The Effectiveness of CALL in Helping Persian L2 Learners Produce the English Vowel /ɒ/
Abstract
Recent research in pronunciation training has indicated a growing interest in the application of computer-based speech-production techniques. This paper tries to evaluate the effectiveness of a console-based Praat script that utilizes acoustic data in real time to help Persian L2 learners to improve their production of the English vowel /ɒ/. This vowel is not among the Persian vowels and believed to be difficult for Persian learners of English to perceive and produce. A group of 30 Persian ESL learners was recruited - 15 learners were randomly assigned to the experimental group and 15 to the control group. Over a three-week period, the experimental group received acoustic-articulatory training and was exposed to the CALL software for receiving acoustic feedback, while the control group was exposed only to auditory input on the target sound. The groups were given a pretest to ensure their comparability, an immediate posttest to evaluate the effectiveness of the feedback provided and a generalization test to see whether the participants were able to generalize the possibly developed knowledge to new contexts. The results of the study showed a significant improvement in the performance of the participants in experimental group in terms of both the posttest and the generalization test. These findings lend support to the feasibility of the use of much simpler and more available CALL tools than those reported in previous research for foreign language segmental acquisition and its effectiveness in generalization of the acquired skills to new contexts.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abberton, E. & Fourcin, A. (1975). Visual Feedback and the Acquisition of Intonation. In E.H. Lenneberg & E. Lenneberg (Eds.). Foundations of Language Developments: A Multidisciplinary Approach (2) (pp.157-65). Academic Press.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) (2002). ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation Offoreign Language Teachers. Yonkers, NY: Author.
Beeson, P.M., & Robey, R.R. (2006). Evaluating Single-subject Treatment Research: Lessons Learned from the Aphasia Literature. Neuropsychology Review. 16(4), 161-169.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 5.3.29) [Computer program]. Retrieved September 30, 2013, from http://www.praat.org
Carey, M. (2004). CALL Visual Feedback for the Pronunciation of Vowels. CALICO Journal. 21, 571-601.
Chan, A., Y.W. (2010). Advanced Cantonese ESL Learners’ Production of English Speech Sounds: Problems and Strategies. System. 38, 316-328.
De Andrés Martínez, C. (2012). Developing Metacognition at a Distance: Sharing Students’ Learning Strategies on a Reflective Blog. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 25(2), 199-212. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2011.636056
Derwing, T.M., & Munro, M.J. (2005). Second Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: A Research-based Approach. TESOL Quarterly. 39(3), 379-397.
Derwing, T.M., Munro, M.J. (2009). Putting Accent in its Place: Rethinking Obstacles to Communication. Language Teaching. 42, 476-490.
Engwall, O. (2012). Analysis of and Feedback on Phonetic Features in Pronunciation Training with a Virtual Teacher. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 25(1), 37-64. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2011.582845
Engwall, O., & Bälter, O. (2007). Pronunciation Feedback from Real and Virtual Language Teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 20, 235-262.
Eskenazi, M. (2009). An Overview of Spoken Language Technology for Education. Speech Communication. 51, 832-844.
Fant, G. (2004). Speech Acoustics and Phonetics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ferragne, E. and Pellegrino, F. (2010). Formant Frequencies of Vowels in 13 Accents of the British Isles. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 40 (1), 1-34.
Gabarre, C., Gabarre, S., Din, R., Shah, P. M., & Karim, A. A. (2014). iPads in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Learner’s Perspective. 3L: Language Linguistics Literature®, Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. 20(1), 115-127.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L. & Freynik, S. (2014) Technologies for Foreign Language Learning: A Review of Technology Types and their Effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 27(1), 70-105. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
Greenhow, C., Robelia, E., & Hughes, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path should We Take Now? Educational Researchers. 38, 246-259.
Hardison, D. (2004). Generalization of Computer Assisted Prosody Training: Quantitative and Qualitative Findings. Language Learning and Technology. 8(1), 34-52. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/hardison
Hawkins, S. & Midgley, J. (2005). Formant Frequencies of RP Monophthongs in Four Age Groups of Speakers. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 35(2), 183-199.
Hirata, Y. (2004). Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training for Native English Speakers Learning Japanese Pitch and Durational Contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 17(3-4), 357-376. DOI: 10.1080/0958822042000319629
Ladefoged, P. & Johnson, K. (2011). A Course in Phonetics (Sixth Edition). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Miller, J.S. (2012). Teaching French Pronunciation with Phonetics in a College-level Beginner French Course. NECTFL Review. 69, 47-68.
Oswald, F.L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 30, 85-110.
Ouni, S. (2013). Tongue Control and its Implication in Pronunciation Training. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.761637
Patten, I. & Edmonds, L. A. (2013). Effect of Training Japanese L1 Speakers in the Production of American English /r/ using Spectrographic Visual Feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 1-19. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2013.839570
Quintana-Lara, M. (2012). Effect of Acoustic Spectrographic Instruction on Production of English /i/ and /I/ by Spanish Pre-service English Teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.724424
Saalfeld, A.K. (2011). Acquisition of L2 phonology in Advanced Learners: Does Instruction Make a Difference? In Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching, pp. 144-152.
Stevens, K. N. (2000). Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Strik, H., Truong, K., de Wet, F., & Cucchiarini, C. (2009). Comparing Different Approaches for Automatic Pronunciation Error Detection. Speech Communication, 51, 845-852.
Sturm, J. L. (2013). Explicit Phonetics Instruction in L2 French: A Global Analysis of Improvement. System. 41, 654-662
Tanner, M. W. & Landon, M. M. (2009). The Effects of Computer-assisted Pronunciation Readings on ESL Learners’ use of Pausing, Stress, Intonation, and Overall Comprehensibility. Language Learning & Technology. 13(3), 51-65.
Teppermann, J., & Narayanan, S. (2008). Using Articulatory Representations to Detect Segmental Errors in Nonnative Pronunciation. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing. 16(1), 8-22.
Wang, X. & Munro, M. J. (2004). Computer-based Training for Learning English Vowel Contrasts. System. 32, 539-552.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021