MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond the walls of classrooms: Exploring the pedagogical effectiveness of Text-To-Speech-based Shadowing (TTS-S) on the development of Mandarin tones

2023· article· en· W4391831852 on OpenAlexafffund
S.J. de E. Richer, Walcir Cardoso

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMandarin ChinesePronunciationTask (project management)PerceptionSpeech productionPsychologyProduction (economics)MetacognitionComputer scienceSpeech recognitionLinguisticsCognitionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the pedagogical effectiveness of using Text-To-Speech synthesis (TTS) combined with Shadowing (TTS-S) for self-regulated learning of Mandarin tones 1 and 4. The aim is to determine the probability of success of this innovative approach that uses TTS to generate audio for shadowing practice. The research was guided by the following research question: can TTS-S help L2 learners raise their awareness and improve their perception and production of the target Mandarin tones over a period of six weeks? Over six week, ten participants engaged in self-regulated activities using TTS-S to learn the two pronunciation targets. By means of pre-/post-tests (to assess effectiveness in pronunciation) participants were asked to complete: (1) an awareness task in which they verbalized their metacognitive knowledge of Mandarin tones; (2) ABX tasks to assess their perception of Mandarin tones; and (3) a production task to evaluate their production of the target tones. Our findings are inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of TTS-S for improving awareness, perception, and production of Mandarin tones 1 and 4 among L2 learners. They also indicate that while certain aspects of phonological development, specifically production, showed some improvements, the overall impact was not statistically significant.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207