CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Proposing a task-oriented chatbot system for EFL learners speaking practice

Hsu, Mei-Hua, Chen, Pei-Shih, Yu, Chi-Shun·2023·Interactive Learning Environments
DOI 10.1080/10494820.2021.1960864
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many learners of English as a foreign language often feel that learning spoken English is frustrating and quite difficult, especially when they have to talk to English-speaking foreigners. In general, because they are unfamiliar with the spoken mode of English and are worried about making grammatical errors, they often feel very scared to speak English. Furthermore, spoken language and reading differ in many ways. For instance, when seeing text containing new words, learners can stop and look up words in a dictionary. Additionally, a passage can be read multiple times by learners to understand it. Conversely, spoken language must be understood immediately in order to communicate effectively. The purpose of this study is to propose an interactive chatbot system named TPBOT which stands for “TOEIC Practice Chatbot” for EFL learners to eliminate their fear of speaking English and enable them to chat with online chatbots to practice spoken English at any time. This TPBOT would be very helpful to eliminate learners’ anxiety about speaking a foreign language with foreigners.Participants in this study are Taiwanese students whose oral scores on the TOEIC® test are below 100. They hope to improve their oral English ability after participating in the four-month experiment. The results have shown that students are satisfied with using this TPBOT and believe that it has indeed helped them improve their English speaking skills. Obviously, the TPBOT was very effective for the intended purpose. For educators, the TPBOT is very useful to build learning content in the TPBOT, provide learners with interactive exercises and improve learning effects.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10494820.2021.1960864

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Heller B., 2005, EdMedia + innovate learning, 3913

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–119 of 119

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hsu, M.-H., Chen, P.-S., & Yu, C.-S.
Affiliations
  • Chang Gung University of Science and Technology (TW)
  • Central Police University (TW)
  • National Taipei University of Technology (TW)
Corresponding author
Chen, Pei-Shih
ORCID
Venue
Interactive Learning Environments
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-08-13
Volume
31
Issue
7
Pages
4297-4308
ISSN
  • 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5191
DOI
10.1080/10494820.2021.1960864
OpenAlex
W3194282707
Cited by
119
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
50.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
chatbots, TOEIC, task-based learning, student satisfaction, interactive learning materials, English speaking skills

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review