Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1931
  • E-ISSN: 2215-194X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00507.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x [Google Scholar]
  2. ACTFL
    ACTFL (2012) Oral proficiency interview. Familiarization manual [Electronic version]. RetrievedMay 6, 2018fromcommunity.actfl.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=1543bfc6-e597-432d-aee6-19bdb7fffeef
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blin, F.
    (2016) Toward and ‘ecological’ CALL theory. Theoretical perspectives and their instantiation in CALL research and practice. InF. Farr, & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp.39–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bongaerts, T.
    (1999) Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. InD. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp.133–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Burston, J.
    (2015) Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(1), 4–20. 10.1017/S0958344014000159
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000159 [Google Scholar]
  6. Burston, J., & Arispe, K.
    (2018) Looking for a needle in a haystack: CALL and advanced language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 35(1), 77–102. 10.1558/cj.31594
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.31594 [Google Scholar]
  7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L.
    (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Derwing, T. M.
    (2010) Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. InJ. 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]
  9. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Carbonaro, M.
    (2012) Does popular speech recognition software work with ESL speech?TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 592–603. 10.2307/3587748
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587748 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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, 9, 35–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J.
    (2012) Effect sizes for research: Univariate and multivariate applications. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9780203803233
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203803233 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoyt-Oukada, K.
    (2003) Considering students’ needs and interests in curriculum construction. The French Review, 76(4), 721–737.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. 10.1080/09588221.2015.1069747
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1069747 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kang, O.
    (2013) Relative impact of pronunciation features on ratings of non-native speakers’ oral proficiency. InJ. 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]
  17. 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. 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L.
    (2015) The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–366. 10.1093/applin/amu040
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu040 [Google Scholar]
  19. Levis, J. M.
    (2005) Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly39(3), 369–377. 10.2307/3588485
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485 [Google Scholar]
  20. Levis, J., & Suvorov, R.
    (2013) Automatic speech recognition. InC. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp.1–8). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. 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. 10.1075/jslp.00004.ma
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.00004.ma [Google Scholar]
  23. McCrocklin, S.
    (2016) Pronunciation learner autonomy: The potential of Automatic Speech Recognition. System, 57, 25–42. 10.1016/j.system.2015.12.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.013 [Google Scholar]
  24. Moyer, A.
    (2016) The puzzle of gender effects in L2 phonology. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2(1), 8–28. 10.1075/jslp.2.1.01moy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.2.1.01moy [Google Scholar]
  25. Mroz, A.
    (2018) Seeing how people hear you: French learners experiencing intelligibility through automatic speech recognition. Foreign Language Annals, 51(3), 617–637. 10.1111/flan.12348
    https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12348 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1075/jslp.1.1.01mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.1.1.01mun [Google Scholar]
  27. Pew Research Center
    Pew Research Center (2018) Mobile fact sheet. RetrievedApril 12, 2018fromwww.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ranta, L., & Lyster, R.
    (2018) Form-focused instruction. InP. Garrett, & J. M. Vots (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness (pp.40–56). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Saito, K.
    (2012) Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842–854. 10.1002/tesq.67
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.67 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sicola, L., & Darcy, I.
    (2015) Integrating pronunciation in the language classroom. InM. Reed, & J. M. Levis (Eds.), The Handbook of English Pronunciation (pp.471–487). Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, UK. 10.1002/9781118346952.ch26
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952.ch26 [Google Scholar]
  31. Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M.
    (2015) The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. 10.1093/applin/amu076
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu076 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ukkonen, E.
    (1985) Algorithms for approximate string matching. Information and Control, 64(1–3), 100–118. 10.1016/S0019‑9958(85)80046‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(85)80046-2 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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. 10.1080/09588221.2016.1167090
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1167090 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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. 10.1155/2010/973954
    https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/973954 [Google Scholar]
  35. van Lier, L.
    (2004) The semiotics and ecology of language learning. Perception, voice, identity and democracy. Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), 79–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vu, N. T., Wang, Y., Klose, M., Mihaylova, Z., & Schultz, T.
    (2014) Improving ASR performance on non-native speech using multilingual and crosslingual information. InFifteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Singapore, 2014.

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error