Listener Background in L2 Speech Evaluation

Listeners are integral parts of second language (L2) oral performance assessment. However, evaluation of listeners is susceptible to listener background variables and biases. These variables and preexisting biases distort native speaker (NS) listeners’ perceptions of non-native speakers’ (NNSs) speech performance and contribute errors into their oral performance assessment. Among listener background variables, listeners’ first language status, the amount of exposure to different English varieties, listeners’ educational background, prior language teaching experience, NNSs’ linguistic stereotyping, and listener attitude have been investigated in the literature and assumed to exert sizable amount of variation in speakers’ oral proficiency true scores. To minimize listeners’ bias in the assessment context, listeners are provided with intensive training programs in which they are trained how to rate NNSs’ speech more objectively utilizing scoring rubrics. To mediate listeners’ bias in social contexts, the literature has provided strands of evidence in favor of structured intergroup contact programs, which are inoculations particularly devised to improve NSs’ attitude, thereby making them more receptive to NNSs’ English varieties. To enhance L2 listeners’ self-efficacy and foster their autonomy, L2 instructors are encouraged to emphasize explicit instruction of listening strategies

Online-based intelligibility instruction for second language (L2) learners

As speaking skills in English have become increasingly important in different academic and professional venues as a result of globalization, the issues of intelligibility and comprehensibility which go to the very core of global communication have come to the fore (Jenkins, 2000). In so doing, L2 pronunciation instruction should be based on those features which render L2 speech more comfortably intelligible. Previous research has revealed that both segmental and suprasegmental features are conducive to non-native speakers’ production of L2 speech (Kang et al., 2018; Saito et al., 2015). However, little research has examined the effects of intelligibility instruction on L2 learners’ pronunciation gains, especially through an online-based approach. Accordingly, this study examined whether online-based instruction of intelligibility features (i.e., high functional load consonants/ vowels, lexical stress, thought grouping, prominence, and intonation) conjointly resulted in gains in L2 learners’ intelligibility and comprehensibility as well as segmentals and suprasegmental accuracy. Sixty L2 learners of English were recruited and randomly assigned to two instructional conditions: (1) an intelligibility group (n = 30) which received three weeks of online-based instruction on intelligibility features through Intelligibility tutor and (2) a comparison group (n = 30) which received parallel online-based instruction on English segmentals advocated in traditional, accuracy-oriented approaches to pronunciation instruction through Segmental Tutor. Both Tutors were hosted on Moodle, which is an open-source learning management system. Spontaneous speech samples collected in the pre-and posttest were transcribed and rated for intelligibility and comprehensibility by ten trained raters. The speech samples were also analyzed for segmental and suprasegmental features. An online survey was also administered to the L2 learners in both instructional conditions to determine how they evaluated the online pronunciation course. Results of a series of mixed-effects models indicated that the intelligibility group significantly improved both intelligibility and comprehensibility scores from the pre-to posttest. Whereas the comparison group did not improve comprehensibility, marginal improvement in intelligibility emerged at the end of the intervention, which was not significant. The results of a series of paired-sample t-tests revealed that the intelligibility group exhibited substantial gains in some segmentals (i.e., high FL vowels and low FL consonants) and suprasegmentals (i.e., lexical stress, prominence, and level tone choice) while the comparison group only showed gains in some segmentals. The analyses of the learners’ qualitative responses also revealed that the learners in both groups were satisfied with the quality of the online pronunciation course. The results suggest that online-based intelligibility instruction can help L2 learners achieve more intelligible and comprehensible speech and offer new directions for future pronunciation classes in global contexts

Oral Corrective Feedback on Pronunciation Errors: The Mediating Effects of Learners’ Engagement with Feedback

This study examined low-proficiency Iranian EFL students’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement with oral corrective feedback (OCF) on interdental fricative errors: /θ/and/ð/. The data were collected from 27 learners with favorable and unfavorable perceptions about OCF. After receiving OCF on 30 tested and 30 untested lexical items in tutoring sessions, the participants took a posttest. The analysis of the data showed that the learners with positive perceptions about OCF had significantly higher accuracy gains, as shown by their posttest results. The interviews showed that the learners’ positive perceptions about OCF had positive affective engagement. Also, the learners who perceived pronunciation accuracy as an important component of their language development showed positive patterns of affective engagement with OCF. Additionally, the learners who affectively engaged with direct OCF positively tended to show positive behavioral and cognitive engagement with feedback. These learners reviewed the provided OCF and practiced the correction by employing an array of cognitive strategies (e.g., repetition). Overall, our findings show that positive engagement with feedback can result in higher pronunciation accuracy gains. Therefore, teachers should familiarize themselves with their students’ perceptions about feedback on their pronunciation errors, since these perceptions may impact the way students engage with feedback affectively, behaviorally, and cognitively. For instance, students who value pronunciation accuracy may be more likely to positively engage with feedback on pronunciation errors, while students who emphasize effective communication may negatively engage with such feedback