Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chulalongkorn University, 2011

The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine the effects of the task types of the WBST-EFT and English proficiency levels on English for Tourism speaking performances in terms of language and content knowledge, and fluency; (2) to study the students’ attitudes towards the WBST-EFT; and (3) to investigate and compare the types and frequency of strategies used by high and low proficiency students in doing the WBST-EFT. A total of 120 third year students who took English for Tourism II course at Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University participated in this study. Stratified sampling was employed to classify the subjects into high and low proficiency groups. The research instruments were a needs analysis questionnaire, a web-based speaking test in English for Tourism (WBST-EFT), the attitudes towards the WBST-EFT online questionnaire, and a speaking test taking strategies coding scheme. Two-way ANOVA was conducted to investigate both the main and interaction effects between the proficiency levels and the task types on the test performances. Additionally, independent samples t-test was employed to compare the attitudes towards the WBST-EFT between the two proficiency groups. Descriptive statistics, frequency and percentage were employed to describe and compare the language for specific purposes (LSP) speaking components, students’ views and their test taking strategies. Content analyses on speech performances and test taking strategies’ verbal reports were carried out to obtain the in-depth information. The findings were as follows. First, proficiency levels had a significant main effect on the LSP speaking performances. Additionally, there was a significant task types effect on vocabulary, language functions and content knowledge. More specifically, task types had greater impact on the low proficiency group than on the high proficiency group, particularly in the content knowledge component. Content analysis revealed prominent features of some speaking components associated with the task types. Second, the two proficiency groups’ views towards the WBST-EFT were positive and not significantly different. Finally, the high proficiency students reported higher frequency and more types of strategies used than the low proficiency group across the three different task types in the online LSP test. However, the difference in types of strategies was not obvious. The results of the current study can be applied to other LSP technology-integrated tests.