English Pronunciation Teaching and Research by Martha C. Pennington & Pamela Rogerson-Revell

Author:Martha C. Pennington & Pamela Rogerson-Revell
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781137476777
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan UK

Pedagogy vs. Technology

On closer examination, many commercially available CAPT materials are technology-driven rather than pedagogy-driven and lack the solid pedagogical grounding and practical guidelines required to sustain effective learning (Pennington, 1999). Levis (2007) claims that despite the fact that technology could fit a critical need in pronunciation teaching, “effective commercial CAPT applications are less innovative either in pedagogy or use of computer technology than one might expect” (p. 185). One of the difficulties is that there is no obvious fit between language learning pedagogies and the affordances of digital technologies. Computers are well suited for practice based on repetition, mimicry, or drilling, as advocated in audiolingual approaches, and for intensive one-on-one speech therapy, but it is less easy to apply these technologies within communicative methodologies. At present, limitations on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and speech recognition and synthesis mean that it is hard for a computer to really communicate or negotiate meaning with a human. Whether such limitations can be overcome eventually or are inherent limits to computer capabilities in respect of human intelligence and language remains to be seen.

A common criticism of CAPT, and CALL more generally, is that although technology has the potential to provide tailored, individualized feedback to learners, most products adopt a “one size fits all” approach (Derwing & Munro, 2015). Given that technology often takes precedence over pedagogy, with the result that many resources often have a limited curriculum focus (typically, on phonemes), a limited range of activity types (e.g., minimal pair discrimination), and limited feedback (e.g., “correct” or “incorrect”). The novelty value of “drag-and-drop” or “odd-one-out” activities soon wears off unless supported by pedagogically sound feedback or support. As Neri, Cucchiarini, Strik, and Boves (2002) point out, “many authors describe commercially available programs as fancy-looking systems that may at first impress student and teacher alike, but eventually fail to meet sound pedagogical requirements” (p. 442). In other words, it is essential that a concern for technological affordances or innovation not be at the expense of sound pedagogic practice (Rogerson-Revell, 2011; Pennington, 1999). Some of Pennington’s (1999) principles for the design of CAPT materials are that CAPT systems should:1.Establish baseline, reference accents for instruction;

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.