Experimental Group) are as follows:

Table 2 shows that in the pre-test results, the average score of the control group is 11.90, the standard deviation is 1.11, while the average score of the experiment group is 11.69, the standard deviation is 1.06. The average scores of the two are almost the same.

Table 3 shows that t Sig (2-Tailed) is 0.92, far higher than the Equality of Variance at 0.05, so the result conforms to the assumption that the variance is equal. In other words, the difference between the experimental group and the control group is very small at the 95% confidence interval, so the levels of the two classes of students are at the same level before the experiment.

N of Items refers to that three people are involved in assessing the results of the pre-test (Table 4). The values of Cronbach’s alpha in the control group and the experimental group were 0.98 and 0.96, respectively, which were almost the same. Therefore, the reliability statistics of this oral pre-test are credible.

Table 2. Statistics of oral pre-test on oral proficiency.

Table 3. Independent sample t-test of oral pre-test.

Table 4. Reliability statistics of assessing oral pre-test.

3.2. Results of oral Post-Test

Table 5 showed that in the post-test results, the average score of the control group is 11.35, the standard deviation is 1.09, while the average score of the experimental group is 15.38 and the standard deviation is 0.89. The average score of EG is much higher than that of CG, and the Std of EG is more stable than CG.

Table 6 shows that the Sig (2-Tailed) is 0.96, higher than 0.05, reflecting the uniformity of variance, so the t-test results are equal to the hypothetical variance. The significant level is 0.03, less than 0.05. In other words, there was a significant difference between the control group and the experimental group on the 95% confidence interval. Therefore, the students in the POA class speak much better English than the students in the PPP class, and the production capability of the two classes is not on the same level.

N of Items refers to that three people are involved in assessing the results of the post-test (Table 7). The values of Cronbach’s alpha in the control group and the experimental group were 0.99 and 0.97, which were almost the same. Therefore, the reliability statistics of this oral pretest are credible.

4. Conclusion

In the study quantitative experimental methods are deployed. The students are divided into two groups, their spoken English being taught each by the POA teaching method and the traditional PPP teaching method. Oral test before and after the experiment is taken; the questions in the oral test are found in past TOEFL exams. The results of the two oral tests are analyzed using SPSS 17 software. Before the experiment, the oral test results show that the oral production

Table 5. Statistics of oral post-test.

Table 6. Independent sample t-test of oral post-test.

Table 7. Reliability statistics of assessing oral post-test.

capability of the two classes is basically the same in fluency, use of advanced words, and expressions and accuracy. The post-test results show that the POA teaching method is better than PPP in improving spoken English for non-English majors. In terms of oral production, the POA teaching method has a better effect on fluency, use of advanced words and expressions than the PPP teaching method. The two foreign language teaching models POA and PPP are basically the same in improving the accuracy of oral English.

Cite this paper
Li, S. (2018) An Analysis on Spoken English at University Level Based on Production-Oriented Approach. Creative Education, 9, 333-340. doi: 10.4236/ce.2018.92023.
References
[1]   Gao, Y., & Zhang, D. (2010). Influential Factors in Oral English Learning. Asian Social Science, 6, 70-72.

[2]   Huang, L. (2010). Methods to Oral English Practice. Asian Social Science, 6, 187.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n6p187

[3]   Jenny, C., & Nancy, J. (2009). Gender Issues in the GCSE ORAL English Examination: Part II. Language & Education: An International Journal, 5, 261-292.

[4]   Liu, W. (2013). Role of Teachers in Oral English Teaching. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 219, 13-18.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4853-1_2

[5]   Liu, Y. (2016). Oral Gestural Reduction of English Nasal Coda Produced by Mandarin English-as-a-Foreign-Language Learners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140, 3339-3339.
https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4970656

[6]   Powers, D. E., & Stansfield, C. W. (1985). Testing the Oral English Proficiency of Foreign Nursing Graduates. Esp Journal, 4, 21-35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(85)90004-6

[7]   Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, L. Y. (2008). No Improvement—Reflections and Suggestions on the Use of Skype to Enhance College Students’ Oral English Proficiency. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 721-725.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00769.x

[8]   Zan, C., & Christine, G. (2011). Teaching Oral English in Higher Education: Challenges to EFL Teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 333-345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.546527

 
 
Top