Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMolenda , Marek
dc.contributor.authorGrabarczyk , Izabela
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-10T06:36:23Z
dc.date.available2023-01-10T06:36:23Z
dc.date.issued2022-12-29
dc.identifier.issn1731-7533
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/45254
dc.description.abstractThe paper explores the accuracy of feedback provided to non-native learners of English by a pronunciation module included in Microsoft Reading Progress. We compared pronunciation assessment offered by Reading Progress against two university pronunciation teachers. Recordings from students of English who aim for native-like pronunciation were assessed independently by Reading Progress and the human raters. The output was standardized as negative binary feedback assigned to orthographic words, which matches the Microsoft format. Our results indicate that Reading Progress is not yet ready to be used as a CAPT tool. Inter-rater reliability analysis showed a moderate level of agreement for all raters and a good level of agreement upon eliminating feedback from Reading Progress. Meanwhile, the qualitative analysis revealed certain problems, notably false positives, i.e., words pronounced within the boundaries of academic pronunciation standards, but still marked as incorrect by the digital rater. We recommend that EFL teachers and researchers approach the current version of Reading Progress with caution, especially as regards automated feedback. However, its design may still be useful for manual feedback. Given Microsoft declarations that Reading Progress would be developed to include more accents, it has the potential to evolve into a fully-functional CAPT tool for EFL pedagogy and research.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch in Language;2en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectCAPTen
dc.subjectEFLen
dc.subjectASRen
dc.titleMicrosoft Reading Progress as Capt Toolen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number197-214
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationMolenda , Marek - University of Łódź, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationGrabarczyk , Izabela - University of Łódź, Polanden
dc.referencesBajorek, Joan. 2017. L2 pronunciation tools: The unrealized potential of prominent computer-assisted language learning software, Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 5(2).en
dc.referencesBaker, Ann. 2007. Ship or sheep? An intermediate pronunciation course (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesBernstein, Jared, Cohen, Michael, Murveit, Hy, Rtischev, Dimitry and Weintraub, Mitchel. 1990. Automatic evaluation and training in English pronunciation. ICSLP, 1185-1188.en
dc.referencesBialik, Kristen, Scheller, Alissa and Walker, Kristi. 2018. 6 facts about English language learners in U.S. public schools. Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 13, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/25/6-facts-about-english-language-learners-in-u-s-public-schools/en
dc.referencesChen, Liang-Yu and Jang, Jyh -Shing Roger. 2015. Automatic pronunciation scoring with score combination by learning to rank and class-normalized DP-based quantization. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 23(11), 1737–1749.en
dc.referencesConiam, David. 1999. Voice recognition software accuracy with second language speakers of English. System, 27(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00049-9en
dc.referencesCucchiarini, Catia, Strik, Helmer and Boves, Lou. 2000. Different aspects of expert pronunciation quality ratings and their relation to scores produced by speech recognition algorithms. Speech Communication, 30(2-3), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00040-0en
dc.referencesDavey, Melissa. 2017, August 9. Outsmarting the computer: The secret to passing Australia’s English-proficiency test. The Guardian.en
dc.referencesDerwing, Tracy M., Munro, Murray J., and Carbonaro, M. 2000. Does popular speech recognition software work with ESL speech? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 592–603. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587748en
dc.referencesDixon, Robert M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.) 2002. Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Phonology, 20, 425–429. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675704210119en
dc.referencesGetting started with Reading Progress in Teams. (n.d.). Microsoft. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/getting-started-with-reading-progress-in-teams-7617c11c-d685-4cb7-8b75-3917b297c407?storagetype=live#ID0EDD=Educatorsen
dc.referencesGrant, Malcolm J., Button, Cathryn M. and Snook, Brent. 2017. An evaluation of interrater reliability measures on binary tasks using d-prime. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(4), 264-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616684584en
dc.referencesHan, Jeonghye. 2012. Emerging technologies: Robot-assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 1–9.en
dc.referencesHan, ZhaoHong. 2004. Fossilization: Five central issues. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 212–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00060.xen
dc.referencesHenrichsen, Lynn E. 2021. An illustrated taxonomy of online CAPT resources, RELC Journal, 52(1), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220954560en
dc.referencesHodges, Charles B., Moore, Stephanie, Lockee, Barb B., Trust, Torrey and Bond, M. Aron. 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educase. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learningen
dc.referencesIn-Seok Kim. 2006. Automatic speech recognition: Reliability and pedagogical implications for teaching pronunciation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 322–334. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.9.1.322en
dc.referencesKoo, Terry K. and Li, Mae Y. 2016. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012en
dc.referencesLandis, J. Richard and Koch, Gary G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. PMID: 843571.en
dc.referencesLevis, John M. 2005. Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485en
dc.referencesLevis, John M. 2007. Computer technology in teaching and researching pronunciation, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070098en
dc.referencesLi, Kun, Qioan, Xiaojun and Meng, Helen. 2017. Mispronunciation detection and diagnosis in L2 English speech using multidistribution deep neural networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 25(1), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2016.2621675en
dc.referencesResearch related to Reading Progress. (n.d.). Microsoft. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from https://education.microsoft.com/en-us/resource/9d24e8eben
dc.referencesMarks, Johathan, Hancock, Mark, Hewings, Martin and Donna, Silvie. 2012. English pronunciation in use (Vol. 1-3). Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesMahdi, Hassan Saleh and Al Khateeb, Ahmed Abdulateef. 2019, The effectiveness of computer-assisted pronunciation training: A meta-analysis. Review of Education, 7, 733-753. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3165en
dc.referencesMolenda, Marek, Adamczyk, Michał and Rybińska, Paulina. 2018. Beyond the CAPT – Automatic Speech Recognition in pronunciation training. In J. Pitura & S. Sauro (Eds.), CALL for mobility, 32–153. Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b13451en
dc.referencesMorril, Tuuli, Baese-Berk, Melissa., Heffner, Christopher and Dilley, Laura. 2015. Interactions between distal speech rate, linguistic knowledge, and speech environment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1451–1457. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0820-9en
dc.referencesNushi, Musa and Sadeghi, Mahsa. 2021. A critical review of ELSA: A pronunciation app. Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 22(3), 287-302.en
dc.referencesPaige, David D., Rasinski, Timothy V. and Magpuri-Lavell, Theresa. 2012. Is fluent, expressive reading important for high school readers? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00103en
dc.referencesPennington, Martha C. and Rogerson-Revell, Pamela. 2019. English pronunciation teaching and research. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47677-7en
dc.referencesQian, Xiaojun and Meng, Helen. 2017. A two-pass framework for mispronunciation detection and diagnosis for computer-aided pronunciation training. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 24(6), 1020–1028.en
dc.referencesRasinski, Timothy, Rikli, Andrew, & Johnston, Susan. 2009. Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More than a concern for the primary grades? Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802468715en
dc.referencesRay, Susanna. 2021. Students have a new, less stressful way to improve their reading – and it’s easier for teachers, too. Microsoft. https://news.microsoft.com/features/reading-progress/en
dc.referencesRetrospective study of ReadWorks use and effectiveness Web analytics and survey findings. (2014). Rockman et al.en
dc.referencesRoach, Peter. 2009. English phonetics and phonology: A practical course (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesRogerson-Revell, Pamela M. 2021. Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training (CAPT): Current issues and future directions, RELC Journal, 52(1), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220977406en
dc.referencesSobkowiak, Włodzimierz. 2004. English phonetics for Poles (2nd ed.). Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.en
dc.referencesSouza, Hanna Kivistö and Gottardi, William. 2022. How well can ASR technology understand foreign-accented speech?. SciELO Preprints. https://doi.org/10.1590/010318138668782v61n32022en
dc.referencesYaman, İsmail and Ekmekçi, Emrah. 2016. Shift from CALL to MALL? Participatory Educational Research, special issue 2016-IV, 25-32.en
dc.referencesWexler, Jade, Vaughn, Sharon, Edmonds, Meaghan and Reutebuch, Colleen Klein. 2008. A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 317–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9085-7en
dc.contributor.authorEmailMolenda , Marek - marek.molenda@uni.lodz.pl
dc.contributor.authorEmailGrabarczyk , Izabela - izabela.grabarczyk@uni.lodz.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1731-7533.20.2.05
dc.relation.volume20


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0