Spoken grammar practice and feedback in an ASR-based CALL system

Speaking practice is important for learners of a second language. Computer assisted language learning (CALL) systems can provide attractive opportunities for speaking practice when combined with automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology. In this paper, we present a CALL system that offers spoken practice of word order, an important aspect of Dutch grammar. The system uses ASR technology to process the learner's responses and to detect errors so that immediate corrective feedback (CF) can be provided on learner errors. We evaluate the system as a learning environment by analyzing proficiency gains in pre- and post-tests, the logs of the practice sessions, and the learners’ appreciation of the system. In this paper, we present two learning conditions: (1) the learners received oral practice and immediate CF on spoken performance and (2) learners received oral practice and NO CF on spoken performance. We found that our system was successful in providing L2 speaking practice. Results show that both groups improve their proficiency on the target feature as a result of treatment. Between the groups there is no significant difference in learning, but the groups proceeded differently through the sessions, and the learners in the group that received automatic CF evaluated the system more positively than the NO CF group. We discuss the performance of the system as an environment for language learning and the obtained proficiency test results, and relate them to current views on second language acquisition.

[1]  Joseph Collentine.  Insights into the Construction of Grammatical Knowledge Provided by User-Behavior Tracking Technologies , 2000 .

[2]  R. Ellis.  MEASURING IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF A SECOND LANGUAGE: A Psychometric Study , 2005, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[3]  Stephen Krashen,et al.  Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition , 1982 .

[4]  J. Anderson,et al.  Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Alison Mackey,et al.  THE CASE AGAINST THE CASE AGAINST RECASTS , 2013, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[6]  Anita R. Bowles,et al.  Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness , 2014 .

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

[8]  K. Bot.  The Psycholinguistics of the Output Hypothesis , 1996 .

[9]  Carol A. Chapelle,et al.  Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be Learned from Research on Instructed SLA , 1998 .

[10]  Meliss Holland,et al.  The Path of Speech Technologies in Computer-Assisted Language Learning , 2007 .

[11]  N. Ellis.  Selective Attention and Transfer Phenomena in L2 Acquisition: Contingency, Cue Competition, Salience, Interference, Overshadowing, Blocking, and Perceptual Learning , 2006 .

[12]  P. Jordens.  The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2 , 1988 .

[13]  Hitoshi Muranoi,et al.  Practice in a Second Language: Output practice in the L2 classroom , 2007 .

[14]  Susan M. Gass,et al.  Input, interaction, and the second language learner , 1994 .

[15]  R. Lyster,et al.  ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA , 2010, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[16]  Paula M. Winke,et al.  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE LANGUAGE LEARNER: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 2005, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[17]  K. Morgan‐Short,et al.  Positive Evidence Versus Explicit Rule Presentation and Explicit Negative Feedback: A Computer-Assisted Study. , 2004 .

[18]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Speech and language technology in education: the perspective from SLA research and practice , 2007, SLaTE.

[19]  Alex Housen,et al.  Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition , 2009 .

[20]  A. Ammar,et al.  ONE SIZE FITS ALL?: Recasts, Prompts, and L2 Learning , 2006, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[21]  Nina Spada,et al.  4. The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research , 2006 .

[22]  Rebekha Abbuhl,et al.  Optimizing the Noticing of Recasts via Computer‐Delivered Feedback: Evidence That Oral Input Enhancement and Working Memory Help Second Language Learning , 2013 .

[23]  J. Norris,et al.  Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta‐analysis , 2000 .

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

[25]  M. Swain.  Communicative competence : Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development , 1985 .

[26]  Dwight Deugo,et al.  Application of a CALL System in the Acquisition of Adverbs in English , 2004 .

[27]  Helmer Strik,et al.  Feedback in an ASR-based CALL system for L2 syntax: a feasibility study , 2011, SLaTE.

[28]  Helmer Strik,et al.  Computer-assisted Grammar Practice for Oral Communication , 2011, CSEDU.

[29]  Joost van Doremalen,et al.  Development and Integration of Speech Technology into COurseware for Language Learning: The DISCO Project , 2013, Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch.

[30]  Noriko Nagata,et al.  Computer vs. Workbook Instruction in Second Language Acquisition , 2013, CALICO Journal.

[31]  R. Lyster,et al.  Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms , 2012, Language Teaching.

[32]  Shinichi Izumi.  Comprehension and Production Processes in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output Hypothesis , 2003 .

[33]  Maxine Eskénazi,et al.  An overview of spoken language technology for education , 2009, Speech Commun..

[34]  Robert M. DeKeyser,et al.  Practice in a Second Language: Introduction: Situating the concept of practice , 2007 .

[35]  Markus Dickinson,et al.  A balancing act: how can intelligent computer-generated feedback be provided in learner-to-learner interactions? , 2008 .

[36]  William C. Ritchie,et al.  Handbook of second language acquisition , 1999 .

[37]  Elma Blom,et al.  Dummy auxiliaries in child and adult second language acquisition of Dutch , 2011 .

[38]  R. Ellis.  EPILOGUE: A Framework for Investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback , 2010 .

[39]  Ute Bohnacker.  Nonnative acquisition of Verb Second: On the empirical underpinnings of universal L2 claims , 2005 .

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

[41]  Shannon Sauro,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF L2 GRAMMAR , 2009 .

[42]  R. W. Schmidt.  DECONSTRUCTING CONSCIOUSNESS IS SEARCH OF USEFUL DEFINITIONS FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS , 1994 .

[43]  T. Pica.  Research on Negotiation: What Does It Reveal about Second-Language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes?. , 1994 .

[44]  Hubert Haider,et al.  Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages , 1986 .

[45]  Trude Heift,et al.  Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL , 2004, ReCALL.

[46]  R. Lyster,et al.  Prompts Versus Recasts in Dyadic Interaction , 2009 .

[47]  Joost van Doremalen,et al.  Developing a CALL system for practicing oral proficiency: how to design for speech technology, pedagogy and learners , 2009, SLaTE.

[48]  Michael H. Long.  The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition , 1996 .

[49]  M. Warschauer.  Comparing Face-To-Face and Electronic Discussion in the Second Language Classroom , 2013, CALICO Journal.

[50]  Paul Whitney,et al.  Developing L2 Oral Proficiency Through Synchronous CMC: Output, Working Memory, and Interlanguage Development. , 2013 .

[51]  R. Lyster,et al.  Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom , 2002 .

[52]  Uschi Felix,et al.  The unreasonable effectivness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research? , 2008, ReCALL.

[53]  Lourdes Ortega,et al.  Defining and Measuring SLA , 2008 .

[54]  John Turscott.  What's Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction. , 1999 .

[55]  A. Ammar.  Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax , 2008 .