EFFECT OF READ ALONG APPLICATION ON SPEAKING AND READING SKILLS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Page 1

InternationalJournalofHumanities andSocialSciences(IJHSS)

ISSN(P):2319–393X;ISSN(E):2319–3948

Vol.11,Issue2,Jul–Dec2022;167–174 ©IASET

EFFECTOFREADALONGAPPLICATIONONSPEAKINGANDREADINGSKILLSOF ENGLISHLANGUAGE

ABSTRACT

Englishlanguageisbeenalwaysthetalkwhenitcomestopublicspeaking.Itisclearlyvisiblethepersonwhospeaks Englishinfrontofformalmeetingsuchasconferences,seminarsothereducationaleventsisbetterrecognized.The developmentoflanguagespeakingisdependinguponprincipleofuseanddisuse.Whenwefrequentlyuseaspecific language,ithelpsustoimproveourselvesthroughtrialanderror.Asthetrialsincrease,errorsdecreaseitsuggests.The conversationhasbeenaroundListening,Speaking,ReadingandWritinginanylanguagelearning.Thesefourskillsare effectiveindicatorsoflanguageperformanceapartfromotherpsychologicalfactors.Thepresenteducationsystem,may notofferthesebasiclanguageskillsforeachindividualastheclassroomsareovercrowded.Technologyisnowcomeinto picturetofulfillthoseindividualneedsoflanguageskills.Therearemanytechnologicalapplicationsavailablethatcater individuallanguagelearningnecessities.Thecurrentstudyisanattemptinthesamedirection.TheAIapplication‘Read Along’wasexaminedtoseeit’seffectonSpeakingandReadingskillsofEnglishlanguage.Thequestionnairewasusedto collectdataandttestandANOVAwereusedforanalyzingandinterpretingthedata.Theresultswerecomparedand discussedandpresented.TheexperimentalgroupperformedbetterthancontrolledgroupwithrespecttoSpeakingaswell asReading.Thesefindingshavesomevaluableeducationalimplicationsatelementarylevel.

KEYWORDS:ReadAlong,ElementaryLevel,Speaking,Reading,EnglishLanguage

ArticleHistory

Received:18Oct2022|Revised:19Oct2022|Accepted:22Oct2022

INTRODUCTION

Raphael(2017)indicatesthatEnglishlanguagelearningisoneofthenecessaryeducationalobjectivesatapersonal, academic,andoccupationallevel.AIisconstantlygrowingandevolvingandtherearefirmindicationsthatwaysof teachingandlearningalongwiththeteachingtoolsweusewillbeprofoundlytransformed.Thedevelopmentofintelligible pronunciationisanongoingchallengetobothstudentsandteachersacrossalllanguagelevels.Cautelaetal.(2019,p.128) indicatedthatthereisalinkbetweenAIapplicationsandmanythinkingskillssuchasdesigningskills,whicharehighly soughtafterinthe21stcentury.HehasillustratedthatAImoveseducationfromatraditionalformtoanautomated education,oreducationthroughsmartinteractivemachines.Itemploysnaturallanguagetoproducenewknowledge,andto boostsupplementaryeducationaltasks.AIapplicationscanindividualizedtutoringandintroducevariededucational modelsandstreamsinwhichlanguagesaremergedwithfieldsofrelatedknowledge.Thus,theyofferstudentsthechance tolearnaccordingtoflexiblestreamsthatsuittheirdifferentabilitiesandacademiclevels.TheimportanceofAI

www.iaset.us

editor@iaset.us

1AssistantProfessor,DayalbaghEducationalInstitute,Agra,UttarPradesh,India 2M.EdScholar,DayalbaghEducationalInstitute,Agra,UttarPradesh,India

applicationsineducationisdeterminedbytheirabilitytosuittheneedsandabilitiesofthelearners,toworkaccordingto theireducationalpreferences,andtomonitortheprogressrateofeachlearner.Manyartificialintelligencebasedand customizedapplicationscanhelpinimprovingEnglishlanguageskills(suchaslistening,speakingandreadingskills)with personalisedlessons.Examples:-LiulishuoOdingaFluent8DuolingoELSA(EnglishLanguageSpeechAssistant)Read Alongetc.Outofthese,ReadAlongAppisfoundtobemoreaccessible,childrenfriendlyandhavingNLPfeatures.Some ofthefeaturesofReadAlongaregivenbelow

 Customizedlessons,designedbyAIforexpeditedlearning.

●Agamutofvocabulary,situationsandexpressions.

●Speaking,readingandlisteningpracticewithAI.

●Priorityofspeaking,readingorlisteningdecidedbyAI,basedonlevelsofuser.

●Real-situationEnglishpractice.

●Minigamesforfun&learning.

●Manageablelearningcurve,enabledbyAI.

●Buildingtheabilitytocomprehendreadingpassages.

●Developingstudents’translationskills.

●Learningcorrectpronunciation.

●Enrichingthestudent’svocabulary.

●AugmentingspeakingskillsforEnglishlearners.

Onthebasisofcorefeatureslistedabove,theresearchershaveoptedReadAlongtobeexaminedamong elementarylevelstudents.

ResearchQuestions

 IsthereanyimprovementinspeakingskillsofEnglishwhenusingReadAlongApp?

 IsthereanyimprovementinreadingskillsofEnglishwhenusingwithReadAlongApp?

 ArethereanygenderdifferencesinspeakingandreadingwhenusingwithReadAlongApp?

ObjectivesoftheStudy

●TostudytheeffectofReadAlongapplicationonspeakingskillsofEnglishlanguageatelementarylevel.

●TostudytheeffectofReadAlongapplicationonreadingskillsofEnglishlanguageatelementarylevel.

●TostudytheeffectofgenderdifferencesofReadAlongapplicationonskillsofEnglishlanguageatelementary level.

168 Dr.TagaramKondalaRao&SonamSrivastava
NAASRating3.17
ImpactFactor(JCC):7.3299

HypothesesoftheStudy

●TherewillbeasignificanteffectofReadAlongonthespeakingskillsoftheEnglishlanguageonstudents.

●TherewillbeasignificanteffectofReadAlongonthereadingskillsoftheEnglishlanguageonstudents.

●TherewillbenosignificanteffectofgenderdifferencesofReadAlongapplicationonskillsofEnglishlanguage atelementarylevel.

MethodsoftheStudy

Experimentalmethodwasusedinthepresentstudy.SinglegroupExperiment-Controldesignwasusedinthepresentstudy forexaminingtheextenttowhichReadalongApponSpeakingandReadingskillsofEnglishLanguage.

Entireclasswasdividedintotwo groupssuchasexperimentalgroupinwhich individualswereinformedofthestudy objectivesandtheresponsemechanismofthe ReadAlongapplicationandtheywerehighly motivatedtouseAIapplicationsinlearning Englishlanguageskills.

Anothergroupcalledcontrolledgroupinwhich individualswerenotawareofthemechanismof theAItool-ReadAlongandwasusedasa baselinetoassesstheeffectofthatintervention.

SampleoftheStudy

Apre-testwastakenbefore introducingtheReadAlongapplication, thenintroducedofapplicationRead AlongtothestudentstoteachEnglish languageskills.Lessonplanswere preparedintegratingReadAlong applicationforteachingstudentsfor15 daysandtaughtthesame.

Apre-testwasadministeredandthen Traditionalmethodsusedtoteachthe controlledgroupoftheEnglish language. LessonplansusingReadAlongwere preparedforexperimentalgroupfor15 daysandtaughtthesame.

Apost-testwas conductedfor checkingthe effectivenessofthe applicationfollowed byaquestionnaire.

Apost-testwastaken forcheckingthe effectiveness

SadabadInterCollegewasselectedpurposivelyandelementarystudentswereselectedrandomly.Apre-testwasconducted andonthebasisofscorestudentsweredividedintotwogroupsi.eexperimentalandcontrolledgroupandthenmatched pairsdesignfordividingthemintomaleandfemalecategories.

EffectofReadAlongApplicationonSpeakingandReadingSkillsofEnglishLanguage 169 www.iaset.us editor@iaset.us
Table1:DesignoftheStudy Planning ImplementationPhase Assessment (Followup)

SelectionandDevelopmentoftheTools

Aquestionnairewasadministeredtomeasuretheabilityofstudents'skillsoflearningEnglishlanguagebyTurkiRabahAl Mukhallaf(2020)

Phase1-Thescoreofpretestoftheexperimentalgroupbeforeintroducingtheapplication.

Phase2-Thescoreoftheposttestfollowedbyaquestionnaireafterintroducingtheapplicationaspilotstudytosee thedifferencesaswellaseffectivenessofReadAlongApplication.

Phase3-Thescoreofthecontrolledgroupfollowedbyaquestionnaireforcomparisonandanalyzingtheeffectof skillsofEnglishlanguage.

SampleCharacteristics

Atotalnumberof88studentscompletedthestudy.46boysand42girlswereparticipatedinthestudyrangedfrom10-12years.

Table2:DemographicInformationoftheParticipantsGroup

Comparisonatbaseline:itwasusedtoassesstheeffectofArtificialIntelligenceApplication(ReadAlong)on SpeakingandReadingSkillsofEnglishlanguageatElementaryLevel.Itwasimportanttocheckwhethertheexperimental andcontrolgroupswereequalatthebaselineornot.

AnalysisofPre-TestScoresofSpeakingSkills

170
ImpactFactor(JCC):7.3299 NAASRating3.17
Dr.TagaramKondalaRao&SonamSrivastava
Figure1:SampleSelection.
Groups MeanAge No.ofBoysNo.ofgirls ExperimentalGroup 14.20 23 21 ControlGroup 14.70 23 21
Groups N Mean SD t ExperimentalGroup 44 49.20 5.83 0.288 ControlGroup 44 51.13 7.82
Phase1Phase2Phase3Groups MeanAge 21 21 N Mean t NAASRating3.17
Table3:Mean,S.DandResultsofTTestforPre-TestScoresof SpeakingSkills
Dr.TagaramKondalaRao&SonamSrivastava

Itisevidentfromtable3thatmeanscoreforlisteningskillsishigherforcontrolgroup(M=51.13)withalesser variabilityinscores(S.D=7.82)ascomparedtomeanscoreexperimentalgroup(M=49.20)withslightlyhighervariability (5.83)However,thesedifferenceswerefoundtobestatisticallyinsignificantasdepictedbytheresultsoft-testat 0.05.Therefore,itisevidentthattheexperimentalgroupswereequaltotheirrespectivecontrolonthebaselinemeasuresof speakingskills.

AnalysisofPre-TestScoresofReadingSkills

Table4:Mean,S.DandResultsofTTestforPre-TestScoresof ReadingSkills

Itisevidentfromtable4thatmeanscoreforreadingskillsishigherforcontrolgroup(M=114.48)withalesser variabilityinscores(S.D=11.38)ascomparedtomeanscoreexperimentalgroup(M=109)withslightlyhighervariability (9.29)However,thesedifferenceswerefoundtobestatisticallyinsignificantasdepictedbytheresultsofttestat 0.05.Therefore,itisevidentthattheexperimentalgroupswereequaltotheirrespectivecontrolonthebaselinemeasuresof readingskills.

Thedesignusedforthecurrentstudywassingleexperimentalcontrolgroupdesignwithpre-testpost-test measurementsfollowedbyaquestionnaire.Itmeansthattherewasnorandomallocationofthestudentstothegroups. Therewasapossibilitythatthegroupsmayhavevariedatthebaselinebutaboveanalysisrevealedthatthegroupswere equalatbaselineforallthevariablesofthestudy.

AnalysisofSignificanceofdifferencebetweenScoresofSpeakingSkillsforPre-test,Post-test

Analysisofsignificanceofdifferencebetweenscoresofspeakingskillsforpre-test,post-testfollowedbythe questionnaireinExperimentalandcontrolGroup.(TostudytheeffectofAIbasedapplicationonspeakingskillsofEnglish languageatelementarylevel)

Thevalueoft-testintheexperimentalgroupat0.05impliesthatthereisasignificantdifferencebetweenpre-test andpost-testfollowedbyaquestionnairewhereasthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenpre-testandpost-testinthe controlgroupat0.05levelsinspeakingskillsofEnglishlanguage.

EffectofReadAlongApplicationonSpeakingandReadingSkillsofEnglishLanguage 171 www.iaset.us editor@iaset.us
Groups N Mean SD t ExperimentalGroup 44 109 9.29 0.267 ControlGroup 44 114.48 11.38
Group Tests MeanS.D t ExperimentalGroup Pre-test 49.035.832.626 Post-test 52.826.14 ControlGroup Pre-test 51.137.820.816 Post-test 52.698.02
Table5:Mean,S.D&ResultsofTTestforSpeakingSkills

ExperimentalGroup

Analysisofsignificanceofdifferencebetweenscoresofreadingskillsforpre-test,post-testfollowedbythe questionnaireinExperimentalandcontrolGroup.(TostudytheeffectofAIbasedapplicationonreadingskillsofEnglish languageatelementarylevel)

Thevalueoft-testintheexperimentalgroupat0.05impliesthatthereisasignificantdifferencebetweenpre-test andpost-testfollowedbyaquestionnairewhereasthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenpre-testandposttestinthe controlgroupat0.05levelsinreadingskillsofEnglishlanguage.

ExperimentalGroup

ControlGroup

AnalysisofsignificanceofgenderdifferenceinExperimentalgrouponly(Tostudytheeffectofgender differencesofAIbasedapplicationonskillsofEnglishlanguageatelementarylevel)

172 Dr.TagaramKondalaRao&SonamSrivastava ImpactFactor(JCC):7.3299 NAASRating3.17
ControlGroup Figure2:AComparisonofPre-TestandPost-TestScoresofExperimental GroupandControlGroup;WhereBlondeisaPreTestScore.BrunetteisaPost TestScore.
Group Tests Mean S.D t ExperimentalGroup Pre-test109.109.29 2.89 Post-test113.4114.31 ControlGroup Pre-test 51.13 7.820.816 Post-test52.69 8.02
Table6:Mean,S.D&ResultsofTTestforReadingSkills Figure3:AComparisonofPre-TestandPost-TestScoresofExperimental GroupandControlGroup;WhereBlondeisaPreTestScore.BrunetteisaPost TestScore.
Dr.TagaramKondalaRao&SonamSrivastava Group S.D 109.109.29 2.89 Post-test 7.82 Post-test 8.02
NAASRating3.17
GroupandControlGroup;WhereBlondeisaPreTestScore.BrunetteisaPost

ToAnalysethesignificanceofgenderdifferenceinExperimentalgroupthethree-wayANOVA(Analysisof Variance)hasbeencalculatedanditssummaryisgivenintable.

Table7:ExhibitingSummaryofThree-WayAnalysisofVariance.WheretheIndependentvariableisthe ReadAlongApplicationandDependentisGenderandSkillsofEnglishlanguage.ExhibitingSummaryof Three-WayAnalysisofVariance

Theobtainedresultshowsthatthereisnosignificancedifferenceat0.001levelsamongvariances.

FINDINGS

FromtheaboveresultitisclearthatAItoolssuchasReadAlonghavesignificanteffectsonspeakingskillandreading skillsofEnglishlanguageatelementarylevelwithfunandexploration.Nogenderdifferenceswereobservedinthepresent studywhenReadAlongAppwasusedforEnglishlanguageskillssuchasspeakingandreading.

RESULTSANDDISCUSSION

AIapplicationsarepartofcontemporarytrends,soitisnecessarytoemployitasapartof21stcenturyskillsandthenature ofthedigitalworldanditsrequirements.EmploymentofAIapplicationsandstrategiesrelatestostudyingandaccurately determiningtrainingneedsinordertoboostproceduralpracticesinthelightofAIstrategiesforteaching/learningEnglish. Theyincludeinteractivesmarttranslationstrategiesthroughsmarttoolsandsoftware,voicecommunicationstrategies, strategiesfordiversifyingscientificcontentanddigitalopensources,andstrategiesforcommunicativelanguageteaching (enhancedwithinteractivevoiceandimages).Theyalsoincludestrategiessuitablefordifficultiesinlanguage communication,strategiesforcomputersimulation,andemploymentofsmartprogramswiththehelpofexpertsystems. ThesearemultipleprogramsthatdependonsimulationtodevelopskillsthroughapplicationssuchasReadAlongorso whichboostlearningoflanguageskillsofEnglishlanguage.

REFERENCES

1.Al-Farrani,L.A.K.,&El-Hejaili,S.A.S.(2020).AneducationalscenarioforusingAItodiscoverthe instructors’multiplefacetsofintelligence.TheArabInstitutionofEducation,Sciences,andLiterature,11 ,73−91.

2.Al-Omari,Z.H.Z.(2019).TheEffectofusingAIchatrobotstodevelopthesciencesubjectcognitiveaspectsof primarystagefemalepupils.TheSaudiAssociationforEducationalandPsychologicalSciences,64,23−48.

3.Al-Yajizi,F.H.(2019).UsingAIapplicationstoenhanceuniversityeducationinKSA.Arab EducationalistLeague,113,257−282.

4.Boneau,A.(1993).ArtificialIntelligence:Itsrealityandfuture(AliSabriFaghaliTranslator).AlamAl-Ma’rifah series.TheNationalCouncilforCulture,Arts,andLiterature:Kuwait.

5.Cautela,C.,Mortati,M.,Dell’Era,C.,&Gastaldi,L.(2019).TheimpactofArtificialIntelligenceonDesign Thinkingpractice:InsightsfromtheEcosystemofStartups.StrategicDesignResearchJournal,12(1),114−134. https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2019.121.08

EffectofReadAlongApplicationonSpeakingandReadingSkillsofEnglishLanguage 173 www.iaset.us editor@iaset.us
Variable SumofSquaresdfMeanSquare F Significance ReadAlong*gender*skillsofEnglishlanguage 1.250 2 0.625 1.867 0.001

6.Clark,M.(2018).Artificialintelligenceforthegeneralinterest.TheworldsummitreportonAIforthegeneral interest,TheWorldUnionforCommunication,Genève,Switzerland.ijel.ccsenet.orgInternationalJournalof EnglishLinguisticsVol.10,No.6;202052

7.Dickson,B.(2017).HowArtificialIntelligenceisShapingtheFutureofEducation.PC Magazine,105−115.Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=125789751&site=ehost-live

8.El-Sayed,A.A.R.(1994).AIapplicationsandmodelsofneuro-networksindifferentscientificandeducational fields.BanhaUniversity,FacultyofEducation,5(15),147−158.

9.Farghali,A.(1988).ComputerlinguisticsandAI:potentialsforapplicationincomputerizedlanguagelearning programs.TheCouncilofScientificPublications,8(32),192−193.

10.Fleming,S.C.(2003).Acomparisonofartificialintelligence-basedasynchronousinternetinstructionand traditionalinstructionincommunitycollegedevelopmentalalgebra(OrderNo.3083062).Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305300515). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305300515?accountid=178282

11.Ghazi,E.E.D.(2005).ArtificialIntelligence:Isitasymbolictechnology?HumanitiesandSocialSciences,6, 43−81.

12.Kamuka,E.E.D.I.(2015).ArtificialIntelligenceinprogrammedEducation.TheArabInstitutionforScientific CounselandDevelopmentofHumanResources,49(1),84−96.

13.Lancaster,F.W.,Warner,A.,Al-Tayyar,M.B.S.,&Al-Shelail,T.I.(2008).ApplicationsofAItechniquesand expertsystemsinlibrariesandinformationservices.KingFahadNationalLibrary,14(2),394−400.

14.Lapata,M.,&Barzilay,R.(2005).Automaticevaluationoftextcoherence:Modelsandrepresentations(pp. 1085−1090).InProceedingsofthe19thInternationalJointConferenceonArtificialIntelligence(IJCAI).

15.Lu,D.(2009).AnartificialintelligenceofexpertsystemforcollegeEnglishteaching association.BeijingUniversityofChemicalTechnology.AvailablefromProQuestDissertations&Theses Global(1870463615).Retrievedfromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1870463615?accountid=178282

16.Raphael,N.,Madoda,C.,Baba,T.,&Sindiso,Z.(2017).ExploringtheSecondLanguageTeachingStrategiesof NdebeleEnglishTeachersinSelectedSecondarySchoolsinZimbabwe.Gender&Behaviour,15(2),8626−8637.

17.Shabakah,N.S.E.(2012).Artificialintelligenceandthelogicofrepresentingknowledge:Thelogicofmultiplecomponentmaterial.AssociationofFacultiesofComputersandInformation,1(2),19−33.

18.Ziegler,N.(2014).Englishlanguagelearners’epistemicbeliefsaboutvocabularyknowledge.TheUniversityof Toledo.AvailablefromProQuestDissertations&ThesesGlobal(1773492386).Retrievedfrom https://search.proquest.com/docview/1773492386?accountid=178282

174 Dr.TagaramKondalaRao&SonamSrivastava ImpactFactor(JCC):7.3299 NAASRating3.17
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.