{"title":"评估ELF学生在大专阶段的口语能力","authors":"Fadiel Mohammed Musa","doi":"10.24113/IJOHMN.V7I3.229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study was conducted at a Sudanese university in 2021 at the end of the semester to find out the areas caused problems of speech production. The research paper seeks to answer the question: What area/s of speaking is problematic to students? Fortysix undergraduate students in first year, who were majored in the English programme involved in the test. The total population was hundred students. Analytic rubrics were used for collecting data. Tuan (2014, p. 2) states that analytic rubric“… accesses the examinee’s specific strengths and weaknesses and identifies the particular components of speaking discourse that an examinee needs to develop”. Five explicit criteria were used to test participants; i.e.: grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, cohesion and fluency. The test was conducted by two instructors who gave appropriate marks under each of five rubrics (Table 1 below). The test contents comprised some pictures and topics to speak about. Bar charts were utilized to compare and measure marks obtained by students in analytic rubrics, where each rubric was measured individually. The results revealed that students were weak in all five areas (grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, cohesion and fluency).The highest marks were gained in pronunciation, count 25%, while the lowest marks were obtained in vocabulary, 15% from the total mark allocated for this item. The results conveyed that, this group of participants was weak in all aspects that needed for speech production compared with their level (2nd year undergraduates).","PeriodicalId":384851,"journal":{"name":"International Journal online of Humanities","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating ELF Students’ Speaking Skill at Tertiary Level\",\"authors\":\"Fadiel Mohammed Musa\",\"doi\":\"10.24113/IJOHMN.V7I3.229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study was conducted at a Sudanese university in 2021 at the end of the semester to find out the areas caused problems of speech production. The research paper seeks to answer the question: What area/s of speaking is problematic to students? Fortysix undergraduate students in first year, who were majored in the English programme involved in the test. The total population was hundred students. Analytic rubrics were used for collecting data. Tuan (2014, p. 2) states that analytic rubric“… accesses the examinee’s specific strengths and weaknesses and identifies the particular components of speaking discourse that an examinee needs to develop”. Five explicit criteria were used to test participants; i.e.: grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, cohesion and fluency. The test was conducted by two instructors who gave appropriate marks under each of five rubrics (Table 1 below). The test contents comprised some pictures and topics to speak about. Bar charts were utilized to compare and measure marks obtained by students in analytic rubrics, where each rubric was measured individually. The results revealed that students were weak in all five areas (grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, cohesion and fluency).The highest marks were gained in pronunciation, count 25%, while the lowest marks were obtained in vocabulary, 15% from the total mark allocated for this item. The results conveyed that, this group of participants was weak in all aspects that needed for speech production compared with their level (2nd year undergraduates).\",\"PeriodicalId\":384851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal online of Humanities\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal online of Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24113/IJOHMN.V7I3.229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal online of Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24113/IJOHMN.V7I3.229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
该研究于2021年学期末在苏丹一所大学进行,目的是找出导致语音产生问题的领域。这篇研究论文试图回答这样一个问题:学生说话的哪个方面有问题?46名英语专业的一年级本科生参与了测试。学生总数为100人。数据收集采用分析规则。Tuan (2014, p. 2)指出,分析性标题“……获取考生的具体优势和劣势,并确定考生需要发展的口语话语的特定组成部分”。五个明确的标准用于测试参与者;即:语法、词汇、发音、衔接和流利。测试由两名教师进行,他们在五个标准下分别给出适当的分数(见表1)。测试内容包括一些图片和话题。柱状图用于比较和测量学生在分析分类中获得的分数,其中每个分类都是单独测量的。结果显示,学生在五个方面(语法、词汇、标点、衔接和流利性)都很弱。发音得分最高,占25%,词汇得分最低,占该项目总分的15%。结果表明,与二年级学生相比,这组学生在言语产生所需的各个方面都很弱。
Evaluating ELF Students’ Speaking Skill at Tertiary Level
This study was conducted at a Sudanese university in 2021 at the end of the semester to find out the areas caused problems of speech production. The research paper seeks to answer the question: What area/s of speaking is problematic to students? Fortysix undergraduate students in first year, who were majored in the English programme involved in the test. The total population was hundred students. Analytic rubrics were used for collecting data. Tuan (2014, p. 2) states that analytic rubric“… accesses the examinee’s specific strengths and weaknesses and identifies the particular components of speaking discourse that an examinee needs to develop”. Five explicit criteria were used to test participants; i.e.: grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, cohesion and fluency. The test was conducted by two instructors who gave appropriate marks under each of five rubrics (Table 1 below). The test contents comprised some pictures and topics to speak about. Bar charts were utilized to compare and measure marks obtained by students in analytic rubrics, where each rubric was measured individually. The results revealed that students were weak in all five areas (grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, cohesion and fluency).The highest marks were gained in pronunciation, count 25%, while the lowest marks were obtained in vocabulary, 15% from the total mark allocated for this item. The results conveyed that, this group of participants was weak in all aspects that needed for speech production compared with their level (2nd year undergraduates).