1

The Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training for Foreign

Language Learning by Children

Presenter: Sze-Chu Liu

Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu

2102/10/15

2

Citation

Neri, A., Mich, O., Gerosa, M., & Giuliani, D.

(2008). The effectiveness of computer

assisted pronunciation training for foreign

language learning by children. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 393-

408.

3

Introduction

The CAPT system considered: PARLING

Method

Results

Conclusions

Reflection

Outline

4

CAPT = Computer Assisted Pronunciation

Training

ASR = Automatic Speech Recognition

ITC-irst = Istituto Trentino di Cultura –

Istituto per la Ricerca Scientifica

e Tecnologica

Some Abbreviations

5

Pronunciation

training for

young

learners

Advantage

over adults

Accurate

perception

and

production

L1

acquisition

hampers L2

Introduction

6

Introduction

Typical FL

learning setting

Limited oral

exposure

Rare

interaction with

native speakers

The use of

computer

Abundant

spoken

examples

Self-paced

practice

7

Interactive

speech-based

games

Role-plays with

the computer

Automatic

feedback

Fun learning

experience

CAPT

with ASR

Introduction

8

Research questions

Is the effectiveness of CAPT systems for

children better than that of teach-led class?

Is CAPT able to help learners to learn

pronunciation of difficult words?

Introduction

9

The CAPT system considered: PARLING

Developed by ITC-irst

• Pronunciation quality

• Isolated word level

Providing automatic feedback

• Presentation of oscillograms

• Animated characters

Meeting the requirements

• Match traditional training

• Highlight pronouncing isolated words

10

The CAPT system considered: PARLING

The user interface of PARLING: 4 modules

11

The ASR component

The CAPT system considered: PARLING

Training Process

• Native British English speakers + Italian

learners of English

Recognization process

•Forced time-alignment likelihood (A)

•Phone recognition likelihood (B)

Decision making

• If A>B, respond “accept”; Otherwise,

“reject”

12

• Total: 28

• Control group: 15

• Experimental group: 13

Number of

samples

• 11-year-old Italian native speakers

• Same public school

• Same curriculum

Profile

• All had 4 years of English FL

classesBackground

Method

Participants

13

• 4 British teachersTeacher

• 4 sessions, 60 minutes for each

session

Schedule

• Hansel and Gretel (Englsh version)

• Printed handoutMaterial

•Teacher-led

•read

•explained

•Provided the correct

pronunciation

•Prompted to repeat aloud

•Played printed word game

Teaching

activities

Method

Training Procedure for Control Group

14

• Work with PARLINGTeacher

• 4 sessions, 30 minutes /sessionSchedule

• Hansel and Gretel (Englsih version)

• Story excerpt shown on screenMaterial

• Students-driven

• Listened and repeated

•Repeated a word until

permitted

• Played a word game

Teaching

activities

Method

Training Procedure for Experimental Group

15

Pre-test

Training

Procedure

Post-test

Method

Testing Procedure

Children read and record 28 isolated words

Recordings scored by 3 experts

The 28 words were classified as

easy (n = 21)/difficult (n = 7)

known (n = 21)/unknown (n = 7)

16

Method

Rating Procedure

Word #1

(e.g. away)

Word #2

(e.g. birds)

Word #28

S2S1 S28

Audio file #1

Audio file #2

Audio file #28

Speaker

#1

Speaker

#2

Speaker

#28

The pronunciation quality of each utterance is scored on a 10-point scale.

In total, each rater assigned 1656 scores.

17

Method

Table 1. Audio files scored by each rater

Single-word

scoresSpeaker scoresRater

reliability

18

Results

Reliability of ratings

Table 2. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha)

These coefficients indicate high inter- and

intra- raters reliability.

19

Results

Single-word scores vs. Speaker scores

Figure 3. Correlation between single-word and speaker scores

A strong, positive

correlation between the two

scores (r = 0.884, p<0.01)

The speaker scores

were for the rest of

the analysis.

20

Results

Table 3. Pre-test and Post-test speaker scores for the two

groups

T-test results: t = .321, p = .754

Pronunciation quality is NOT significantly

different in the pre-test.

21

Results

Table 3. Pre-test and Post-test speaker scores

for the two groups

ANOVA #1: F(1,26) = 78.818, p <0.05

A significant effect for test time

indicated!

22

Results

Table 3. Pre-test and Post-test speaker scores

for the two groups

ANOVA #2: F(1,26) = 0.610, p = 0.442

Training group has NO significant

effect.

23

Results

Table 3. Pre-test and Post-test speaker scores

for the two groups

ANOVA #3: F(1,26)=0.548, p = .446

No significant test × training

interaction is found.

24

Results

Pronunciation quality of specific types of words

Difficult/Unknown Easy/Known

Mean SD Mean SD

Pre-test 3.06 1.10 5.11 1.08

Post-test 5.59 0.93 5.74 0.79

Over all 4.32 1.01 5.44 0.93

A significant effect is revealed for the

test.

ANOVA test #4: F(1,26) = 144.729, p < 0.01

25

Results

Pronunciation quality of specific types of words

Difficult/Unknown Easy/Known

Mean SD Mean SD

Pre-test 3.06 1.10 5.11 1.08

Post-test 5.59 0.93 5.74 0.79

Over all 4.32 1.01 5.44 0.93

A significant effect is shown for word

type.

ANOVA test #5: F(1,26) = 57.531, p < 0.01

26

Results

Pronunciation quality of specific types of words

Difficult/Unknown Easy/Known

Mean SD Mean SD

Pre-test 3.06 1.10 5.11 1.08

Post-test 5.59 0.93 5.74 0.79

Over all 4.32 1.01 5.44 0.93

A significant effect for word type is

indicated in the Pre-test.

ANOVA test #6: F(1,26 ) = 60.080, p < 0.01

27

The improvement in pronunciation quality

of isolated words in the two groups are

comparable.

The improvements in pronunciation quality

of difficult/unknown in the two groups are

comparable.

Conclusions

28

If the participants change to college

students, the material should be carefully

selected.

The improvement of pronunciation quality

at sentence level can be one direction for

future research.

The sample seems to be small.

Reflection

29

Thank you for listening!