Volume 28 Number 1, 2024 Corrective feedback accuracy and pronunciation improvement: Feedback that is ‘good enough’

Corrective feedback accuracy and pronunciation improvement: Feedback that is ‘good enough’

Repository record updated on:
July 28, 2024, 1:34 a.m.
Database record updated on:
Sept. 24, 2024, 6:49 p.m.
Last Harvested on:
Sept. 24, 2024, 6:49 p.m.
bitstream:
[['https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/258f240c-00c9-4554-98f7-29cae6740b2c/download', '28_01_10125-73582.pdf']]
bitstream_txt:
[['https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/78db4d67-0567-42d5-9278-3f8a19a9e3b0/download', 'full_text']]
collection:
Volume 28 Number 1, 2024
contributor.author:
Silpachai, Alif Neiriz, Reza Novotny, MacKenzie Gutierrez-Osuna, Ricardo Levis, John M. Chukharev, Evgeny
date.accessioned:
2024-06-14T20:52:24Z
date.available:
2024-06-14T20:52:24Z
date.copyright:
2024
date.issued:
2024-06-17
description.abstract:
It is unclear whether corrective feedback (CF) provided by L2 computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT) tools must be 100% accurate to promote an acceptable level of improvement in pronunciation. Using a web-based interface, 30 native speakers of Chinese completed a pretest, a computer-based training session to produce nine sound contrasts in English, and a posttest. The study manipulated feedback accuracy using a modified “Wizard of Oz” protocol in which a phonetically-trained human listener in a separate room provided CF on the trainees’ productions, but the trainees thought that the computer-based system provided the CF. The computer system presented a set of three sound contrasts with 100% accuracy, three with 66% accuracy (with one of three human responses changed randomly), and three with 33% accuracy (with two of three human feedback responses being changed). The trainees’ pre- and posttest productions were rated for accuracy by native speakers of English. For trained items, productions were not significantly different when the trainees received CF with 100% or 66% accuracy, but both resulted in greater improvement than feedback with 33% accuracy. An important implication for L2 pronunciation training software is that machine feedback can be beneficial even when it is ‘good enough’ (i.e., not 100% accurate).
endingpage:
16
format:
Article
format.extent:
16
identifier.citation:
Silpachai, A., Neiriz, R., Novotny, M., Gutierrez-Osuna, R., Levis, J. M., & Chukharev, E. (2024). Corrective feedback accuracy and pronunciation improvement: Feedback that is ‘good enough’. Language Learning & Technology, 28(1), 1–16. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/735682
identifier.issn:
1094-3501
identifier.uri:
https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73582
number:
1
publicationname:
Language Learning & Technology
publisher:
University of Hawaii National Foreign Language Resource Center Center for Language & Technology
rights.license:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
rights.uri:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
site_url:
/item/10125-73582/
startingpage:
1
subject:
Corrective Feedback, Second Language Pronunciation, English as a Second Language, CAPT
title:
Corrective feedback accuracy and pronunciation improvement: Feedback that is ‘good enough’
type:
Article Text
volume:
28