Second Language (L2) Learners’ Perceptions of Online-Based Pronunciation Instruction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Article Title: Second Language (L2) Learners' Perception of Online-Based Pronunciation Instruction

 

Summary: This article focused on online-based pronunciation instruction. Rather than investigating the efficacy of the training using phonetic measures, it examines learners' perceptions, drawing a link between perceived effectiveness and the skill gains achieved through the program.

 

Comments:

While I agree that it is important to consider learners' perception of a pronunciation training program, the paper lacks discussion of why this perspective is significant and how it complements investigations into the objectively measured efficacy (i.e., skill gains measured via perceived accentedness raining, identification, discrimination, phonetic measurements). Consequently, the paper feels more like a training project report than a comprehensive research study.

 

I believe that the paper would greatly benefit from including a dedicated section - and a more  in-depth discussion in the conclusion - about why traditional measures of "gain" are insufficient and why learners' perception is a critical component of evaluating online-based pronunciation instruction.  On page 3, Line 18, the paper states, "Learners' perceptions, however, are important because they determine learners' engagement with the course materials as well as the amount of effort and energy, they invest for learning new content". However, the authors do not elaborate on why "engagement" and "effort" are crucial in achieving pronunciation gain (although it might seem silly to ask these questions).  For example, do these factors predict learning outcomes? Alternatively, is it necessary to focus on them because instructors often lack effective tolls to measure gains?

 

1. Introduction

Throughout the literature review,  the paper discusses skill gains achieved through pronunciation trains but does not address how these gains are typically measured. While this omission might be intentional due to the focus on learners' perceptions, at least a brief discussion of common methodologies for measuring gains and potential limitations of relying solely on them would enhance the paper. Additionally, exploring how learners' perceptions correlate with these gains could strengthen the argument.

 

2.3. Materials

The demographic questionnaire is mentioned, but no justification is provided for excluding other potentially relevant factors such as motivational levels, purpose of the study, or the extent of learners' language exposure. Since the authors argue that engagement and effort are tied to learners' perceptions, it would be natural to consider these factors as well.

 

Minor comments:

 

Ensure consistent spacing around the equals sign (“=”). Sometimes there is no space before or after it, while other instances include spaces.

 

p.4 Line 165: I think the sentence can be restructured.

 

p.4 Line 169: In classes with too many learners --> in classes with many learners

 

p.4 Line 171: The phrase "pronunciation deviations" is somewhat vague. Specify the types of issues being discussed. For example, are these errors related to intelligibility, comprehensibility, or specific phonetic inaccuracies? Clarifying this earlier in the text will help readers follow the argument more easily.

 

p.5 Line 119: The term "ITA" should be explicitly defined upon first use. Presumably, it stands for International Teaching Assistant, but this needs to be clarified.

 

pp. 10 - 15: The readability suffers due to the lack of spacing between excerpts and the main text. Consistent use of indentation and clear formatting to distinguish excerpts from descriptions and transitions would make the section more accessible.

           

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigates L2 learners’ perceptions of an online pronunciation course using Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training (CAPT) on Moodle. Sixty participants evaluated their performance, the course, and their preferences for online, face-to-face, or hybrid instruction. The findings highlight the benefits of online pronunciation courses, including flexibility, individualized feedback, and accessibility, with learners showing a preference for online or hybrid models. This study contributes to the literature by emphasizing the importance of CAPT in promoting L2 pronunciation learning and learner engagement.

 

General Comments:

1.      Strengths:

• The study addresses a timely and relevant topic, particularly in the context of post-pandemic online education.
• It successfully integrates CAPT tools and provides detailed insights into the design and implementation of the online pronunciation course.
• The mixed-methods approach strengthens the reliability of the findings, combining quantitative and qualitative data.

2.      Weaknesses:

• The study does not sufficiently address the control of extraneous variables. For example, learners' previous exposure to pronunciation instruction or their familiarity with CAPT tools could significantly influence the results.
• The methodology lacks randomized control, which could have strengthened the validity of findings.
• Limited consideration of longitudinal effects: While the study shows immediate learner satisfaction, it does not address whether the gains are sustained over time; this could be addressed in a discussion of the limitations of the study and directions for future research.

3.      Hypothesis Testability:

• The hypothesis—that learners will positively perceive an online pronunciation course—is testable. However, there is limited discussion of how these perceptions translate into measurable improvements in pronunciation. For example, a correlation could have been reported between perceptions of improved pronunciation and how effective learners found the course to be. The limitation of no concrete, objective test of pronunciation improvement should be mentioned as a limitation of the study and/or a direction for future research.

4.      Missing Controls:

• A control group receiving traditional, face-to-face pronunciation instruction would provide a stronger comparative framework. This limitation should be mentioned and preferably justified.
• Learners’ motivation levels before enrolling in the course were not accounted for, which could be a confounding factor. Again, this should be mentioned as a limitation when interpreting the results.

 

Specific Comments/Corrections:

1.      Abstract:

• Suggest specifying the demographics of the learners earlier in the abstract for greater clarity.
• The sentence “findings are also significant in that the online-based CAPT can provide…” could benefit from conciseness: “The findings suggest that CAPT can effectively support asynchronous L2 pronunciation teaching.”

2.      Introduction:

• The term “surrogate for customary face-to-face classroom” (Line 32) is unclear and could be rephrased for clarity.
• (Line 34): “a number of studies have initiated” à change to: “a number of studies have aimed…”
• The discussion of challenges (Lines 37–42) should be expanded to include potential biases related to digital accessibility in low-resource contexts.
• (Line 84): “…analyzed at the meta-analytic level on several occasions.”
• (Line 95): add comma (,) after “learning”
• (Line 100): change to “successful L2 communication”
• (Line 101): change “rendition” to “comprehension and production of”
• (Line 109): “the online environment” (add the article ‘the’)
• (Line 150): “ITA”: define this acronym the first time you use it.
• (Line 184): “in real time” (add preposition ‘in’)
• (Line 184): “NS”: define this acronym the first time you use it.
• (Line 189): change “would” to “could”

3.      Methods:

• The participant demographic is well-detailed, but there is a lack of information on dropout rates during the course.
• (Line 189): “L2 English learners”
• (Line 204): What do you mean by "intelligibility group" and "comparison group" here? Please define these terms. After reading section 2.2, I understand that you're referring to the type of online based instruction: "intelligibility-focused" and "segmental focused", so please use these terms here too as saying "comparison group" makes it sound like you had a control group that did not receive the online instruction, but this is not the case.
• The description of production exercises (Lines 231–235) is detailed but could include examples of learner interactions to illustrate these activities better.
• (Lines 282-283): Change wording to: "an agreement was reached on changes to be made in the categories included in the initial coding scheme and a revised coding scheme was subsequently developed."

4.      Results and Discussion:

• The results section presents quantitative data effectively, but statistical analysis details (e.g., tests used, confidence intervals) are sparse. Were any statistical tests performed on the data? If so, what and what were the findings?
• (Line 304): delete comma (,) after “course”
• (Line 311): “this finding aligns with” (add preposition ‘with’)
• (Line 317): delete “only”
• (Line 347): Figure 1: Please make the questions on the vertical left-hand axis easier to read, perhaps make them bold and ensure that no words are separated between lines.
• (Line 365): delete “for” (just “explained by…)
• (Line 390): “would prefer” (conditional)
• (Line 395): “course’s” (possessive)
• (Line 400): Figure 3: use “would” (conditional)
• (Line 408): “With regards to…”
• (Line 409): “…in the comfort of their own room”
• (Line 511): “expectations for”
• (Line 523): “With regards to…”
• (Lines 589-590): Figure 6: Move the colored labels to the bottom of the chart under their respective bars in the place of the auto-generated labels ‘1’ and ‘2’.

5.      Conclusion:

• The conclusion appropriately summarizes findings but overgeneralizes the applicability of the results to all L2 learners without addressing demographic or contextual constraints.

6.      Figures and Tables:

• The figures are visually clear but could include more detailed captions to provide stand-alone context.
• Table 1 (Lines 289) lacks a proper explanation of what constitutes “Agreement” in coding.

 

General Concerns:

1.      Clarity and Structure:

• The manuscript is generally well-structured but could benefit from more focused subsections within the discussion.
• Please make grammatical correcting in wording as detailed above.

2.      References:

• Most references are relevant and recent (within the last five years), with some exceptions.
• There is no evident overuse of self-citations.

3.      Scientific Soundness:

• While the experimental design is appropriate for exploring learner perceptions, it does not allow robust comparisons between modalities (e.g., online vs. face-to-face).
• The absence of a pre-test/post-test design with some measure of objective pronunciation testing limits the study’s ability to correlate perceptions with measurable learning gains.

4.      Reproducibility:

• The methods section is detailed enough to allow reproducibility, although some aspects (e.g., Moodle configurations) could be elaborated on further.

5.      Conclusions:

• The conclusions are consistent with the presented data but lack depth regarding broader implications for L2 pedagogy or policy.

 

Recommendations:

• Strengthen the methodology by including a control group and pre/post-tests to better assess the impact of online pronunciation instruction. If this cannot be done, at the very least, discuss this as a limitation of the present study and outline recommendations for future research in light of this limitation.
• Incorporate a discussion on socioeconomic factors affecting learners’ access to CAPT tools.
• Provide additional details on statistical analyses and their interpretation in the results section.
• Ideally, to contribute to the translatability of this study to inform teaching practices, revise the discussion to highlight practical implications for instructors designing CAPT courses. What specifically would you recommend that teachers implementing this type of online course do in light of the relevant findings of your study?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ revisions in response to my previous comments. I believe the changes have strengthened the manuscript, and I recognize the effort put into addressing the feedback.

One point I would still like to see explored in more depth is the relationship between the observed gain and learner perception of the given instruction (or the mode of instruction). A more detailed discussion on this connection would add clarity and depth to the findings. However, I leave it to the Associate Editor to determine whether further elaboration on this point is necessary.

Overall, the manuscript has improved, and I commend the authors for their revisions.

Author Response

I appreciate the authors’ revisions in response to my previous comments. I believe the changes have strengthened the manuscript, and I recognize the effort put into addressing the feedback.

One point I would still like to see explored in more depth is the relationship between the observed gain and learner perception of the given instruction (or the mode of instruction). A more detailed discussion on this connection would add clarity and depth to the findings. However, I leave it to the Associate Editor to determine whether further elaboration on this point is necessary.

Overall, the manuscript has improved, and I commend the authors for their revisions.

Our response:

We really appreciate your comment. Per your request, we included this information.