of PAL strategy after five-time practice, both experimental group and control group could only do the recording by themselves without sharing with peers in the posttest. In posttest, the result of analyzing homogeneity of regression was not significant, F(1,55)=.06, p>.05, so that the hypothesis of homogeneity was not rejected, and ANCOVA would be carried on (Table 4.4). As shown in Table 4.5, the mean score of experimental group was higher than the mean score of control group. As the outset, there was significant difference of students’ English oral performance between experimental group and control group in posttest, F(1,55)=.04, p<.05 (Table 4.6). Thus, it revealed that the effect of PAL strategy incorporating in online recording practice would be better than that the effects of online recording practice only by oneself. Table4. 4. Homogeneity of regression of posttest. Source group * pretest Error. SS. df. MS. 279.82. 1. 279.82. 3945.15. 55. 71.73. *p<.05 45. F 3.90. Sig. .06.

(53) Table4. 5. Descriptive statistics of posttest Raw Group. Covariate. Posttest. Table4. 6. Adjusted. n M. SD. M. SD. Experimental. 33. 63.33. 15.11. Control. 32. 63.44. 22.84. Experimental. 29. 78.46. 13.77. 78.56. 1.57. Control. 29. 74.05. 20.04. 73.95. 1.57. ANCOVA of posttest. Covariate: English midterm exam scores Source. SS. df. MS. F. Sig.. pretest. 12641.19. 1. 12641.19. 177.49. .00. group. 307.78. 1. 307.78. 4.32. .04*. Error. 3917.18. 55. 71.22. Total. 16840.64. 57. *p<.05. 4.1.2 The analyses of students’ attitudes toward English learning ELES which used Likert-typed four point rating scale was to evaluate the change of students’ attitudes toward English learning in the study. It consisted of three factors, including initiative in English learning, anxiety about English learning, and perception of English learning. ELES was done by students of experimental group and control group before experiment and in the posttest. To consider whether the attitudes toward English learning of these students was equal, this research used ANCOVAs to carry out the analyses and the scores of ELES which was done before experiment was taken as the covariate to analyze the effects of PAL strategy on students’ attitude toward English learning.. 46.

(54) At the outset, the analyses of homogeneity of regression were not significant in factor 1, factor 2, and factor 3 (Table4.7). It pointed out that the hypothesis of homogeneity were not rejected, thus, ANOVAs were carried out for going on. There were both 29 participants in experimental group and control group. Table 4.8 shows the mean scores and standard deviations in each experimental and control group in factor 1, factor 2 and factor 3. The following sections would detail the analyses of these three factors.. Table4. 7 Factor Initiative. Homogeneity of regression of factor 1, factor2, and factor3 Source Group* Pretest. Error Anxiety. Group* Pretest. Error Perception. Group * Pretest. Error. SS. df. MS. .08. 1. .08. 17.52. 54. .33. .08. 1. .08. 11.49. 54. .21. .75. 1. .75. 23.25. 54. .43. *p<.05. 47. F. Sig.. .24. .63. .36. .55. 1.73. .19.

(55) Descriptive statistics of factor scores in posttest. Table4. 8. Before adjusted Factor. Adjusted. Group M. Initiative. Anxiety. Perception. SD. M. SD. Experimental a. 2.48. .56. 2.57. .11. Control b. 2.17. .75. 2.10. .11. Experimental a. 3.12. .55. 3.10. .09. Control b. 2.82. .58. 2.84. .09. Experimental a. 2.75. .68. 2.73. .12. Control b. 2.27. .79. 2.31. .12. a. Number of experimental group=29 b. Number of control group=29. Factor 1. Initiative in English learning. The results of the ANOVA revealed that there was significant difference of factor 1 between experimental group and control group, F(1,55)=.00, p<.05. Thus, it revealed that applying PAL strategy in students’ English learning would have a tendency to have a better effect on students’ initiative in English learning than the effects of practicing and learning by oneself. Factor 2. Anxiety about English learning. There was significant difference of factor 2 between experimental group and control group in practice 2, F(1,55)=.04, p<.05. Therefore, the information showed that PAL strategy in students’ English learning would have the effect on increasing students’ anxiety about English learning than the effects of practicing and learning by oneself.. 48.

(56) Factor 3. Perception of English learning. There was significant difference in factor 3, F(1,55)=.02, p<.05. Therefore, it revealed that PAL strategy in students’ English learning would have the effect on students’ perception of English learning than the effects of practicing and learning by oneself. Table4. 9 Factor Initiative. Anxiety. Perception. ANCOVA of factor 1, factor 2, and factor3 Source. SS. df. MS. F. Sig.. Pretest. 6.96. 1. 6.96. 21.76. .00. Group. 3.08. 1. 3.08. 9.63. .00*. Error. 17.60. 55. .32. Total. 25.94. 57. Pretest. 6.43. 1. 6.43. 30.58. .00. Group. .95. 1. .95. 4.49. .04*. Error. 11.56. 55. .21. Total. 19.32. 57. Pretest. 6.47. 1. 6.47. 14.83. .00. Group. 2.50. 1. 2.50. 5.73. .02*. Error. 24.00. 55. .44. Total. 33.75. 57. *p<.05 In conclusion, as above, there were significant differences between experimental group and control group in the factors of initiative in English learning, anxiety about English learning, and perception of English learning. It meant that applying PAL strategy in practicing English would have a well influence on students’ attitudes toward English learning. 49.

(57) 4.2 Discussion This study was designed to investigate the effects of PAL strategy on students’ oral proficiency in English and the change of their attitudes toward English learning. After applying the PAL strategy during practice, we could see that the improvements of students’ English learning increased, and from all the results, the findings revealed that there were significant differences among the PAL strategy. The students’ oral proficiency in English got better and the students’ attitude toward English learning changed. The presence of results supported the study that the children were scaffolding each other’s learning, through peer sharing and peer modeling and it indicated that the children of peer modeling would have higher learning achievement than those who did not experience peer modeling (Frid & Wood, 2005; Schunk & Hanson 1989; Hsu,2000). Furthermore, in the study of Frid & Wood (2005) showed the interactions related to peer sharing emerged as key aspects of students’ learning practices and supported scaffolding among children for new mathematics concepts, and in the present study, we found that the peer interaction related to peer sharing and supporting would also scaffold for English speaking learning. Students’ attitude toward English learning was confirmed by English Learning Experience Scale (ELES). The response of ELES indicated that students would be active in English learning, and they would place importance on the importance and be interested in English learning. The presence of outcomes of ELES supported the study that some researchers verified peer modeling could have strong social and attitudinal influences by modeling enthusiasm and collaboration with peers, and furthermore, it would enhance students’ self-efficacy, motivation, interest, and learning achievement (Bandura, 1989; Schunk & Hanson1989; Topping & Ehly, 1998). Although we observed the positive attitude in experimental treatment, the anxiety 50.

(58) of these students was not shown reduced. Contrary to the relative studies that verified PAL would enhance students’ confidence and self-efficacy, we found that the students became more and more anxious about English learning in our research. Based on the different results between these researches, we thought this may be because of the stress and embarrassment of sharing files. As we designed before, the experimental group would share their recording files to each other, and some students expressed that it was really embarrassing to share their poor English recording; on the other hand, due to sharing, the students cared about the presentation so they would take an effort to do their best and they would feel stressed. Therefore, the scores of anxiety factor got increased.. 51.

(59) Chapter Five. Conclusion and Suggestion According to the analyses of the experiment, this chapter would be generalized some conclusions that we found in the research and some suggestions for future researches to refer to.. 5.1 Conclusion The two purposes concerning this research included (a) investigating whether PAL strategy could improve junior high school students’ oral proficiency in English, (b) determining whether PAL strategy would have positive effects on junior high school students’ attitudes toward English learning. After conducting the experiments, results of this study led to the following conclusions. a. The students’ oral proficiency in English would be improved effectively by PAL strategy. The results showed the scores of experimental group were higher than that of control group not only during practice but also in posttest, and the differences of students’ English oral performance between experimental group and control group were tended to be significant. Thus, based on the outcomes, it is believed that the oral performance of applying PAL strategy has a tendency to be better than that of not applying PAL strategies.. b. The learners’ initiatives and perceptions of English learning were promoted by PAL strategy. In terms of the learning attitudes, the students held positive opinions toward the online English recording practices incorporating PAL strategy on the average. The 52.

(60) results showed that there was significant difference of factors of initiatives and perceptions of English learning between experimental group and control group. Consequently, it revealed that applying PAL strategy in students’ English learning would have a tendency to have a better effect on students’ initiative and perceptions in English learning than the effects of practicing and learning by oneself.. c. In PAL strategy activities, the learners’ anxieties about English learning would be increased. Based on the results of ELES, we found that PAL strategy incorporated in students’ English learning would have an effect on increasing students’ anxiety than the effects of practicing and learning by oneself. We observed the anxiety of these students who were applied PAL strategy was not reduced, and the students became more and more anxious about English learning. Some students’ responded that they felt pressured and embarrassed when sharing their recording files with each other, and they eagered for presenting their best presentation to their peers. On the other hand, some of them responded that they were afraid that peers would laugh at their pronunciation or recording contents. Therefore, it was concluded that in PAL strategy activities, the learners’ anxieties regarding English learning may be increased.. 53.

(61) 5.2 Suggestion Based on the conclusions, the experimental design of this study still has some flaws and needs to be modified. Therefore, the following suggestions for future researches on oral proficiency in English learning to refer to are raised. 5.2.1. Searching for some methods to reduce students’ anxiety In the present study, the response of ELES showed that peer modeling of PAL. strategies seemed to be effective to promote learners’ initiatives and perceptions of English learning. However, the opinions obtained from the ELES also showed that the learners’ anxieties about English learning might increased. Therefore, the researcher suggested that future researches must find the way to incorporate into practices or change the experimental process in order to reduce students’ anxiety. 5.2.2. Analyzing the information (such as practicing times, models, and etc.) to know more about the influence of PAL strategies In the future study, the researcher may collect the relative information. For. example, we could examine the number of times about listening to peers’ audio files. Moreover, the other important information is about whom the students often listen to could be studied. To analyze these information, we may know more about PAL strategies and find the best way to encourage students’ language learning. 5.2.3. Appling another theory or strategy to the practices Excluding the factors we carried about previously in the present study, like time. control and manpower, the researcher are suggested to refer to peer tutoring, peer counseling, peer monitoring, peer assessment, to more English practices. Perhaps it would be a way to improve students’ oral proficiency in English.. 54.

(62) References 歐展嘉（2007)。Moodle 數位學習課程管理平台。臺北：松崗。數位學習課程管理平台 Al-Ansari, S. & Wigzell, R (1996).The influence of the tape-recorder on attainment in EFL. System, 24(2), 233-243. Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory, In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development (pp. 1-60), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Blake E. Hayes & Salem K. Hicks (2004).Speaking in the call environment. Proceedings of CLaSIC 2004. 954-961. Brandl, K. (2005). Are you ready to "Moodle"?. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16-23. Chang, Y. W. (2000). Development of Web-based Multimedia Courseware for Children's English. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan. Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second Language Skills: Theory and Practice. 3rd Edition. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Frid, S. & Wood, K.(2005). Early childhood numeracy in a multiage setting. Mathematics Education Research Journal,16 (3), 80-99. Hartup, W. W. (1992). Having Friends, Making Friends, and Keeping Friends: Relationships as Educational Contexts. ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 854) Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: building Learning communities, [Web document]. In WebNet 98 World Conference of the WWW, Internet, and Intranet Proceedings. Retrieved August 13, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/collaborative_learning_in_asynch.htm Hsu, P. (2000). The Effects of Peer Modeling on Taiwanese College Students' Self-efficacy and Reading Performance in English Class. Dissertation 55.

(63) Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences. Vol 60(8-A), Mar 2000, pp. 2798. Lan, Y. J., Sung Y. T., & Chang, K. E.(2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 130-151. Lee, J. R. (1999). Effect of Instruction with Creative Thinking Strategies on Elementary School Students’ EnglishLearning Attitude. Unpublished master’s thesis, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan. Liang, Y. M.(2003). The Study on the Effects of Auditory Multi-media Instrument on the Development of English Oral Abilities for Taiwanese EFL Elementary-School Children---the Application of Talkworks. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan. Lin, M. H. & Chan, C. F.(2006). The Design and Implementation of Using Moodle to Construct QTI-based Dynamic Multimedia Measurement (Report No. NSC94-2520-S-156-001).Taipei, R.O.C.: National science council. Nichols, J. P., & Miller, R. B.(1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167-178. Palaigeorgiou, G. E., Siozos, P. D., Konstantakis, N. I., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2005). A computer attitude scale for computer science freshmen and its educational implications. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 330-342. Robyn, P., Kaye, S. and Anastasios, B(2007). A scale for monitoring students’ attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers and Education, 48(2), 285-300. Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schunk, D. H. (1998). Peer modeling, In Topping Keith & Ehly Stewart (Eds), Peer Assisted Learning(pp.185-202), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schunk, D. H. & Hanson, A. R. (1989). Self-modeling and children’s cognitive skill learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 155-163. 56.