MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409526822 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v15n5p390

Mobile-Assisted Shadowing: Transforming Pronunciation for Arab English Learners

2025· article· en· W4409526822 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bilal Zakarneh, Diana Amin Mohammad Mahmoud, Laid Bouakaz, Ramiza Haji Darmi, Nagaletchimee Annamalai

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAjman University
KeywordsPronunciationComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shadowing helps improve various aspects of pronunciation of second language learners. The present action research study investigated the effect of mobile technology-enhanced shadowing on the pronunciation of Arab learners of a second language. Sixteen Arab learners of English used iPods to shadow short dialogues for eight weeks. The study participants were asked to practice at least four times per week for 10 minutes per practice as they recorded the shadowing session. Extemporaneous speaking and shadowing tasks were administered as pre-test, mid-test, and post-test. This was followed by 2 native speakers of English who rated the tests. Speakers rated extemporaneous speaking tasks for fluency, accentedness, and comprehensibility and rated the shadowing task for the ability of learners to imitate a speech model. Based on the study's results, there was a significant improvement in three speaking measures, namely, the ability of learners to imitate a speech model, comprehensibility, and fluency, but not in accentedness. Results indicated that the participants improved significantly on all speaking measures apart from accentedness. These results show that mobile-enhanced shadowing can be engaging and effective in teaching second-language pronunciation and that teachers should incorporate it into second-language classrooms. Given these results, teachers and lecturers should embrace shadowing in second-language classrooms. Further, pedagogical implications are proposed, and study limitations are discussed accordingly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207