Article published in:
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
Vol. 6:1 (2020) ► pp. 12–38

Aiming for advanced intelligibility and proficiency using mobile ASR

| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
This experimental study aimed to determine the impact of mobile-based Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) in Gmail on intelligibility and proficiency, as well as whether any individual factors influenced learning outcomes. It focused on 26 Intermediate learners of French as a foreign language enrolled in two university courses geared towards the development of advanced oral skills but with different approaches to integrated instruction. It innovatively combined human-based and machine-based ratings within an ecological paradigm, following Levis’s (2005) intelligibility principle and Thomson and Derwing’s (2015) call for research that is readily useful for language instructors. Results show that ASR users significantly outperformed non-ASR users on intelligibility, particularly when exposed to instruction on spelling-to-sound patterns, and demonstrated the biggest growth in proficiency. Gender was also found to impact results. Pedagogical implications and venues for future research are offered.
Keywords: intelligibility, proficiency, advanced oral skills, ASR, French as a foreign language, ecological approach
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Intelligibility and proficiency
    • 2.2Technology
      • 2.2.1Ecological paradigm
      • 2.2.2ASR for L2 pronunciation
    • 2.3Design of experiment for research on L2 pronunciation
      • 2.3.1Pronunciation instruction
      • 2.3.2Speaking tasks
      • 2.3.3Human-based vs. machine-based ratings
      • 2.3.4Learners’ factors
  • 3.Research questions (RQ)
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Experiment
    • 4.3Previous findings
    • 4.4Analyses
      • 4.4.1Intelligibility
      • 4.4.2Proficiency
      • 4.4.3Relationship between intelligibility and proficiency
      • 4.4.4Learners’ factors
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Intelligibility
    • 5.2Proficiency
    • 5.3Relationship between intelligibility and proficiency
    • 5.4Learners’ factors
    • 5.5Summary of results
      • 5.5.1RQ1
      • 5.5.2RQ2
      • 5.5.3RQ3
      • 5.5.4RQ4
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 11 February 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.18030.mro
References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K.
(2009) Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ACTFL
(2012) Oral proficiency interview. Familiarization manual [Electronic version]. Retrieved May 6, 2018 from http://​community​.actfl​.org​/HigherLogic​/System​/DownloadDocumentFile​.ashx​?DocumentFileKey​=1543bfc6​-e597​-432d​-aee6​-19bdb7fffeef
Blin, F.
(2016) Toward and ‘ecological’ CALL theory. Theoretical perspectives and their instantiation in CALL research and practice. In F. Farr, & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 39–54). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bongaerts, T.
(1999) Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 133–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Burston, J.
(2015) Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(1), 4–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burston, J., & Arispe, K.
(2018) Looking for a needle in a haystack: CALL and advanced language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 35(1), 77–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L.
(2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M.
(2010) Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. In J. M. Levis, & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference (pp. 24–37). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Carbonaro, M.
(2012) Does popular speech recognition software work with ESL speech? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 592–603. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehsani, F., & Knodt, E.
(1998) Speech technology in computer-aided language learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
Eskenazi, M.
(1999) Using automatic speech processing for foreign language pronunciation tutoring: Some issues and a prototype. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 62–76.Google Scholar
Gilner, L., & Morales, F.
(2010) Pronunciation: Intelligibility, frequency considerations, and instruction. 文京学院大学外国語学部文京学院短期大学紀要, 91, 35–56.Google Scholar
Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J.
(2012) Effect sizes for research: Univariate and multivariate applications. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoyt-Oukada, K.
(2003) Considering students’ needs and interests in curriculum construction. The French Review, 76(4), 721–737.Google Scholar
Hsu, L.
(2016) An empirical examination of EFL learners’ perceptual learning styles and acceptance of ASR-based computer-assisted pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 881–900. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kang, O.
(2013) Relative impact of pronunciation features on ratings of non-native speakers’ oral proficiency. In J. Levis, & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 10–15). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y.
(2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L.
(2015) The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J. M.
(2005) Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly 39(3), 369–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J., & Suvorov, R.
(2013) Automatic speech recognition. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–8). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Liakin, D., Cardoso, W., & Liakina, N.
(2017) Mobilizing instruction in a second-language context: Learners’ perceptions of two speech technologies. Languages, 2(11), 1–21.Google Scholar
Ma, R., Henrichsen, L. E., Cox, T. L., & Tanner, M. W.
(2018) Pronunciation’s role in English speaking-proficiency ratings. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 4(1), 73–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCrocklin, S.
(2016) Pronunciation learner autonomy: The potential of Automatic Speech Recognition. System, 571, 25–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, A.
(2016) The puzzle of gender effects in L2 phonology. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2(1), 8–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mroz, A.
(2018) Seeing how people hear you: French learners experiencing intelligibility through automatic speech recognition. Foreign Language Annals, 51(3), 617–637. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M.
(2015) A prospectus for pronunciation research in the 21st century. A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1), 11–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center
(2018) Mobile fact sheet. Retrieved April 12, 2018 from http://​www​.pewinternet​.org​/fact​-sheet​/mobile/
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R.
(2018) Form-focused instruction. In P. Garrett, & J. M. Vots (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness (pp. 40–56). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saito, K.
(2012) Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842–854. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sicola, L., & Darcy, I.
(2015) Integrating pronunciation in the language classroom. In M. Reed, & J. M. Levis (Eds.), The Handbook of English Pronunciation (pp. 471–487). Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, UK. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M.
(2015) The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ukkonen, E.
(1985) Algorithms for approximate string matching. Information and Control, 64(1–3), 100–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Doremalen, J., Boves, L., Colpaert, J., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H.
(2016) Evaluating automatic speech recognition-based language learning systems: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 833–851. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Doremalen, J., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H.
(2010) Optimizing automatic speech recognition for low-proficient non-native speakers. EURASIP Journal of Audio, Speech, And Music Processing 2010, 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Lier, L.
(2004) The semiotics and ecology of language learning. Perception, voice, identity and democracy. Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), 79–103.Google Scholar
Vu, N. T., Wang, Y., Klose, M., Mihaylova, Z., & Schultz, T.
(2014) Improving ASR performance on non-native speech using multilingual and crosslingual information. In Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association , Singapore, 2014.
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

McCrocklin, Shannon & Idée Edalatishams
2020. Revisiting Popular Speech Recognition Software for ESL Speech. TESOL Quarterly 54:4 ► pp. 1086 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.