T1 112011041 Full text
DEVELOPING ORAL PROFICIENCY THROUGH CMC
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Elim Prastowo
112011041
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2015
1
2
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in
any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any
university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material
previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is
made in the text.
Copyright@2015. Elim Prastowo and Toar Sumakul, M.A.
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means
without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English
Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian
University, Salatiga.
Elim Prastowo
3
4
TABLE OF CONTENT
Cover i
Approval Pageii
Copyright Statement iii
Publication Agreement Declaration iv
Table of Content
v
List of Tables vi
Thesis Body
Abstract
1
Key Words
1
Introduction
1
Literature Review
3
A. Speaking
3
B. CMC
3
C. Speaking and CMC
The Study
5
4
A. Context of the Study
5
B. Participants 5
C. Instruments 5
D. Data Collection Procedure 6
E. Data Analysis Procedure
Findings and Discussion
Conclusion
6
7
A. Results of The Pre- and Post-speaking Test
7
B. Assumption Test for Paired Sample T-Test
8
C. The Results of Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test
17
22
Acknowledgement
References
24
Appendix
26
23
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Results of Pre- and Post-Test.....................................................................7
Table 2: Results of Normality of Pre-test of Comprehension..................................9
Table 3: Results of Normality of Post-Test of Comprehension.............................10
Table 4: Results of Normality of Pre-Test of Fluency............................................11
Table 5: Results of Normality of Post-Test of Fluency..........................................12
Table 6: Results of Normality of Pre-Test of Vocabulary......................................13
Table 7: Results of Normality of Post-Test of Vocabulary
14
Table 8: Results of Normality of Pre-Test of Grammar
15
Table 9: Results of Normality of Post-Test of Grammar
16
Table 10: Test Statistics of All Criteria
17
Table 11: Results of Ranks of Comprehension
Table 12: Results of Ranks of Fluency
19
Table 13: Results of Ranks of Vocabulary
20
Table 14: Results of Ranks of Grammar
21
6
18
DEVELOPING ENGLISH ORAL PROFICIENCY THROUGH
COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC)
Elim Prastowo
Abstract
Recently a number of researchers had researched the relationship between
speaking and CMC (Tudini, 2003; Payne & Ross, 2005; Nguyen, 2008). This
study aimed to check whether Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication
(ACMC) can develop oral proficiency. It was done in a month employing
SOLOM (San Jose Area Bilingual Consortium (SJABC), 2009) and there were
eight 10th graders participated in this study. There were pre- and post-test which
was interview to test the students’ oral proficiency. The criteria which were
assessed were comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and grammar. The
pronunciation was omitted because the tool which was used to develop oral
proficiency was ACMC. The treatment was chatgroup facebook message. The
data was the score of the students. The scores were collected from the average of
the three raters. In order to use paired sample t-test, the assumptions needed to be
met. Based on the test on the assumptions, the data did not meet the assumptions.
Therefore, the data was analyzed by using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Findings
suggested that there was no statistical development of all criteria.
Keywords: asynchronous CMC, oral proficiency.
A. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, some researchers tend to relate oral proficiency with CMC. In
other words, they may research on how oral proficiency is developed through
CMC. Here, the example of CMC is chatting. There are omegle and facebook
which people can use to talk to strangers in English. It may be interesting if oral
proficiency can be developed through chatting. Nowadays, many modern people
can chat through internet. Grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency can
be checked whether they are developed even though the pronunciation is not
measured. Grammar, vocabulary and comprehension could have been developed
7
through it. Grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency can be measured
through it. It may be a new interesting thing that can be researched in ELT.
Some studies had been done on this subject. First, Payne and Ross (2005)
researched about synchronous CMC (SCMC), working memory, and L2 oral
proficiency development. The focus was on contribution of SCMC to the L2 oral
proficiency development. There were 24 volunteers (2 males and 22 females
ranging in age from 18-26). In third semester, the students joined 2 day-online in
the chatroom, 2 days in the classroom. The chatroom activities are small-group
discussion, role-plays, discussions of assigned texts and video content. The
conclusion was SCMC may provide a unique form of support to certain types of
learners in developing L2 oral proficiency. Even though not all learners, oral
proficiency was developed to certain types of learners. It suggested the
contribution of SCMC to the L2 oral proficiency development. Second, Gleason
and Suvorov (2011) conducted a large research university in the United States to
test the role of asynchronous oral computer-mediated communication (ACMC)
tasks using Wimba Voice (WV), for developing their second language (L2) oral
communication skills. The findings of this study suggest that learners have a
variety of opinions regarding the role of WV tasks in helping them with their L2
speaking development. It may be a motivation for other researchers to continue
researching on this subject.
Based on those, my purpose is to investigate whether computer-mediated
communication (CMC) can develop L2 oral proficiency. The research question
posed for this study is: “Can oral proficiency be developed through CMC?”
8
My hope is this study can become a new knowledge in ELT, can help
teachers on teaching students to develop their oral proficiency by using CMC, can
help students to find a new approach on developing their oral proficiency by using
CMC, and can acknowledge teachers and students on their teaching and learning
after reading this study.
B. LITERATURE REVIEW
There are two aspects that are covered. The first is speaking. The focus is
on definition and why it is important to develop speaking skill. The second is
CMC. The focus is on definition, division, features, and the form of CMC that
was used in the research. At last, speaking and CMC are related.
1.
Speaking
Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves
producing and receiving and processing information (Brown, 1994; Burns &
Joyce, 1997). Speaking is a communication skill. L2 communication skill can be
developed by speaking in a L2 (Bygate 2011). Speaking can be used as a tool in
developing communication skill. A speaker's skills and speech habits have an
impact on the success of any exchange (Van Duzer, 1997). That is why it is
important to develop speaking skill.
2.
CMC
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is communication that occurs
through the use of two or more electronic devices (McQuail, 2005). It is divided
into two: Synchronous CMC (SCMC) and Asynchronous CMC (ACMC). SCMC
occurs when the communicators communicate at the same time and vice versa.
9
The features of CMC represented in hyperlinks, chats, downloads, uploads, email,
search engines, multimedia, etc (Mahmoud & Auter, 2009). The focus of the
research was asynchronous chatting.
3.
Speaking and CMC
To relate speaking with CMC, here are some studies which show the
relationship between speaking and CMC. First is the study of Payne & Ross
(2005). Payne and Ross (2005) concluded that SCMC may provide a unique form
of support to certain types of learners in developing L2 oral proficiency. Those
suggested the relationship and oral proficiency can be developed through CMC.
There are also other researches related on this subject. Second, Tudini
(2003) researched about speaking practice for distance language learners through
online chatting. Two groups of students were involved in tasks which were carried
out in a networked computer laboratory with the purposes of evaluating the
courses, providing practice in specific grammatical structures, and researching the
suitability of chatting as an educational tool in both internal and external courses.
The findings suggested the high level of interactivity. It can be claimed that the
chatting had developed students’ oral proficiency. The other is from Nguyen
(2008) that stated that CMC supports active learning. As we know that speaking is
an active skill, so CMC can support it. It can be concluded that those suggested
the relationship and oral proficiency can be developed through CMC.
10
C. THE STUDY
1.
Context of study
The study was conducted to check whether CMC can be used as tool to
develop speaking skill. It was a quantitative study. It was done in a month. It
employed a Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) (SecondaryEnglish Learner Services Procedures Manual, 2009) (see appendix A). It was used
to assess the eight participants’ oral proficiency before (pre-test) and after (posttest) the treatment (chatgroup facebook message). Three assessors assessed the
recording of interview (pre and post test) which was conducted by the researcher.
They are a native English speaking teacher of Satya Wacana Christian University,
a native English speaking teacher of the same university, and a non-native English
speaking teacher of SMA 1 Salatiga. English teachers were chosen based on users
of SOLOM who are teachers. Then the data was analyzed.
2.
Participants
The sampling was snowball. The participants were seven non-native
English speaking students from Grade 10 of SMA Kristen 1 Salatiga and a nonnative English speaker student from Grade 10 of SMA Laboratorium Salatiga.
They were chosen because they were available; mature enough to chat on
facebook, needed to develop their oral proficiency and it was the easiest way. The
basis of the selection is the participants must be in the same grade.
11
3.
Instruments of Data Collection
Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) (SJABC, 2009):
A rating scale that teachers can use to test students’ oral proficiency. There
are five categories of it: comprehension, fluency, pronunciation, grammar, and
vocabulary (see appendix A). In this study, the pronunciation was omitted because
CMC will be used. It was used to assess the participants’ oral proficiency.
4.
Data Collection Procedure:
The data collection was done in a month. Day one, each participant
conversed (was interviewed) with the researcher. Then, the recording of the
interview was assessed by the assessors to get the average score (the data) of each
participant from the assessors. For a month, the participants chatted on a
chatgroup facebook message asynchronously. The topics were food, sport, video
game, and school life. Next, the participants again conversed (was interviewed)
with the researcher. Afterwards, the assessors again assessed the recording.
5.
Data Analysis Procedure:
Paired sample t-test would be used conditionally, provided that the
assumptions of the t-test were met. Otherwise, an alternative non-parametric test,
i.e. Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, would be employed.
12
D. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the result of the data analysis will be presented and
discussed. Overall statistical data and category-based data will be elaborated. This
analysis is part of the efforts to answer the research question.
1.
Results of The Pre- and Post-speaking Test
The Table 1 below is the overall comparison between pre- and post-tests.
There are data from 8 participants with 4 different categories, measuring their
speaking skills. The 4 categories were comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and
grammar.
Table 1
Results of Pre and Post Test
Comprehensio
n
Participants Pre
P1
2
P2
3.3
P3
2.6
P4
2
P5
2.3
P6
2
P7
1.3
P8
3.3
Post
2.6
2.6
3.6
3.3
2
3
3.3
1.6
Fluency
Pre
Post
1.3
2
2
2
1.6
2.6
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
2
2.3
1.3
Vocabulary
Pre
Post
1.3
2
2.3
2
1.6
2.3
1.3
1.3
1
1
1
1.6
1
1.6
2.3
1.3
Grammar
Pre
Post
1.3
2
2
2
1.6
2.3
1
1.3
1
1
1
1.3
1
1.3
1.6
1.3
The table above shows the developments and degradations of oral
proficiency of the students.
2.
Assumption Test for Paired Sample T-Test
In order to use paired sample t-test, the following assumptions need to be
met:
13
2. a.
Scale of measurement
The assumption for the test is the data scale of measurement should be
continuous interval. It can take on any value along the scale. The data in this study
is nominal. The attributes are only named. Therefore, this assumption is violated.
2. b.
Sampling
The assumption for the test is the sampling should be random. Each
individual is chosen randomly through the sampling. The researcher used
snowball sampling. The participants were friends of friends. Therefore, this
assumption is violated.
2. c.
Normality
It is the last assumption which is needed to be met. Kolmogorov Smirnov
Test is used to check the distribution of each test. There will be 8 tables which will
be described below.
Table 2
Results of Normality of Pre Test of Comprehension
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
14
Comprepre
8
2.35
0.691
0.194
0.194
-0.181
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
0.548
0.925
The table above shows the normality of pre test of comprehension. The
significance value (.925) is more than .05. It can be claimed that the distribution is
normal.
Table 3
Results of Normality of Post Test of
Comprehension
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Comprepost
8
2.75
0.6887
0.164
0.112
-0.164
0.463
0.983
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of post test of comprehension. The
significance value (.983) is more than .05. It can be concluded that the distribution
is normal.
15
Table 4
Results of Normality of Pre Test of Fluency
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Flupre
8
1.55
0.3928
0.363
0.363
-0.262
1.026
0.243
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of pre test of fluency. The
significance value (.243) is more than .05. These data indicated that the
distribution is normal.
16
Table 5
Results of Normality of Post Test of Fluency
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Flupost
8
1.8
0.438
0.199
0.199
-0.176
0.562
0.91
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of post test of fluency. The
significance value (.910) is more than .05. It can be concluded that the distribution
is normal.
Table 6
Results of Normality of Pre Test of Vocabulary
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
17
Vocpre
8
1.475
0.5497
0.25
0.25
-0.194
0.707
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
0.7
The table above shows the normality of pre test of vocabulary. The
significance value (.700) is more than .05. It can be inferred that the distribution is
normal.
Table 7
Results of Normality of Post Test of Vocabulary
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Vocpost
8
1.64
0.437
0.171
0.159
-0.171
0.485
0.973
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of post test of vocabulary. The
significance value (.973) is more than .05. It can be claimed that the distribution is
normal.
18
Table 8
Results of Normality of Pre Test of Grammar
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Grapre
8
1.313
0.3834
0.293
0.293
-0.207
0.827
0.5
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of pre test of grammar. The
significance value (.500) is more than .05. It can be concluded that the distribution
is normal.
Table 9
19
Results of Normality of Post Test of Grammar
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Grapost
8
1.56
0.466
0.338
0.338
-0.201
0.957
0.319
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of post test of grammar. The
significance value (.319) is more than .05. It can be inferred that the distribution is
normal.
Based on the test on the assumptions, the data do not meet the
assumptions. Therefore, the data cannot be analyzed using T-test and will be
analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test.
3.
The Results of Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test
Non-Parametric Tests of Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests were used to
measure significances of the results. The tables below are the results.
Table 10
Test Statistics of All Criteriab
20
Comprepost
Z
Asymp. Sig.
Flupost Vocpost
Grapo
-
–
st –
Vocpre
-.738a
.461
Grapre
-1.730a
.084
– Comprepre Flupre
-.981a
-1.057a
.326
.290
(2-tailed)
a. Based on negative ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
The table above shows that all criteria did not statistically developed
because the test results show that there are no significant differences between the
results of pre-tests and post-tests. It may be caused by several reasons. First, the
treatment which lasted for a month may be not long enough to develop oral
proficiency. Second, the number of participants which were only eight may be not
large enough to suggest the development. Third, it is possible that not all
participants chatted on daily basis and this may cause the treatment to be not
effective.
Even though all criteria did not statistically developed, there were some
non statistical developments in all criteria. The tables below are the results.
Table 11
Results of Ranks of Comprehension
Comprepost – Comprepre
Mean
Sum of
Negative
N
3a
Rank
3.67
Ranks
11.00
Ranks
Positive
5b
5
25.00
Ranks
Ties
Total
0c
8
a. Comprepost < Comprepre
21
b. Comprepost > Comprepre
c. Comprepost = Comprepre
The table shows the ranks of comprehension. In general, five participants
could develop their comprehension. However, it was also found that the
comprehension of three participants was degraded. It can be inferred that positive
ranks were dominating on comprehension.
Table 12
Results of Ranks of Fluency
Flupost – Flupre
Mean
Sum of
Negative
N
1d
Rank
5.5
Ranks
5.5
Ranks
Positive
5e
3.1
15.5
Ranks
Ties
Total
2f
8
d. Flupost < Flupre
e. Flupost > Flupre
f. Flupost = Flupre
The table shows the ranks of fluency. In general, five participants could
develop their fluency. However, it was also found that the fluency of one
22
participant was degraded. Moreover, the fluency of two participants was stable. It
can be claimed that positive ranks were dominating on fluency.
Table 13
Results of Ranks of Vocabulary
Mean
Sum of
Rank
Ranks
2g
3.5
7
4h
3.5
14
N
Vocpost – Vocpre
Negative
Ranks
Positive
Ranks
Ties
Total
2i
8
g. Vocpost < Vocpre
h. Vocpost > Vocpre
i. Vocpost = Vocpre
The table shows the ranks of vocabulary. In general, four participants
could develop their vocabulary. However, it was also found that the vocabulary of
two participants was degraded. Moreover, the fluency of two participants was
stable. It can be concluded that positive ranks were dominating on vocabulary.
23
Table 14
Results of Ranks of Grammar
Mean
Sum of
Ranks
2.5
18.5
N
Grapost – Grapre
Negative
1
Rank
2.5
Ranks
Positive
5k
3.7
Ranks
Ties
Total
2l
8
j
j. Grapost < Grapre
k. Grapost > Grapre
l. Grapost = Grapre
The table shows the ranks of grammar. In general, five participants could
develop their grammar. However, it was also found that the grammar of one
participant was degraded. Moreover, the grammar of two participants was stable.
These data indicate that positive ranks were dominating on grammar.
In sum, the scores of each criterion indicated some students’ improvements
from the pre-test to the post-test. Despite the short period of CMC activities, there
was evidence that some students’ speaking competence was established although
these phenomena may only be limited to this study.
24
E. CONCLUSION
The study was quantitative aiming at investigating whether CMC activities
could help EFL learners’ oral proficiency. It was done in a month employing
SOLOM (SJABC, 2009) and there were eight 10th graders participated in this
study. The scores were collected from the average of the three raters. In order to
use paired sample t-test, the assumptions needed to be met. Based on the test on
the assumptions, the data did not meet the assumptions. Therefore, the data was
analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test.
The statistic results show that there is no significance between CMC
activities and the participants’ oral proficiency. However, looking at individual
data, there is evidence on language development. Some students showed
individual improvement on their speaking ability. This could be seen on some subcategory of the SOLOM rubric, consisting of grammar, comprehension, fluency,
and vocabulary.
Further research is clearly needed to check the significance of CMC
activities. Longer study and more participants will make it better to check whether
CMC can develop oral proficiency. Conducting the study as part of the class can
influence the participants to chat simultaneously. With more data, there could be
more evidence of the significance of CMC activities toward speaking proficiency.
25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to
the God Almighty for the good health and wellbeing that were necessary to
complete this study.
I owe a deep sense of gratitude to Mr. Toar Sumakul, M.A, my supervisor.
Her timely advice, meticulous security, scholarly advice and scientific approach
have helped me to a very great extent to accomplish this study.
I wish to express my sincere thanks to my examiner, Mrs. Neny Isharyanti,
M.A, for the sincere and valuable guidance and encouragement extended to me.
I am also grateful to the participants from SMA Laboratorium Salatiga and
SMA Kristen 1 Salatiga who have been cooperative in completing this study. I
also thank profusely to the entire assessors from SMA 1 Salatiga and Satya
Wacana Christian University.
It is my privilege to thank my parents, brother and sister, for their love and
constant encouragement throughout my study period.
I am extremely thankful to all my friends who always supported and
helped me throughout this venture.
26
REFERENCES
Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language
pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney: National Center for
English Language Teaching and Research.
Bygate, M., (2011). Speaking. Cambridge Book Online 2, 14-19. Retrieved
October 13, 2014, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667206.003
Gleason, J., & Suvorov, R. (2011). Learner perceptions of asynchronous oral
computer-mediated communication tasks using Wimba Voice for
developing their L2 oral proficiency. In S. Huffman & V. Hegelheimer
(Eds.), The role of CALL in hybrid and online language courses . Ames,
IA: Iowa State University.
Herring, S. C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and
cross cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing
Company.
San Jose Area Bilingual Consortium (SJABC). (2009). Student Oral Language
Observation Matrix (SOLOM). Bilingual Education Office of the
California Department of Education. Retrieved November, 2014, from
Out-of-School Youth MigrantWeb site:
http://www.osymigrant.org/ola/solom0410.pdf
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
McQuail, Denis. (2005). Mcquail's Mass Communication Theory. 5th ed. London:
SAGE Publications.
Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M., (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2
oral proficiency development. Language learning & technology 9(3), 3554. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/payne/
Rice, R. E. & Love, G. (1987). Electronic Emotion: Socioemotional content in a
computer-Mediated Communication Network, Communication Research
1987; 14; 1, 85 -108.
Nguyen L.V., (2008). Computer Mediated Communication and Foreign Language
Education: Pedagogical Features. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_08/article02.htm
27
Tudini, V., (2003). Conversational elements of online chatting: speaking practice
for distance language learners? Pratique et recherche, 6(2), 83-99.
Van Duzer, C. (1997).Improving ESL learners' listening skills: At the workplace
and beyond. Washington, DC: Project in Adult Immigrant Education and
National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education.
28
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
What is your favorite food?
Can you make it? How do you make it? How long do you make it?
Why do you like it?
When was the first time you liked it?
Where do you buy it(the food or the ingredients)?
How often do you consume it?
What sport do you like?
Why do you like it?
When was the first time you liked it?
Who is your favorite sport person?
Why do you like him/her?
How do you know about the news of your favorite sport person?
What is your favorite sport team?
29
Why do you like it?
How often did you watch your team played?
How do you know about the news of your favorite team?
What video game do you like?
Why do you like it?
When was the first time you liked it?
Who is your favorite character?
Why do you like him/her?
What is your favorite sport team in the video game?
Why do you like it?
How often did you play?
Do you have any favorite teacher?
Why do you like him/her?
Do you have any favorite subject?
Why do you like it?
30
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Elim Prastowo
112011041
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2015
1
2
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in
any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any
university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material
previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is
made in the text.
Copyright@2015. Elim Prastowo and Toar Sumakul, M.A.
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means
without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English
Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian
University, Salatiga.
Elim Prastowo
3
4
TABLE OF CONTENT
Cover i
Approval Pageii
Copyright Statement iii
Publication Agreement Declaration iv
Table of Content
v
List of Tables vi
Thesis Body
Abstract
1
Key Words
1
Introduction
1
Literature Review
3
A. Speaking
3
B. CMC
3
C. Speaking and CMC
The Study
5
4
A. Context of the Study
5
B. Participants 5
C. Instruments 5
D. Data Collection Procedure 6
E. Data Analysis Procedure
Findings and Discussion
Conclusion
6
7
A. Results of The Pre- and Post-speaking Test
7
B. Assumption Test for Paired Sample T-Test
8
C. The Results of Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test
17
22
Acknowledgement
References
24
Appendix
26
23
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Results of Pre- and Post-Test.....................................................................7
Table 2: Results of Normality of Pre-test of Comprehension..................................9
Table 3: Results of Normality of Post-Test of Comprehension.............................10
Table 4: Results of Normality of Pre-Test of Fluency............................................11
Table 5: Results of Normality of Post-Test of Fluency..........................................12
Table 6: Results of Normality of Pre-Test of Vocabulary......................................13
Table 7: Results of Normality of Post-Test of Vocabulary
14
Table 8: Results of Normality of Pre-Test of Grammar
15
Table 9: Results of Normality of Post-Test of Grammar
16
Table 10: Test Statistics of All Criteria
17
Table 11: Results of Ranks of Comprehension
Table 12: Results of Ranks of Fluency
19
Table 13: Results of Ranks of Vocabulary
20
Table 14: Results of Ranks of Grammar
21
6
18
DEVELOPING ENGLISH ORAL PROFICIENCY THROUGH
COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC)
Elim Prastowo
Abstract
Recently a number of researchers had researched the relationship between
speaking and CMC (Tudini, 2003; Payne & Ross, 2005; Nguyen, 2008). This
study aimed to check whether Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication
(ACMC) can develop oral proficiency. It was done in a month employing
SOLOM (San Jose Area Bilingual Consortium (SJABC), 2009) and there were
eight 10th graders participated in this study. There were pre- and post-test which
was interview to test the students’ oral proficiency. The criteria which were
assessed were comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and grammar. The
pronunciation was omitted because the tool which was used to develop oral
proficiency was ACMC. The treatment was chatgroup facebook message. The
data was the score of the students. The scores were collected from the average of
the three raters. In order to use paired sample t-test, the assumptions needed to be
met. Based on the test on the assumptions, the data did not meet the assumptions.
Therefore, the data was analyzed by using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Findings
suggested that there was no statistical development of all criteria.
Keywords: asynchronous CMC, oral proficiency.
A. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, some researchers tend to relate oral proficiency with CMC. In
other words, they may research on how oral proficiency is developed through
CMC. Here, the example of CMC is chatting. There are omegle and facebook
which people can use to talk to strangers in English. It may be interesting if oral
proficiency can be developed through chatting. Nowadays, many modern people
can chat through internet. Grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency can
be checked whether they are developed even though the pronunciation is not
measured. Grammar, vocabulary and comprehension could have been developed
7
through it. Grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency can be measured
through it. It may be a new interesting thing that can be researched in ELT.
Some studies had been done on this subject. First, Payne and Ross (2005)
researched about synchronous CMC (SCMC), working memory, and L2 oral
proficiency development. The focus was on contribution of SCMC to the L2 oral
proficiency development. There were 24 volunteers (2 males and 22 females
ranging in age from 18-26). In third semester, the students joined 2 day-online in
the chatroom, 2 days in the classroom. The chatroom activities are small-group
discussion, role-plays, discussions of assigned texts and video content. The
conclusion was SCMC may provide a unique form of support to certain types of
learners in developing L2 oral proficiency. Even though not all learners, oral
proficiency was developed to certain types of learners. It suggested the
contribution of SCMC to the L2 oral proficiency development. Second, Gleason
and Suvorov (2011) conducted a large research university in the United States to
test the role of asynchronous oral computer-mediated communication (ACMC)
tasks using Wimba Voice (WV), for developing their second language (L2) oral
communication skills. The findings of this study suggest that learners have a
variety of opinions regarding the role of WV tasks in helping them with their L2
speaking development. It may be a motivation for other researchers to continue
researching on this subject.
Based on those, my purpose is to investigate whether computer-mediated
communication (CMC) can develop L2 oral proficiency. The research question
posed for this study is: “Can oral proficiency be developed through CMC?”
8
My hope is this study can become a new knowledge in ELT, can help
teachers on teaching students to develop their oral proficiency by using CMC, can
help students to find a new approach on developing their oral proficiency by using
CMC, and can acknowledge teachers and students on their teaching and learning
after reading this study.
B. LITERATURE REVIEW
There are two aspects that are covered. The first is speaking. The focus is
on definition and why it is important to develop speaking skill. The second is
CMC. The focus is on definition, division, features, and the form of CMC that
was used in the research. At last, speaking and CMC are related.
1.
Speaking
Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves
producing and receiving and processing information (Brown, 1994; Burns &
Joyce, 1997). Speaking is a communication skill. L2 communication skill can be
developed by speaking in a L2 (Bygate 2011). Speaking can be used as a tool in
developing communication skill. A speaker's skills and speech habits have an
impact on the success of any exchange (Van Duzer, 1997). That is why it is
important to develop speaking skill.
2.
CMC
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is communication that occurs
through the use of two or more electronic devices (McQuail, 2005). It is divided
into two: Synchronous CMC (SCMC) and Asynchronous CMC (ACMC). SCMC
occurs when the communicators communicate at the same time and vice versa.
9
The features of CMC represented in hyperlinks, chats, downloads, uploads, email,
search engines, multimedia, etc (Mahmoud & Auter, 2009). The focus of the
research was asynchronous chatting.
3.
Speaking and CMC
To relate speaking with CMC, here are some studies which show the
relationship between speaking and CMC. First is the study of Payne & Ross
(2005). Payne and Ross (2005) concluded that SCMC may provide a unique form
of support to certain types of learners in developing L2 oral proficiency. Those
suggested the relationship and oral proficiency can be developed through CMC.
There are also other researches related on this subject. Second, Tudini
(2003) researched about speaking practice for distance language learners through
online chatting. Two groups of students were involved in tasks which were carried
out in a networked computer laboratory with the purposes of evaluating the
courses, providing practice in specific grammatical structures, and researching the
suitability of chatting as an educational tool in both internal and external courses.
The findings suggested the high level of interactivity. It can be claimed that the
chatting had developed students’ oral proficiency. The other is from Nguyen
(2008) that stated that CMC supports active learning. As we know that speaking is
an active skill, so CMC can support it. It can be concluded that those suggested
the relationship and oral proficiency can be developed through CMC.
10
C. THE STUDY
1.
Context of study
The study was conducted to check whether CMC can be used as tool to
develop speaking skill. It was a quantitative study. It was done in a month. It
employed a Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) (SecondaryEnglish Learner Services Procedures Manual, 2009) (see appendix A). It was used
to assess the eight participants’ oral proficiency before (pre-test) and after (posttest) the treatment (chatgroup facebook message). Three assessors assessed the
recording of interview (pre and post test) which was conducted by the researcher.
They are a native English speaking teacher of Satya Wacana Christian University,
a native English speaking teacher of the same university, and a non-native English
speaking teacher of SMA 1 Salatiga. English teachers were chosen based on users
of SOLOM who are teachers. Then the data was analyzed.
2.
Participants
The sampling was snowball. The participants were seven non-native
English speaking students from Grade 10 of SMA Kristen 1 Salatiga and a nonnative English speaker student from Grade 10 of SMA Laboratorium Salatiga.
They were chosen because they were available; mature enough to chat on
facebook, needed to develop their oral proficiency and it was the easiest way. The
basis of the selection is the participants must be in the same grade.
11
3.
Instruments of Data Collection
Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) (SJABC, 2009):
A rating scale that teachers can use to test students’ oral proficiency. There
are five categories of it: comprehension, fluency, pronunciation, grammar, and
vocabulary (see appendix A). In this study, the pronunciation was omitted because
CMC will be used. It was used to assess the participants’ oral proficiency.
4.
Data Collection Procedure:
The data collection was done in a month. Day one, each participant
conversed (was interviewed) with the researcher. Then, the recording of the
interview was assessed by the assessors to get the average score (the data) of each
participant from the assessors. For a month, the participants chatted on a
chatgroup facebook message asynchronously. The topics were food, sport, video
game, and school life. Next, the participants again conversed (was interviewed)
with the researcher. Afterwards, the assessors again assessed the recording.
5.
Data Analysis Procedure:
Paired sample t-test would be used conditionally, provided that the
assumptions of the t-test were met. Otherwise, an alternative non-parametric test,
i.e. Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, would be employed.
12
D. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the result of the data analysis will be presented and
discussed. Overall statistical data and category-based data will be elaborated. This
analysis is part of the efforts to answer the research question.
1.
Results of The Pre- and Post-speaking Test
The Table 1 below is the overall comparison between pre- and post-tests.
There are data from 8 participants with 4 different categories, measuring their
speaking skills. The 4 categories were comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and
grammar.
Table 1
Results of Pre and Post Test
Comprehensio
n
Participants Pre
P1
2
P2
3.3
P3
2.6
P4
2
P5
2.3
P6
2
P7
1.3
P8
3.3
Post
2.6
2.6
3.6
3.3
2
3
3.3
1.6
Fluency
Pre
Post
1.3
2
2
2
1.6
2.6
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
2
2.3
1.3
Vocabulary
Pre
Post
1.3
2
2.3
2
1.6
2.3
1.3
1.3
1
1
1
1.6
1
1.6
2.3
1.3
Grammar
Pre
Post
1.3
2
2
2
1.6
2.3
1
1.3
1
1
1
1.3
1
1.3
1.6
1.3
The table above shows the developments and degradations of oral
proficiency of the students.
2.
Assumption Test for Paired Sample T-Test
In order to use paired sample t-test, the following assumptions need to be
met:
13
2. a.
Scale of measurement
The assumption for the test is the data scale of measurement should be
continuous interval. It can take on any value along the scale. The data in this study
is nominal. The attributes are only named. Therefore, this assumption is violated.
2. b.
Sampling
The assumption for the test is the sampling should be random. Each
individual is chosen randomly through the sampling. The researcher used
snowball sampling. The participants were friends of friends. Therefore, this
assumption is violated.
2. c.
Normality
It is the last assumption which is needed to be met. Kolmogorov Smirnov
Test is used to check the distribution of each test. There will be 8 tables which will
be described below.
Table 2
Results of Normality of Pre Test of Comprehension
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
14
Comprepre
8
2.35
0.691
0.194
0.194
-0.181
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
0.548
0.925
The table above shows the normality of pre test of comprehension. The
significance value (.925) is more than .05. It can be claimed that the distribution is
normal.
Table 3
Results of Normality of Post Test of
Comprehension
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Comprepost
8
2.75
0.6887
0.164
0.112
-0.164
0.463
0.983
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of post test of comprehension. The
significance value (.983) is more than .05. It can be concluded that the distribution
is normal.
15
Table 4
Results of Normality of Pre Test of Fluency
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Flupre
8
1.55
0.3928
0.363
0.363
-0.262
1.026
0.243
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of pre test of fluency. The
significance value (.243) is more than .05. These data indicated that the
distribution is normal.
16
Table 5
Results of Normality of Post Test of Fluency
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Flupost
8
1.8
0.438
0.199
0.199
-0.176
0.562
0.91
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of post test of fluency. The
significance value (.910) is more than .05. It can be concluded that the distribution
is normal.
Table 6
Results of Normality of Pre Test of Vocabulary
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
17
Vocpre
8
1.475
0.5497
0.25
0.25
-0.194
0.707
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
0.7
The table above shows the normality of pre test of vocabulary. The
significance value (.700) is more than .05. It can be inferred that the distribution is
normal.
Table 7
Results of Normality of Post Test of Vocabulary
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Vocpost
8
1.64
0.437
0.171
0.159
-0.171
0.485
0.973
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of post test of vocabulary. The
significance value (.973) is more than .05. It can be claimed that the distribution is
normal.
18
Table 8
Results of Normality of Pre Test of Grammar
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Grapre
8
1.313
0.3834
0.293
0.293
-0.207
0.827
0.5
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of pre test of grammar. The
significance value (.500) is more than .05. It can be concluded that the distribution
is normal.
Table 9
19
Results of Normality of Post Test of Grammar
N
Normal Parametersa,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Grapost
8
1.56
0.466
0.338
0.338
-0.201
0.957
0.319
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
The table above shows the normality of post test of grammar. The
significance value (.319) is more than .05. It can be inferred that the distribution is
normal.
Based on the test on the assumptions, the data do not meet the
assumptions. Therefore, the data cannot be analyzed using T-test and will be
analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test.
3.
The Results of Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test
Non-Parametric Tests of Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests were used to
measure significances of the results. The tables below are the results.
Table 10
Test Statistics of All Criteriab
20
Comprepost
Z
Asymp. Sig.
Flupost Vocpost
Grapo
-
–
st –
Vocpre
-.738a
.461
Grapre
-1.730a
.084
– Comprepre Flupre
-.981a
-1.057a
.326
.290
(2-tailed)
a. Based on negative ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
The table above shows that all criteria did not statistically developed
because the test results show that there are no significant differences between the
results of pre-tests and post-tests. It may be caused by several reasons. First, the
treatment which lasted for a month may be not long enough to develop oral
proficiency. Second, the number of participants which were only eight may be not
large enough to suggest the development. Third, it is possible that not all
participants chatted on daily basis and this may cause the treatment to be not
effective.
Even though all criteria did not statistically developed, there were some
non statistical developments in all criteria. The tables below are the results.
Table 11
Results of Ranks of Comprehension
Comprepost – Comprepre
Mean
Sum of
Negative
N
3a
Rank
3.67
Ranks
11.00
Ranks
Positive
5b
5
25.00
Ranks
Ties
Total
0c
8
a. Comprepost < Comprepre
21
b. Comprepost > Comprepre
c. Comprepost = Comprepre
The table shows the ranks of comprehension. In general, five participants
could develop their comprehension. However, it was also found that the
comprehension of three participants was degraded. It can be inferred that positive
ranks were dominating on comprehension.
Table 12
Results of Ranks of Fluency
Flupost – Flupre
Mean
Sum of
Negative
N
1d
Rank
5.5
Ranks
5.5
Ranks
Positive
5e
3.1
15.5
Ranks
Ties
Total
2f
8
d. Flupost < Flupre
e. Flupost > Flupre
f. Flupost = Flupre
The table shows the ranks of fluency. In general, five participants could
develop their fluency. However, it was also found that the fluency of one
22
participant was degraded. Moreover, the fluency of two participants was stable. It
can be claimed that positive ranks were dominating on fluency.
Table 13
Results of Ranks of Vocabulary
Mean
Sum of
Rank
Ranks
2g
3.5
7
4h
3.5
14
N
Vocpost – Vocpre
Negative
Ranks
Positive
Ranks
Ties
Total
2i
8
g. Vocpost < Vocpre
h. Vocpost > Vocpre
i. Vocpost = Vocpre
The table shows the ranks of vocabulary. In general, four participants
could develop their vocabulary. However, it was also found that the vocabulary of
two participants was degraded. Moreover, the fluency of two participants was
stable. It can be concluded that positive ranks were dominating on vocabulary.
23
Table 14
Results of Ranks of Grammar
Mean
Sum of
Ranks
2.5
18.5
N
Grapost – Grapre
Negative
1
Rank
2.5
Ranks
Positive
5k
3.7
Ranks
Ties
Total
2l
8
j
j. Grapost < Grapre
k. Grapost > Grapre
l. Grapost = Grapre
The table shows the ranks of grammar. In general, five participants could
develop their grammar. However, it was also found that the grammar of one
participant was degraded. Moreover, the grammar of two participants was stable.
These data indicate that positive ranks were dominating on grammar.
In sum, the scores of each criterion indicated some students’ improvements
from the pre-test to the post-test. Despite the short period of CMC activities, there
was evidence that some students’ speaking competence was established although
these phenomena may only be limited to this study.
24
E. CONCLUSION
The study was quantitative aiming at investigating whether CMC activities
could help EFL learners’ oral proficiency. It was done in a month employing
SOLOM (SJABC, 2009) and there were eight 10th graders participated in this
study. The scores were collected from the average of the three raters. In order to
use paired sample t-test, the assumptions needed to be met. Based on the test on
the assumptions, the data did not meet the assumptions. Therefore, the data was
analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test.
The statistic results show that there is no significance between CMC
activities and the participants’ oral proficiency. However, looking at individual
data, there is evidence on language development. Some students showed
individual improvement on their speaking ability. This could be seen on some subcategory of the SOLOM rubric, consisting of grammar, comprehension, fluency,
and vocabulary.
Further research is clearly needed to check the significance of CMC
activities. Longer study and more participants will make it better to check whether
CMC can develop oral proficiency. Conducting the study as part of the class can
influence the participants to chat simultaneously. With more data, there could be
more evidence of the significance of CMC activities toward speaking proficiency.
25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to
the God Almighty for the good health and wellbeing that were necessary to
complete this study.
I owe a deep sense of gratitude to Mr. Toar Sumakul, M.A, my supervisor.
Her timely advice, meticulous security, scholarly advice and scientific approach
have helped me to a very great extent to accomplish this study.
I wish to express my sincere thanks to my examiner, Mrs. Neny Isharyanti,
M.A, for the sincere and valuable guidance and encouragement extended to me.
I am also grateful to the participants from SMA Laboratorium Salatiga and
SMA Kristen 1 Salatiga who have been cooperative in completing this study. I
also thank profusely to the entire assessors from SMA 1 Salatiga and Satya
Wacana Christian University.
It is my privilege to thank my parents, brother and sister, for their love and
constant encouragement throughout my study period.
I am extremely thankful to all my friends who always supported and
helped me throughout this venture.
26
REFERENCES
Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language
pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney: National Center for
English Language Teaching and Research.
Bygate, M., (2011). Speaking. Cambridge Book Online 2, 14-19. Retrieved
October 13, 2014, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667206.003
Gleason, J., & Suvorov, R. (2011). Learner perceptions of asynchronous oral
computer-mediated communication tasks using Wimba Voice for
developing their L2 oral proficiency. In S. Huffman & V. Hegelheimer
(Eds.), The role of CALL in hybrid and online language courses . Ames,
IA: Iowa State University.
Herring, S. C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and
cross cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing
Company.
San Jose Area Bilingual Consortium (SJABC). (2009). Student Oral Language
Observation Matrix (SOLOM). Bilingual Education Office of the
California Department of Education. Retrieved November, 2014, from
Out-of-School Youth MigrantWeb site:
http://www.osymigrant.org/ola/solom0410.pdf
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
McQuail, Denis. (2005). Mcquail's Mass Communication Theory. 5th ed. London:
SAGE Publications.
Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M., (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2
oral proficiency development. Language learning & technology 9(3), 3554. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/payne/
Rice, R. E. & Love, G. (1987). Electronic Emotion: Socioemotional content in a
computer-Mediated Communication Network, Communication Research
1987; 14; 1, 85 -108.
Nguyen L.V., (2008). Computer Mediated Communication and Foreign Language
Education: Pedagogical Features. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_08/article02.htm
27
Tudini, V., (2003). Conversational elements of online chatting: speaking practice
for distance language learners? Pratique et recherche, 6(2), 83-99.
Van Duzer, C. (1997).Improving ESL learners' listening skills: At the workplace
and beyond. Washington, DC: Project in Adult Immigrant Education and
National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education.
28
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
What is your favorite food?
Can you make it? How do you make it? How long do you make it?
Why do you like it?
When was the first time you liked it?
Where do you buy it(the food or the ingredients)?
How often do you consume it?
What sport do you like?
Why do you like it?
When was the first time you liked it?
Who is your favorite sport person?
Why do you like him/her?
How do you know about the news of your favorite sport person?
What is your favorite sport team?
29
Why do you like it?
How often did you watch your team played?
How do you know about the news of your favorite team?
What video game do you like?
Why do you like it?
When was the first time you liked it?
Who is your favorite character?
Why do you like him/her?
What is your favorite sport team in the video game?
Why do you like it?
How often did you play?
Do you have any favorite teacher?
Why do you like him/her?
Do you have any favorite subject?
Why do you like it?
30