MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408927747 · doi:10.3390/languages10040062

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

2025· article· en· W4408927747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammadreza Dalman

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguages · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationComputer sciencePerceptionLinguisticsMathematics educationPsychologyNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the widespread adoption of online instruction all around the world. In fact, in the post-pandemic era, online teaching and learning are proliferating and are considered as alternatives to traditional learning. The current study investigated L2 learners’ perceptions of an online pronunciation course. Sixty L2 learners, ranging in age from 18 to 60, were recruited from different intensive English programs (IEPs) across the United States and six other countries, including India, Brazil, China, France, Russia, and Canada. The participants received online-based computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT) on Moodle over a period of three weeks and completed an online survey on Qualtrics. The results of the quantitative and qualitative data collected from the learners at the end of the course showed that the learners were highly satisfied with their own performance and that they found the online course highly useful and preferred it over a face-to-face pronunciation course. The findings provide valuable insights into the design and delivery of online courses for pronunciation teachers. The findings also suggest that CAPT can effectively support asynchronous L2 pronunciation teaching.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguagesSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207