Feedback in computer assisted pronunciation training: technology push or demand pull?

In this paper, we examine the type of feedback that currently available Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training (CAPT) systems provide, with a view to establishing whether this meets pedagogically sound requirements. We show that many commercial systems tend to prefer technological novelties that do not always comply with pedagogical criteria and that despite the limitations of today's technology, it is possible to design CAPT systems that are more in line with learners' needs.

[1]  Farzad Ehsani,et al.  Speech Technology in Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Strengths and Limitations of a New CALL Paradigm. , 1998 .

[2]  R. Lyster,et al.  CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[3]  Garry Molholt.  Computer-Assisted Instruction in Pronunciation for Chinese Speakers of American English , 1988 .

[4]  Dorothy M. Chun.  SIGNAL ANALYSIS SOFTWARE FOR TEACHING DISCOURSE INTONATION , 1998 .

[5]  Ann Barnes,et al.  Beyond the “wow” factor—Evaluating multimedia language learning software from a pedagogical viewpoint , 1998 .

[6]  S. Krashen.  Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning , 1988 .

[7]  Lou Boves,et al.  Different aspects of expert pronunciation quality ratings and their relation to scores produced by speech recognition algorithms , 2000, Speech Commun..

[8]  Joan-Tomàs Pujolà,et al.  Did CALL feedback feed back? Researching learners’ use of feedback , 2001, ReCALL.

[9]  Hideki Kawahara,et al.  Computer-based second language production training by using spectrographic representation and HMM-based speech recognition scores , 1998, ICSLP.

[10]  Vassilios Digalakis,et al.  Combination of machine scores for automatic grading of pronunciation quality , 2000, Speech Commun..

[11]  Stephen G. Lambacher,et al.  A CALL Tool for Improving Second Language Acquisition of English Consonants by Japanese Learners. , 1999 .

[12]  M. Warschauer,et al.  Computers and language learning: an overview , 1998, Language Teaching.

[13]  Jan Nouza,et al.  Training speech through visual feedback patterns , 1998, ICSLP.

[14]  Martha C. Pennington,et al.  Computer-Aided Pronunciation Pedagogy: Promise, Limitations, Directions* , 1999 .

[15]  P. Lightbown,et al.  Recasts as Feedback to Language Learners , 2001 .

[16]  Noriko Nagata,et al.  Intelligent Computer Feedback for Second Language Instruction , 1993 .

[17]  V. Melissa Holland,et al.  Preliminary Tests of Language Learning in a Speech-Interactive Graphics Microworld. , 1999 .

[18]  Maxine Eskenazi,et al.  USING AUTOMATIC SPEECH PROCESSING FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE PRONUNCIATION TUTORING: SOME ISSUES AND A PROTOTYPE , 1999 .

[19]  R. Schmidt.  The role of consciousness in second language learning , 1990 .

[21]  Wolfgang Menzel,et al.  Automatic detection and correction of non-native English pronunciations , 2000 .

[22]  Tracey M. Derwing,et al.  Evidence in Favor of a Broad Framework for Pronunciation Instruction , 1998 .

[23]  Tracey M. Derwing,et al.  ACCENT, INTELLIGIBILITY, AND COMPREHENSIBILITY , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[24]  R. Lyster.  Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Correction in Relation to Error Types and Learner Repair in Immersion Classrooms , 1998 .

[25]  Philippe Martin,et al.  Présentation d’un logiciel de visualisation pour l’apprentissage de l’oral en langue seconde , 2000 .

[26]  K. Koehler,et al.  The Relationship Between Native Speaker Judgments of Nonnative Pronunciation and Deviance in Segmentais, Prosody, and Syllable Structure , 1992 .

[27]  Krystyna A. Wachowicz,et al.  Software That Listens: It's Not a Question of Whether, It's a Question of How , 1999 .