研究第二語言學習的學者指出，相較於課室內面對面之口語練習，網路語音溝通提供語言學習者較無壓力的口語練習環境，成功地提升學習者間對話的互動性與目標語的使用。然而多數實證研究，乃根植於網路文字溝通與學習外國語言的關係；隨著科技進步與網路頻寬成長，本研究旨在探討、比較同步與非同步網路語音溝通對英語口語學習之成效，以及學習者對其之看法。本實驗將實驗參與者分為兩組實驗組，分別接受同步網路語音溝通以及非同步網路語音溝通；一組控制組，不接受任何網路語音溝通的口語訓練。每位實驗參與者均接受初級全民英檢口語測驗之前測與後測，評量受測者發音之正確性、口語流利度以及文法及內容之正確性。另外利用問卷調查實驗參與者對於同步與非同步網路語音溝通之看法。資料分析包括描述性統計以及單因子變異數數分析。
本研究主要發現如下：
1. 同步與非同步網路語音溝通，皆能顯著提升語言學習者之口語能力，尤其在發音與口語流利度的方面。
2. 比較同步與非同步網路語音溝通實驗參與者之口語進步幅度，非同步網路語音溝通參與者，在發音與流利度方面的進步幅度，明顯大於同步網路語音溝通參與者之進步幅度。然而在文法與內容層面，兩組進步幅度並無顯著差異。結果顯示，非同步網路語音溝通在提學習者口語之發音與流利度之成效，是顯著大於同步網路語音溝通。
3. 根據問卷調查結果，學生對於透過網路語音溝通以增進口語能力，抱持正面態度；並且有強烈持續進行此口語訓練之想法。另外，就學生進行的八個討論題目而言，學生較偏好與網際網路相關之主題，以及與其文化背景相關之題目。
本論文根據研究結果，提供了相關的教學建議。
1. 網路語音溝通可彌補大班英語教學之不足，讓學生大量接觸並且練習目標語言。網路語音溝通也可以提升學生語言學習之動機，並成為學生在課室英語學習之外，另一個目標語口語練習的媒介。
2. 不同於以往的網路文字溝通對於口語內容與文法結構上的影響，若教師的主要教學目的是提升學生單字發音和口語流利度，網路語音溝通能帶來相當顯著的成效。而非同步網路語音溝通之成效，更較同步模式佳。
3. 因為學生對於討論主題的偏好，會影響學生對於口語討論之動機以及參與程度。所以老師可以參考本實驗之結果，設計線上口語討論之主題；亦或是在活動設計之前，邀請學習者共同決定題目。
4. 教師在網路語音溝通融入英語口語教學裡，扮演的是輔助者，輔助學生順利進行線上口語討論，並在學生遇到硬體或軟體的相關問題時，提供幫助。

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is believed to create low-anxiety learning environment, facilitating the practice of the target language. However, most empirical studies focus on the effect of text-based CMC on language learning whereas little attention has been paid to voice-based CMC. Thanks to the development of networked techniques which make voice-based CMC practicable, the study examined the effect of voice-based CMC on developing learners’ oral proficiency, compared the effects that voice-based synchronous CMC (SCMC) and voice-based asynchronous CMC (ACMC) have on participants’ speaking ability, and investigated learners’ perception of voice-based CMC. One hundred and three participants from a vocational high school were divided into three groups: two experimental groups having voice-based ACMC and SCMC respectively, and a control group without any voice-based CMC treatment. All participants were required to take pre- and post-test to evaluate their progress on oral proficiency from the aspects of pronunciation, fluency, grammar and content. Moreover, post-study questionnaire was adopted to investigate learners’ perception of voice-based CMC. Data analysis mainly included descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA.
The major findings of the present study are as follows:
1. Voice-based CMC significantly enhanced foreign language learners’ oral proficiency, especially in target language pronunciation as well as fluency.
2. Regarding the comparison of the effects that voice-based SCMC and ACMC had on learners’ oral proficiency, ACMC group made significantly greater progress than SCMC group did in terms of pronunciation and fluency. Yet, no significant progress on the accuracy of grammar and content was made by both groups.
3. Most learners hold positive attitude toward having topic discussion in the context of voice-based CMC and showed strong intention to have voice-based CMC in the future. Besides, among the eight discussion topics adopted in the present study, learners preferred the Internet and culture related topics.
These findings suggest several pedagogical implications.
1. Voice-based CMC provides abundant target language input as well as output, facilitating foreign language learners’ learning in speaking ability.
2. While text-based CMC has positive effect on the accuracy of grammar and content in learners’ oral productions, voice-based CMC has significant promising effect on learners’ oral proficiency in terms of pronunciation and fluency. Furthermore, compared with voice-based SCMC, voice-based ACMC is much more effective for language teachers to develop learners’ pronunciation and speech fluency.
3. Teachers may design the discussion topics based on the present findings or even invite learners to decide the oral discussions to guarantee their interest in participating in the oral discussion.
4. When incorporating voice-based CMC into language teaching, teachers play as facilitators to help learners get involved in the online oral discussion.

References
Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The modern Language Journal, 87, 157-167.

Almeida d'Eça, T. (2003). The use of chat in EFL/ESL. TESL-EJ 7, 1. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej25/int.html

Almekhlafi, A.G. (2006). The effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on United Arab Emirates English as a foreign language (EFL) school students’ achievement and attitude. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17, 121-142.

Barnhart, R.K. (1988). Dictionary of etymology. Edinburgh: Chamers.

Barson, J., Frommer, J., & Schwartz, M. (1993). Foreign language learning using e-mail in a task-oriented perspective: Interuniversity experiments in communication and collaboration. J Sei Ed Technol 4(2), 565-584.

Beauvois, M.H. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 198-217.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: a window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.

Blake, R., Fahy, D., & Walters, R. (1999). Implementing chat software in the foreign-language curriculum: the case of RTA. In B. David (Ed), Computer enhanced learning in 50 colleges. Anker Publishing Co., Boston, MA.
pp. 254-257

Böhlke, O. (2003). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 67-87.

Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candilin and D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp.23-46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). NY: Longman Press.

Browne, C., & Fotos, S. (2004). The development of CALL and current options. In C. Browne & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 3-14). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press.
Bui, T.M.H. (2006). Teaching speaking skills at a Vietnamese university and recommendations for using CMC. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/pta_august_07_btmh.php

Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language. NY: Academic Press.

Chang, L.Y., & Yang, T.C. (2006). Use of instant online discussion to enhance college students' oral englsih proficiency. Education and Technology, 525.

Chapelle, C. (1994). CALL activities: Are they all the same? System, 22, 33-45.

Chen, Y.H. (2005). Computer-mediated communication: the use of CMC to developed EFL learners’ communicative competence. Asian EFL Journal, 7, 167-182.

Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.

Chou, 2002 C. Chou, A comparative content analysis of student interaction in
synchronous and asynchronous learning networks, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2002) Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=994093

Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of
interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31.

Chun, D. M. (1998). Using computer-assisted class discussion to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. In J. Swaffer, S. Romano, P. Markley, & K. Arens (Eds.), Language Learning online: Theory and practice in the ESL and L2 computer classroom (pp.57-80). Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications.

Cohen, R. (1997). Negotiating Across Cultures. Communications Obstacles in International Diplomacy. Washington DC: U.S. Institute of Peace Press.

Coniam, D., & Wong, R. (2004). Internet Relay Chat as a tool in the autonomous of ESL learners’ English language ability: an exploratory study. System 32, 321-335.

Cooper, M. & Selfe, C. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English 52, 847-869.

Cummins, S., & Sayers, D. (1990). Education 2001: Learning networks and educational reform. Comps in Schools 7, 1-29.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. UK: Cambridge University Press.

De la Fuente, M.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.

De la Fuente, M.J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47-81.

Dörnyei, Zoltan. 1995. On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly 29: 55-84.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.

Ferrera, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8, 8-34.
Finholt, T., Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L. (1986). An Electronic Classroom. Working paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. PA.

Flores, M. (1990). Computer conferencing: Composing a feminist community of writers. In Handa, C., (Ed.), Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-first Century. pp. 106-117. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.

Fotos, S. (2004). Writing as talking: Email exchange for promoting proficiency and motivation in the foreign language classroom. In S. Fotos and C.M. Browne (Eds.). New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fowler, R., & Kress, G.. (1986) Critical linguistics. In R.G. Fowler, G. Kress, A.A. Trew and R.I.V. Hodge (Eds.), Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Garrison, D. R., & Baynton, M. (1987). Beyond independence in distance education: The concept of control. Am J Distance Ed 1, 3-15.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.

Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards and effective use of audio conferencing in distance learning courses. Language Learning and Technology. 8, 66-82. Retrieved 22 November, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu

Harasim, L. (1986). Computer learning networks: Educational applications of computer conferencing. J Distance Ed 1, 59-70.

Harris, L.D., & Wambeam, C.A. (1996). The Internet-based composition classroom: A study in pedagogy. Computers and Composition 13, 353-371.

He, Q. (1998). The role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition of word meanings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.

Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Oxford: Blackwell.

Hiltz, S. R. (1990). Collaborative learning: The virtual classroom approach. The J June, 59-65.

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer. Addison: Wesley.

Hsu, S.Y. (2005). Building language-learning environments to help technological university students develop English independent learning. The JALT CALL Journal 1, 51-66.

Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. S. (2002). IRC Francais: the creation of an Internet-based SLA community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15, 109-134.

Janangelo, J. (1991). Technopower and technoppression: Some abuses of power and control in computer assisted writing environments. Comps and Composit 9, 47-63.

Jones, R.G. (2005). Emerging technologies Skype and Podcasting: Disruptive technologies for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 9-12.

Karavas-Doukas, K. (1998). Evaluating the implementation of educational innovations: lessons from the past. In P. Rea-Dickins & K. P. Germaine (Eds.), Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching: Building bridges (pp.25-50). New York: Longman.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quality and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kinkead, J. (1987). Computer conversations: E-mail and writing instruction. College Comp Commun 38, 337-341.

Kinshuk & Yang, A. (2003). Web-based asynchronous synchronous environment for online learning. United States Distance Education Association Journal, 17, 5-17.

Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 143-166.

Klassen, J.,& Milton, P. (1999). Enhancing English language skills using multimedia: Tried and tested. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12, 281-294.

Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In S.C. Herring (Ed), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.109-128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Korenma, J., & Wyatt, N. (1996). Group dynamics in an e-mail forum. In S.C. Herring (Ed), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.225-242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kroonenberg, N. (1995). Developing communicative and thinking skills via e-mail, TESOL J 4, 24-27.

Lawrence, G. (2002). The use of e-mail as a tool to enhance second language education programs: An example from a Core French Classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 465-472.

Lamy, M, N. (2004). Oral conversations online: Redefining oral competence in synchronous environment, ReCALL, 16, 520-538.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning Context and Conception. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Light, J. (1989). Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 5, 137-144.

Long, M.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second acquisition (pp. 413-368). New York: Academic Press.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. William (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (p.15-41). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McComb, M. (1993). Augmenting a group discussion course with computer mediated communication in a small college setting. Interpers Comput Technol 1(3).

Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: forms of online instructional discourse in a hybrid Russian class. System, 33, 89-105.

Noriko, N. (2002). BANZI: An application of natural language processing to web-based language learning. CALICO Journal, 19, 583-599.

Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1, 82-93.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Paramskas, D. (1993). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL): Increasingly into an ever more electronic world. Can Mod Lang Rev 50, 124-143.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In: Warschauer, M., Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice. CUP, Cambridge, England.

Peterson, M. (2005). Learning interaction in an avatar-based virtual environment: a preliminary study. PacCALL Journal, 1, 29-40.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pratt, E., & Sullivan, N. (1994). Comparison of ESL writers in networked and regular classrooms. Paper presented at TESOL ’94, Baltimore, MD.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Robb, T. N. (1996). E-mail keypals for language fluency. Foreign Language Notes 38. Retrieved February 28, 2007 from http://www.kyoto-su.ac.jp/~trobb/keypals.html

Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: Promoting beginner oral interaction in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 417-422.

Salaberry, R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 5-27.

Sayers, D. (1993). Distance team teaching and computer learning network. TESOL J 3(1), 19-23.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1996). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn. Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Press.

Schwienhorst, K. (2004). Native-speaker/non native-speaker discourse in the MOO: Topic negotiation and initiation in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 35-50.

Selfe, C., & Meyer, P. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Commun 8, 163-192.

Smith, B. (2003a). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: an expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 38-57.

Smith, B. (2003b). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53.

Soh, B.L., & Soon, Y.P. (1991). English by e-mail: creating a global classroom via the medium of computer technology. ELT J, 45, 287-292.

Sotillo, S.M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 82-119.

Spender, D. (1980). Man Made Language. London: Methuen.

Spitzer, M. (1989). Computer conferencing: An emerging technology. In Selfe, C., & Hawisher, G. (Eds), Critical perspectives on computers and composition, (pp. 187-200). NY: Teachers CP.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24, 491-501.

Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tella, S. (1992). Boys, girls, and e-mail: A case study in Finnish Senior Secondary Schools. Research report no. 10, Helsinki: Dept. of Teacher Education, University of Helosinki.

Throne, S. (2004). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 38-67.

Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning and Technology, 6, 82-99.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ware, P. (2005). Missed communication in online communication: tensions in a German-American telecommunication. Language Learning and Technology, 9, 64-89.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R., (2000). Introduction: theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In: Warschauer, M., Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In C. Browne & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15-26). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press.

Werry, C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat. In S. C. Herring (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wilbur, S. T. (1996). An archaeology of cyberspaces: virtually, community, identity. In Poter (Ed.), 5-22.

Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann.

Wuensch, K.L. (2006). Inter-rater agreement. Retrieved March 2, 2007 from:
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/docs30/InterRater.doc

Yates, S. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In S. Herring (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.29-46). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Yeung, S.W. (2002). Developing a peer learning community through the use of CMC. Paper delivered at the International Conference on Computers in Education, 2002, Auckland, New Zealand.

Zimmerman, D., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversation. In Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (Eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. pp, 105-129. Rowley, MA: Newberry House Publishers.