Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-2vtd9 Total loading time: 0.228 Render date: 2022-06-27T12:45:47.060Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Article contents

Computer-mediated input, output and feedback in the development of L2 word recognition from speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2014

Joshua Matthews
Affiliation:
School of Education, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia (email: joshua.matthews@uon.edu.au)
Junyu Cheng
Affiliation:
School of Foreign Languages, Southeast University, 2 Si Pai Lou, Nanjing 210096, P. R. China; (email: chjy@seu.edu.cn)
John Mitchell O’Toole
Affiliation:
School of Education, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; (email: mitch.otoole@newcastle.edu.au)

Abstract

This paper reports on the impact of computer-mediated input, output and feedback on the development of second language (L2) word recognition from speech (WRS). A quasi-experimental pre-test/treatment/post-test research design was used involving three intact tertiary level English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. Classes were either assigned to a control group (n=31) or to one of two alternative treatment levels which used a web-based computer application enabling self-determined opportunities to repeatedly listen to and reconstruct spoken target text into its written form. Treatment group one (n=30) received text feedback after each of their efforts at target text reconstruction, whereas treatment group two (n=35) did not. Results indicated that word recognition gain scores of those who used the application, regardless of treatment level, were significantly higher than those of the control group. The relationship between the quantity of self-determined exposure to input and word recognition improvements was moderate but not linear, with those choosing moderate levels of speech input deriving the greatest measurable improvement. Neither increased levels of modified output nor the provision of text feedback were associated with significant improvements in word recognition gain scores. Implications for computer-mediated approaches for the development of L2 WRS are described and areas for future empirical research are suggested.

Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 321 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beglar, D. and Hunt, A. (1999) Revising and validating the 2000 Word Level and University Word Level Vocabulary Tests. Language Testing, 16(2): 131162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, S. and Williams, J. (2002) The effect of bimodal input on implicit and explicit memory: An investigation into the benefits of within-language subtitling. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(4): 509533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersma, M. and Cutler, A. (2008) Phantom word activation in L2. System, 36(1): 2234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, G. (2001) Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2009) The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93: 741753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. and Jamieson, J. (2008) Tips for teaching with CALL. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. (2014) Web Vocabprofile [an adaptation of Heatley and Nation’s (1994) Range]. http://www.lextutor.ca/vp Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2): 213238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24: 143188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 305352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J. and Reinders, H. (2009) Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2008a) Revising segmentation hypotheses in first and second language listening. System, 36(1): 3551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, J. (2008b) Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2006) Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19: 317.Google Scholar
Goh, C. (2000) A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1): 5575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatley, A. and Nation, P. (1994) Range [Computer program]. http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2): 416431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2002) Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18(3): 193223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2003) Connectionist models of language processing and the training of listening skills with the aid of multimedia software. Computer Assisted Language Learning 16(5): 413425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2005) Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 129140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levy, M. (2009) Technology in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93: 769782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z. and Hegelheimer, V. (2013) Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3): 135156.Google Scholar
Matthews, J. and O’Toole, J. M. (2013) Investigating an innovative computer application to improve L2 word recognition from speech. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 119. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2013.864315.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1): 79103.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. M. (2007) Eight questions about spoken word recognition. In: Gaskell, M. G. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3753.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. (2010) Web-based collaborative reading exercises for learners in remote locations: The effects of computer-mediated feedback and interaction via computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22(2): 112134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1983) Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5: 1225.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000) The effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and qualitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3): 417528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rost, M. (2002) Teaching and researching listening. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D. and Clapham, C. (2001) Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1): 5588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235253.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993) The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50: 158164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G. and Seidhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125144.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97114.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2007) The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauroza, S. and Allison, D. (1990) Speech rates in British English. Applied Linguistics, 11(1): 90105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A. and Fullilove, J. (1998) Bottom up or top down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19(4): 432451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2007) Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40(3): 191210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Williams, J. and Rott, S. (2004) Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition. In: VanPattern, B., Williams, J., Rott, S. and Overstreet, M. (eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 126.Google Scholar
Vidal, K. (2003) Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 24(1): 5689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidal, K. (2011) A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1): 219258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, A. and Scharenborg, O. (2012) Models of spoken-word recognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(3): 387401.Google ScholarPubMed
West, M. (1953) A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2003) Discovery listening: Improving perceptual processing. ELT Journal, 57(4): 335343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Computer-mediated input, output and feedback in the development of L2 word recognition from speech
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Computer-mediated input, output and feedback in the development of L2 word recognition from speech
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Computer-mediated input, output and feedback in the development of L2 word recognition from speech
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *