Applying intelligent personal assistants to develop fluency and comprehensibility,and reduce accentedness in EFL learners: an empirical study of Google Assistant
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Applying intelligent personal assistants to develop fluency and comprehensibility,and reduce accentedness in EFL learners: an empirical study of Google Assistant
Considering the contribution of intelligent personal assistant (IPA) platforms to English as a foreign language (EFL) speaking courses and the insufficiency of research in this regard, the current study applied a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach to explore the impact of Google Assistant, an IPA platform, on EFL learners’ International English Language Testing System (IELTS) speaking test marks and their fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness. Two intact classes at a language institute were chosen and randomly assigned to an IPA class with 20 EFL learners and a non-IPA class with 23 EFL learners. The IPA learners interactively and individually communicated with Google Assistant by giving commands/requests/questions, and the non-IPA learners communicated the same commands/requests/questions with their peers interactively. The IELTS speaking skill test, the fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness scales, and an individual semi-structured interview were used to collect the necessary quantitative and qualitative data. One-way between groups analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), applied to analyse the quantitative data, revealed that the IPA and non-IPA speaking instruction developed the EFL learners’ IELTS speaking test marks, fluency, and comprehensibility, and reduced their accentedness. The former (i.e. the IPA instruction) outperformed the latter (i.e. the non-IPA instruction) in developing IELTS speaking test marks and comprehensibility, and reducing accentedness. Thematic analysis, applied to analyse the qualitative data, uncovered several themes and categories that indicated the IPA learners’ positive attitudes and perceptions towards the use of Google Assistant for interactive, one-to-one speaking activities. The findings suggested effective techniques for integrating IPAs into EFL speaking courses to enhance IELTS speaking test marks, fluency, and comprehensibility, and reduce accentedness in EFL learners.
AdrianW. (1997). Discussions A–Z intermediate: A resource book of speaking activities. Cambridge University Press.
2.
BlakeR. (2016). Technology and the four skills. Language Learning and Technology, 20, 129–142.
3.
BoskerH.R.PingetA.F.QuenéH.SandersT.de JongN.H. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed, and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159–175.
CaspersJ. (2010). The influence of erroneous stress position and segmental errors on intelligibility, comprehensibility and foreign accent in Dutch as a second language. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 27, 17–29.
6.
ChenH.H.J.YangC.T.Y.LaiK.K.W. (2020). Investigating college EFL learners’ perceptions toward the use of Google Assistant for foreign language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 1335–1350.
7.
ChienS.Y.HwangG.J.JongM.S.Y. (2020). Effects of peer assessment within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-speaking performance and learning perceptions. Computers and Education, 146, Article 103751.
8.
ClarkH.H.Fox TreeJ.E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.
9.
CohenJ. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
CreswellJ.W.Plano ClarkV.L.GutmannM.HansonW. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 209–240). Sage.
12.
de JongN.H.SteinelM.P.FlorijnA.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ.H. (2013). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 893–916.
13.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J. (2009). Comprehensibility as a factor in listener interaction preferences: Implications for the workplace. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 181–202.
14.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42, 276–490.
15.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A 7-year study. Language Learning, 63, 163–185.
16.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins.
17.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J.ThomsonR.I. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380.
18.
DerwingT.M.RossiterM.J.MunroM.J.ThomsonR.I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgment on different tasks. Language Learning, 54, 655–679.
19.
DizonG. (2017). Using intelligent personal assistants for second language learning: A case study of Alexa. TESOL Journal, 8, 811–830.
20.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ.P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex.
21.
EllisR. (2003). Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC Journal, 34, 64–81.
22.
EllisR. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
23.
FleissJ.L.CohenJ. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 613–619.
24.
FraenkelJ.R.WallenN.E.HyunH.H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
25.
GalanteA.ThomsonR.I. (2017). The effectiveness of drama as an instructional approach for the development of second language oral fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 115–142.
26.
GassS.M.MackeyA. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language acquisition. Erlbaum.
27.
GonulalT. (2021). Investigating EFL learners’ humorous interactions with an intelligent personal assistant. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 4521–4534.
28.
HuangH.T.D. (2024). Investigating the effects of reverse dubbing tasks on English speaking proficiency and English learning motivation. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241283153
29.
HwangG.J.RahimiM.FathiJ. (2024). Enhancing EFL learners’ speaking skills, foreign language enjoyment, and language-specific grit utilising the affordances of a MALL app: A microgenetic perspective. Computers and Education, 214, Article 105015.
30.
IioT.MaedaR.OgawaK., et al. (2019). Improvement of Japanese adults’ English speaking skills via experiences speaking to a robot. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35, 228–245.
31.
IsaacsT.TrofimovichP. (2011). Phonological memory, attention control, and musical ability: Effects of individual differences on rater judgments of second language speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 113–140.
32.
JinS. (2024). Speaking proficiency and affective effects in EFL: Vlogging as a social media-integrated activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 586–604.
33.
JohnsonL.BeckerS.A.CumminsM., et al. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition (pp. 1–50). The New Media Consortium.
34.
KennedyS.TrofimovichP. (2008). Intelligibility, comprehensibility and accentedness of L2 speech: The role of listener experience and semantic context. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 459–489.
35.
KennedyS.TrofimovichP. (2019). Comprehensibility: A useful tool to explore listener understanding. Canadian Modern Language Review, 75, 275–284.
36.
KesslerG. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 51, 205–218.
37.
KiC.W.C.ChoE.LeeJ.E. (2020). Can an intelligent personal assistant (IPA) be your friend? Para-friendship development mechanism between IPAs and their users. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, Article 106412.
38.
KormosJ.DénesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164.
39.
LandisJ.R.KochG.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
40.
LantolfJ.P.ThorneS.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
41.
LeemingP.HarrisJ. (2022). Measuring speaking proficiency growth in the language classroom: An investigation of practical approaches for teachers. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221130856
42.
LennonP. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.
43.
LevisJ. (2020). Changes in L2 pronunciation: 25 years of intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6, 277–282.
44.
LongM.H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. University of California, Los Angeles.
McLeanG.Osei-FrimpongK. (2019). Hey Alexa . . . examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 28–37.
MorganaV. (2024). Fostering English speaking and writing subskills for the Cambridge B2 First through technology-mediated tasks. ReCALL, 36, 119–134.
49.
MoussalliS.CardosoW. (2020). Intelligent personal assistants: Can they understand and be understood by accented L2 learners?Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33, 865–890.
50.
MunroM.J.DerwingT.M.MortonS.L. (2006). The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 111–131.
51.
NunnallyJ.C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. In WolmanB.B. (Ed.), Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: A handbook (pp. 97–146). Springer.
52.
PengJ. (2019). The roles of multimodal pedagogic effects and classroom environment in willingness to communicate in English. System, 82, 161–173.
53.
RahimiM.FathiJ. (2024). Employing e-tandem language learning method to enhance speaking skills and willingness to communicate: The case of EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37, 924–960.
54.
RieberR.W.WollockJ. (1997). The crisis in psychology. In RieberR.W.WollockJ. (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology (pp. 233–343). Plenum.
55.
RossiterM.J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 395–412.
56.
SaitoK. (2021). What characterizes comprehensible and nativelike pronunciation among English-as-a-second-language speakers? Meta-analyses of phonological, rater, and instructional factors. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 866–900.
57.
SegalowitzN. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge.
58.
SkehanP. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
59.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
60.
SunZ.LinC.H.YouJ., et al. (2017). Improving the English-speaking skills of young learners through mobile social networking. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 304–324.
61.
SuzukiS.KormosJ.UchiharaT. (2021). The relationship between utterance and perceived fluency: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. The Modern Language Journal, 105, 435–463.
62.
TaiT.Y. (2022). Effects of intelligent personal assistants on EFL learners’ oral proficiency outside the classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37, 1281–1310.
63.
TaiT.Y.ChenH.H.J. (2022). The impact of intelligent personal assistants on adolescent EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37, 433–460.
64.
TaiT.Y.ChenH.H.J. (2022). The impact of intelligent personal assistants on adolescent EFL learners’ speaking proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37, 1224–1251.
65.
TaiT.Y.ChenH.H.J. (2023). The impact of Google Assistant on adolescent EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 1485–1502.
66.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 speaking, 29, 25–56.
67.
TrofimovichP.IsaacsT. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 905–916.
68.
TrofimovichP.IsaacsT.KennedyS.TsunemotoA. (2022). Speech comprehensibility. In DerwingT.MunroM.ThomsonR. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on second language acquisition and speaking (pp. 174–187). Routledge.
69.
UchiharaT.WebbS.SaitoK.TrofimovichP. (2022). The effects of talker variability and frequency of exposure on the acquisition of spoken word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 357–380.
70.
UnderwoodJ. (2017). Exploring AI language assistants with primary EFL students. In BorthwickK.BradleyL.ThouësnyS. (Eds.), Short papers from EUROCALL 2017 (pp. 317–321). Research-Publishing.net.
71.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
72.
VygotskyL.S. (1986). Thought and language. Newly revised and edited by KozulinA.MIT Press.
73.
WangS.SunZ. (2024). Roles of artificial intelligence experience, information redundancy, and familiarity in shaping active learning: Insights from intelligent personal assistants. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12895-6
74.
WinklerR.SöllnerM.LeimeisterJ.M. (2021). Enhancing problem-solving skills with smart personal assistant technology. Computers and Education, 165, Article 104148.
75.
YangH.KimH.LeeJ.H.ShinD. (2022). Implementation of an AI chatbot as an English conversation partner in EFL speaking classes. ReCALL, 34, 327–343.
