Research Article

Evaluating the comparative effectiveness of CAPT-based vs. native speaker-led pronunciation training

Dana Ondrušková 1 *
More Detail
1 Palacký University, Olomouc, CZECH REPUBLIC* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(4), October 2025, ep608, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17481
Published: 02 December 2025
OPEN ACCESS   217 Views   151 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study examines the effectiveness of pronunciation training by comparing two instructional methods: native speaker-led instruction and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven pronunciation tools. The research aims to determine whether AI-assisted pronunciation training can serve as an effective alternative or complement to traditional instruction. This is particularly relevant for language programs where access to native speakers is limited. The study employs a quantitative research design, analyzing pronunciation accuracy, intelligibility, and listening comprehension among A1-level French learners. A statistical comparison of learners’ performance in both groups was conducted, including Chi-square tests and standard deviation analysis. The findings suggest that AI-based pronunciation training is at least as effective as native speaker-led instruction, with students in the CAPT group performing even better, particularly in intelligibility and intonation. The reduced performance variability among AI-trained learners suggests that these tools provide a structured and uniform learning experience. These insights contribute to optimizing pronunciation teaching methods, highlighting the potential of AI as a scalable and accessible pronunciation training solution in foreign language education.
Keywords: pronunciation training, AI-assisted learning, language education, listening comprehension

CITATION (APA)

Ondrušková, D. (2025). Evaluating the comparative effectiveness of CAPT-based vs. native speaker-led pronunciation training. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(4), ep608. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17481

REFERENCES

  1. Amrate, M., & Tsai, P. (2025). Computer-assisted pronunciation training: A systematic review. ReCALL, 37(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344024000181
  2. Bester, G., & Brand, L. (2013). The effect of technology on learner attention and achievement in the classroom. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v33n2a405
  3. Cardozo, A. C., & Orta, G. M. D. (2012). Technology-mediated activities as a boost to motivation and autonomy in the pronunciation class. In L. Anglada, & D. L. Banegas (Eds.), Views on motivation and autonomy in ELT selected papers from the XXXVII FAAPI Conference.
  4. Cengiz, B. C. (2023). Computer-assisted pronunciation teaching: An analysis of empirical research. Participatory Educational Research, 10(3), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.45.10.3
  5. Chacón, G. P. (2022). Students’ perception of interacting with native speakers. Letras, 72, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.15359/rl.2-72.7
  6. Chinedu, A. J., & Anthonia, A. (2015). Learning French as a second language: Challenges for a native English speaker. Continental Journal of Arts and Humanities, 7(1), 21–29.
  7. Dao, P., Nguyen, M. X. N. C., & Nguyen, C. B. (2020). Effect of pronunciation instruction on L2 learners’ listening comprehension. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 7(1), 10–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.19012.dao
  8. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.42
  9. Ekşi, G. Y., & Yeşilçınar, S. (2016). An investigation of the effectiveness of online text-to-speech tools in improving EFL teacher trainees’ pronunciation. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n2p205
  10. Fontan, L., Kim, S., De Fino, V., & Detey, S. (2022). Predicting speech fluency in children using automatic acoustic features. In Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference. https://doi.org/10.23919/APSIPAASC55919.2022.9979884
  11. Fontan, L., Le Coz, M., & Detey, S. (2018). Automatically measuring L2 speech fluency without the need of ASR: A proof-of-concept study with Japanese learners of French. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2018 (pp. 2544–2548). ISCA. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1336
  12. Gelin, L., Pellegrini, T., Pinquier, J., & Daniel, M. (2021). Simulating reading mistakes for child speech transformer-based phone recognition. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2021. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2021-2202
  13. Henrichsen, L. E. (2021). An illustrated taxonomy of online CAPT resources. RELC Journal, 52(1), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220954560
  14. Huang, Y., Lee, A. H., & Ballinger, S. (2023). The characteristics and effects of peer feedback on second language pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 9(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.22034.hua
  15. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
  16. Mahdi, H. S., & Al Khateeb, A. A. (2019). Context and implications document for: The effectiveness of computer-assisted pronunciation training: A meta-analysis. Review of Education, 7(3), 502–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3164
  17. Martin, J. L., & Wright, K. E. (2023). Bias in automatic speech recognition: The case of African American language. Applied Linguistics, 44(4), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac066
  18. Ngo, T. T.-N., Chen, H. H.-J., & Lai, K. K.-W. (2024). The effectiveness of automatic speech recognition in ESL/EFL pronunciation: A meta-analysis. ReCALL, 36(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000113
  19. O’Brien, M. G. (2020). Ease and difficulty in L2 pronunciation teaching: A mini-review. Frontiers in Communication, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.626985
  20. Olsen, R. B., Orr, L. L., Bell, S. H., & Stuart, E. A. (2013). External validity in policy evaluations that choose sites purposively. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21660
  21. Revell-Rogerson, P. M. (2021). Computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT): Current issues and future directions. RELC Journal, 52(1), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220977406
  22. Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form‐focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633. https://10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639
  23. Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 69(3), 652–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12345
  24. Sullivan, K., & Czigler, P. (2002). Maximising the educational affordances of a technology supported learning environment for introductory undergraduate phonetics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00268
  25. Tsunemoto, A., Trofimovich, P., & Kennedy, S. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about second language pronunciation teaching, their experience, and speech assessments. Language Teaching Research, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820937273
  26. Verbeke, G., & Simon, E. (2023). Listening to accents: Comprehensibility, accentedness and intelligibility of native and non-native English speech. Lingua. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103572