Advertisement

Factors influencing Iranian teachers’ use of computer assisted pronunciation teaching (CAPT)

  • Abbas Pourhosein GilakjaniEmail author
  • Ramin Rahimy
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

This study examined the factors that influenced Iranian teachers’ use of computer-assisted pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in teaching English pronunciation. Iranian teachers have serious problems in teaching pronunciation such as lack of enough time, knowledge, experience, training, and suitable pronunciation materials. In this study, the researchers examined how the use of CAPT helped teachers to overcome these problems and improve their pronunciation instruction. Pronunciation Power 2 (PP2) was used for this purpose. First, a qualitative method was used. 15 Iranian teachers were chosen voluntarily from the Azad Universities of Guilan Province, Iran. Semi-structured interview questions were used as the instrument of qualitative method. The researchers collected data and analyzed them. The qualitative data analysis was done through the process of examining, organizing, listing, and identifying themes. The findings of qualitative method showed that Iranian teachers used PP2 well in teaching pronunciation through financial support, enough computers, the presence of computer experts in language lab, training, and enough time. The findings also indicated that teachers showed tremendous support and much enthusiasm for using the software in teaching pronunciation. Second, a quantitative method was followed in which two groups of Iranian learners (one experimental and one control) participated in this study. They were exposed to the treatment of a CAPT teacher and a non-CAPT teacher. A post-test of English pronunciation was administered to both groups. The data were analyzed via running a One-Way ANCOVA. The findings of quantitative study showed that learners in the experimental group outperformed the control group and indicated significant improvement in their pronunciation learning.

Keywords

Teachers Learners CAPT Pronunciation power 2 Pronunciation instruction 

Notes

References

  1. Abdolmanafi-Rokni, S. J. (2013). The effect of listening to audio stories on pronunciation of EFL learners. MJAL, 5(2), 69–85 https://www.mjal.org/removedprofiles/2013/24.pdf.Google Scholar
  2. Afshari, M., Abu Bakr, K., Wong, S. L., & Afshari, M. (2010). Principals’ level of computer use and some contributing factors. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 2(40), 121–128 www.naun.org/main/NAUN/educationinformation/19-324.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. Alonso, A. R. (2014). Teaching speaking: An exploratory study in two academic contexts. Porta Linguarum, 22, 145–160 www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero22/10%20%20ROSA%20ALONSO.pdf.Google Scholar
  4. Al-Qudah, F. Z. M. (2012). Improving English pronunciation through computer-assisted programs in Jordanian universities. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 9(3), 201–208.  https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i3.7085.Google Scholar
  5. Atai, M. R., & Dashtestani, R. (2011). Iranian English for academic purposes (EAP) stakeholders’ attitudes toward using the internet in EAP courses for civil engineering students: Promises and challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 21–38.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.627872. Google Scholar
  6. Baradaran, A., & Davari, Z. (2010). The impact of utilizing computer assisted language learning on EFL learners’ foreign accent reduction. JELS, 1(4), 41–62 www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=287704.Google Scholar
  7. Behzadi, A., & Fahimniya, F. (2014). The effect of using two approaches of teaching pronunciation (intuitive-imitative and analytic-linguistic) on speaking fluency among Iranian EFL learners. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4(1), 263–270 http://www.cibtech.org/jls.htm.Google Scholar
  8. Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), Art. 30. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1201302  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1801.
  9. Breitkreutz, J., Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2001). Pronunciation teaching practices in Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 19(1), 51–61.  https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v19i1.919.Google Scholar
  10. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  11. Butler-Pascoe, M. E., & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Technology and teaching English language learners. MA Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Calvo, B., & Yolanda, J. (2016). Spanish students’ reflections on the importance of written and spoken skills in their EFL classes at high school and at university. Revista Electrónica de Linguística Aplicada, 15(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  13. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2011). Teaching pronunciation (2nded). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chapelle, C. A. (2004). Technology and language learning: Expanding methods and agendas. System, 32(4), 593–601.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.09.014.Google Scholar
  15. Chun, D. M. (2012). Computer-assisted pronunciation teaching. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Dashtestani, R. (2012). Barriers to the implementation of CALL in EFL courses: Iranian EFL teachers’ attitudes and perspectives. JALT CALL Journal, 8(2), 55–70 journal.jaltcall.org/articles/8_2_Dashtestani.pdf.Google Scholar
  19. Dekaney, E. M. (2003). The effect of computerized versus classroom instruction on the phonetic pronunciation of English. JRME, 51(3), 206–217.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3345374.Google Scholar
  20. Dooly, M., & Moore, E. (2017). Introduction: Qualitative approaches to research on plurilingual education. In E. Moore & M. Dooly (Eds), Qualitative approaches to research on plurilingual education (pp. 1–10). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573597.pdf
  21. Dupin-Bryant, P. A. (2004). Variables related to interactive television teaching style: In search of learner-centered teaching styles. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(4), 3–14 www.itdl.org/journal/apr_04/article01.htm.Google Scholar
  22. Elimat, A. K., & AbuSeileek, A. F. (2014). Automatic speech recognition technology as an effective means for teaching pronunciation. JALT CALL Journal, 10(1), 21–47 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1107929.Google Scholar
  23. Faizul, M. (2012). The use of pronunciation software to improve students’ pronunciation. Encounter, 3(2), 88–110.Google Scholar
  24. Fathiyan, M. (2004). The study of a desired pattern of computer literacy for Iranian teachers. The University of Science and Industry. The Ministry of Education. The Design, Development, and Application Office of Information and Communication Technology.Google Scholar
  25. Finely, J. (2004). Pronunciation Power. Copyright Quadrant Educational Enterprises Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert, J. B. (2008). Teaching pronunciation using the prosody pyramid. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gilbert, J. (2010). Pronunciation as orphan: What can be done? Speak Out!, 43, 3–6.Google Scholar
  28. Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.700315.Google Scholar
  29. Gomes, C. (2005). Integration of ICT in science teaching: A study performed in Azores, Portugal. Paper presented at the recent research developments in learning technologies, Lisbon, Portugal (22–24 April).Google Scholar
  30. Gooniband Shooshtari, Z., Mehrabi, K., & Mousavinia, S. R. (2013). A call for teaching pronunciation in Iranian schools. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 2(1), 454–465 www.hrmars.com/admin/pics/1684.pdf.Google Scholar
  31. Gorjian, B., Hayati, A., & Pourkhoni, P. (2013). Using Praat software in teaching prosodic features to EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84(9), 34–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.505.Google Scholar
  32. Graff, M. (2006). A study of Rosetta Stone’s effectiveness on improving English pronunciation. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, California, United States.Google Scholar
  33. Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching (5th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  34. Hayati, A. M. (2010). Notes on teaching English pronunciation to EFL learners: A case of Iranian high school students. Canadian Center of Science and Education, ELT, 3(4), 121–126.  https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p121.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Hincks, R. (2005). Computer support for learners of spoken English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, KTH School of computer science and communication, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  36. Hişmanoğlu, M. (2006). Current perspectives on pronunciation learning and teaching. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2(1), 100–110 www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/26.Google Scholar
  37. Hismanoglu, M. (2012). Teaching word stress to Turkish EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners through Internet-based video lessons. US-China Education Review, A(1), 26–40. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530678.pdf.
  38. Hişmanoğlu, M., & Hişmanoğlu, S. (2011). Internet-based pronunciation teaching: An innovative route toward rehabilitating Turkish EFL learners’ articulation problems. European Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 23–36.Google Scholar
  39. Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Hornero, A. M., Mur, P., & Plo, R. (2013). Oral skills in the spotlight: EFL in secondary education in a Spanish local context. Synergy, 9(2), 111–124.Google Scholar
  41. Jacobsen, D. M., & Lock, J. V. (2005). Technology and teacher education for a knowledge era: Mentoring for student futures, not our past. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 75–87. Norfolk, VA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved August 4, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/14634/.
  42. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Albion, P., Finger, G., Cavanagh, R., Fitzgerald, R., Bond, T., & Grimbeek, P. (2013). Development of the TTF TPACK survey instrument. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 26–35 http://acce.edu.au/journal/27/3/development-ttf-tpack-survey-instrument.Google Scholar
  43. Jolley, C. (2014). The effect of computer-based pronunciation readings on ESL learners’ perception and production of prosodic features in a short-term ESP course. Unpublished MA dissertation, Brigham: Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
  44. Kılıçkaya, F. (2011). Improving pronunciation via accent reduction and text-to-speech software. In M. levy, F. Blin, C. B. Siskin, O. Takeuchi (Eds.), WorldCALL: International Perspectives on Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 85–96. www.j-let.org/~wcf/proceedings/d-097.pdf
  45. Kim, I. S. (2006). Automatic speech recognition: Reliability and pedagogical implications for teaching pronunciation. Educational Technology and Society, 9(1), 322–334 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ836714.Google Scholar
  46. Kim, A. Y. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in improving pronunciation: A case study. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 11–33.Google Scholar
  47. King, K. (2003). Keeping pace with technology: Educational technology that transforms-The challenge and promise for higher education faculty (Vol. 2). Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  48. Korte, W. B., & Hüsing, T. (2007). Benchmarking access and use of ICT in European schools 2006: Results from head teacher and a classroom teacher surveys in 27 European countries. E-Learning Papers, 2(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  49. Lee, S. (2008). Teaching pronunciation of English using computer-assisted learning software: An action research study in an Institute of Technology in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Australian Catholic University, Australia.Google Scholar
  50. Liakin, D., Cardoso, W., & Liakina, N. (2015). Learning L2 pronunciation with a mobile speech recognizer: French /y/. Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), 32(1), 1–25 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1143784.Google Scholar
  51. Liu, S. C., & Hung, P. Y. (2016). Teaching pronunciation with computer assisted pronunciation instruction in a technological university. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 1939–1943.  https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040902.Google Scholar
  52. Luo, B. (2016). Evaluating a computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT) technique for efficient classroom instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 451–476 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1093565.Google Scholar
  53. Luo, J. (2014) A Study of Mother Tongue Interference in Pronunciation of College English Learning in China. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1702–1706.Google Scholar
  54. Mehrpour, S., Alavi Shoushtari, S., & Haghighat Nezhad Shirazi, P. (2016). Computer-assisted pronunciation training: The effect of integrating accent reduction software on Iranian EFL learners’ pronunciation. CALL-EJ, 17(1), 97–112 callej.org/journal/17-1/Mehrpour-Shoushtari-Shirazi2016.pdf.Google Scholar
  55. Mirzaei, F. Q., Jahandar, S., & Khodabandehlou, M. (2014). The effect of multiple intelligences on Iranian EFL learners’ pronunciation accuracy at intermediate level. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4(2), 488–495 http://www.cibtech.org/jls.htm.Google Scholar
  56. Mompean, J. A., & Fouz-González, J. (2016). Twitter-based EFL pronunciation instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 166–190 Retrieved August 3, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/176114/.Google Scholar
  57. Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2002a). Feedback in computer assisted pronunciation training: when technology meets pedagogy. In Proceedings of CALL Professionals and the Future of CALL Research, 179–188. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/76206
  58. Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002b). The pedagogy -technology interface in computer assisted pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(5), 441–467.  https://doi.org/10.1076/call.15.5.441.13473.Google Scholar
  59. Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2006). ASR-based corrective feedback on pronunciation: Does it really work? Proceedings of international conference on spoken language processing 2006 (pp. 1982–1985). Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  60. Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2 Dutch. ReCALL, 20(2), 225–243 Retrieved August 3, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/66365/.Google Scholar
  61. Nussbaum, L. (2017). Doing research with teachers. In E. Moore & M. Dooly (Eds), Qualitative approaches to research on plurilingual education (pp. 46–67).Google Scholar
  62. O’Dwyer, L., Russel, M., & Bebell, D. (2004). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48), 1–33.  https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n48.2004.Google Scholar
  63. Pennington, M. C. (1999). Computer-aided pronunciation pedagogy: Promise, limitations, directions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(5), 427–440.  https://doi.org/10.1076/call.12.5.427.5693.Google Scholar
  64. Por, F. P., & Fong, S. F. (2011). Exploring the innovative multimedia pronunciation learning managements system on students with different psychological profiles. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(24), 244–250.Google Scholar
  65. Pourasghar, H., & Abdolmanafi-Rokni, S. J. (2015). Hypermedia and its effect on EFL learners’ pronunciation accuracy. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(7), 1–11 www.ijeionline.com/attachments/article/44/IJEI_Vol.2_No.7_2015-7-01.pdf.Google Scholar
  66. Pronunciation Power. (2000). English Computerized Learning Inc, Publication Inc. Edmonton.Google Scholar
  67. Roohani, A., & Rahimi, Z. (2019). Comparative effects of using pronunciation software on Georgian bilingual and Persian monolingual EFL learners’ pronunciation achievement. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 8(1), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2018.3005.Google Scholar
  68. Safari, H., Jahandar, S., & Khodabandehlou, M. (2013). The effect of using phonetic transcription of words as footnotes on Iranian EFL learners’ pronunciation improvement. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 3(2), 19–24 http://www.cibtech.org/jls.htm.Google Scholar
  69. Seferoglu, G. (2005). Improving students’ pronunciation through accent reduction software. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 303–316.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00459.Google Scholar
  70. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Pronunciation. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 56–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Sheumaker, F., Slate, J. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). The role of in tech training in the integration of technology into instructional practices among Georgia middle school teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5), 1–12 Retrieved August 4, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/94585/.Google Scholar
  72. Shin, H. J., & Son, J. B. (2007). EFL teachers’ perceptions and perspectives on internet-assisted language teaching. CALL-EJ Online, 8(2), 1–13 https://eprints.usq.edu.au/1924/1/Shin_Son.pdf.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  73. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2012). Second language acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 108–124). London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
  74. Talebi, F., & Teimoury, N. (2013). The effect of computer-assisted language learning on improving EFL learners’ pronunciation ability. World Journal of English Language, 3(2), 52–56.  https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v3n2p52.Google Scholar
  75. Tong, K. P., & Triniada, S. G. (2005). Conditions and constraints of sustainable innovative pedagogical practices using technology. Journal of International Electronic for Leadership in Learning, 9(3), 1–27 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ985387.Google Scholar
  76. Tsai, P.H. (2015). Computer-assisted pronunciation learning in a collaborative context: A case study in Taiwan. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(4), 1–13.Google Scholar
  77. Unamuno, V., & Patiño, A. (2017). Producing knowledge about plurilingualism with young students: A challenge for collaborative ethnography. In E. Moore & M. Dooly (Eds), Qualitative approaches to research on plurilingual education (pp. 129–149). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573606.
  78. Underhill, A. (2013). Cinderella, integration and the pronunciation turn. Speak Out, 49, 4–8.Google Scholar
  79. Verdugo, D. R. (2006). A study of intonation awareness and learning in non-native speakers of English. Language Awareness, 15(3), 141–159.  https://doi.org/10.2167/la404.0.Google Scholar
  80. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. (2001). Integrating technology in teaching and teacher education: Implications for policy and curriculum reform. Educational Media International, 38(2/3), 127–132. http://vrasidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/integrateemi.pdf.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980110041944.Google Scholar
  81. Xodabande, I. (2017). The effectiveness of social media network telegram in teaching English language pronunciation to Iranian EFL learners. Cogent Education, 4, 1347081.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1347081.Google Scholar
  82. Yilmaz, N. P. (2011). Evaluation of the technology integration process in the Turkish education system. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(1), 37–54 www.cedtech.net/articles/21/213.pdf.Google Scholar
  83. Zare-ee, A. (2011). University teachers’ views on the use of information and communication technologies in teaching and research. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 318–327 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ945006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language Translation, Lahijan BranchIslamic Azad UniversityLahijanIran
  2. 2.Department of English Language, Tonekabon BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTonekabonIran

Personalised recommendations