The effectiveness of computer-based speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in l2 dutch

Although the success of automatic speech recognition (ASR)-based Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training (CAPT) systems is increasing, little is known about the pedagogical effectiveness of these systems. This is particularly regrettable because ASR technology still suffers from limitations that may result in the provision of erroneous feedback, possibly leading to learning breakdowns. To study the effectiveness of ASR-based feedback for improving pronunciation, we developed and tested a CAPT system providing automatic feedback on Dutch phonemes that are problematic for adult learners of Dutch. Thirty immigrants who were studying Dutch were assigned to three groups using either the ASR-based CAPT system with automatic feedback, a CAPT system without feedback, or no CAPT system. Pronunciation quality was assessed for each participant before and after the training by human experts who evaluated overall segmental quality and the quality of the phonemes addressed in the training. The participants' impressions of the CAPT system used were also studied through anonymous questionnaires. The results on global segmental quality show that the group receiving ASR-based feedback made the largest mean improvement, but the groups' mean improvements did not differ significantly. The group receiving ASR-based feedback showed a significantly larger improvement than the no-feedback group in the segmental quality of the problematic phonemes targeted.

[1]  H. Franco,et al.  Effects of Speech Recognition-based Pronunciation Feedback on Second-Language Pronunciation Ability , 2007 .

[2]  Steve J. Young,et al.  Phone-level pronunciation scoring and assessment for interactive language learning , 2000, Speech Commun..

[3]  Uschi Felix,et al.  Analysing Recent CALL Effectiveness Research—Towards a Common Agenda , 2005 .

[4]  Yoon Kim,et al.  Automatic pronunciation scoring of specific phone segments for language instruction , 1997, EUROSPEECH.

[5]  Mounira El Tatawy Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition , 2002 .

[6]  Helmer Strik,et al.  The Pedagogy-Technology Interface in Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training , 2002 .

[7]  Yik-Cheung Tam,et al.  PLASER: Pronunciation Learning via Automatic Speech Recognition , 2003, HLT-NAACL 2003.

[8]  K. Bot Visual feedback of intonation I: Effectiveness and induced practice behavior. , 1983 .

[9]  Mari Takada,et al.  Segmentals and global foreign accent: The Japanese flap in EFL , 2000 .

[10]  Rodney H. Jones Beyond "listen and repeat": Pronunciation teaching materials and theories of second language acquisition , 1997 .

[11]  Rebecca Hincks,et al.  Computer support for learners of spoken English , 2005 .

[12]  George Yule,et al.  Attempts to Improve English L2 Pronunciation: The Variable Effects of Different Types of Instruction , 1994 .

[13]  K. de Bot,et al.  Visual Feedback of Intonation I: Effectiveness and Induced Practice Behavior , 1983, Language and speech.

[14]  L. Boves,et al.  Quantitative assessment of second language learners' fluency by means of automatic speech recognition technology. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Maxine Eskénazi,et al.  An empirical study of the effectiveness of speech-recognition-based pronunciation training , 2000, INTERSPEECH.

[16]  E. Purcell,et al.  PREDICTORS OF PRONUNCIATION ACCURACY: A REEXAMINATION , 1980 .

[17]  B. Planken,et al.  AGE AND ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT IN THE PRONUNCIATION OF A FOREIGN LANGUAGE , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[18]  Helmer Strik,et al.  Selecting segmental errors in non-native Dutch for optimal pronunciation training , 2006 .

[19]  Rebecca Hincks Speech technologies for pronunciation feedback and evaluation , 2003, ReCALL.