Some ESL learners felt their English was not high enough to use ASR because their speech was not always intelligible to it, although overall perceived usefulness was positive¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer1·q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Some participants (no count given) reported that their utterances were not always intelligible to the ASR technology, leading them to feel their current level of English was not high enough to use it. → Johnson 2021
Evidence¶
Johnson 2021¶
Johnson, C., & Cardoso, W. (2021). Speaking to write: examining language learners’ acceptance of automatic speech recognition as a writing tool. In N. Zoghlami et al. (Eds), CALL and professionalisation: short papers from EUROCALL 2021 (pp. 167-171). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2021.54.1327
q2 · i? · qualitative · r1
From the interview analysis in the Results and discussion section: some participants perceived a proficiency-related intelligibility barrier, while others reported that practice helped them overcome it. No counts are printed, and the study does not link this barrier to lower perceived usefulness: the survey's perceived-usefulness mean was above the neutral point (4.71 of 7).
"However, some participants felt their current level of English was not high enough to use ASR, since their utterances were not always intelligible to the technology. Others, however, found practice helped them overcome this issue."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Educators report ASR features can be inaccurate for learners' diverse accents, dialects, and speech patterns — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Through Chapelle's CALL evaluation criteria, participants experienced ASR writing as useful, authentic, meaning-focused, and matched to their proficiency level — reports the opposite
- Adult ESL learners report above-neutral perceptions of ASR as a writing tool on usefulness, ease of use, and intention to use — related
- Interviews reveal ESL learners valued ASR for bypassing orthography and grammar concerns, pronunciation practice, self-efficacy, and user-friendly voice commands — related
- Low- and intermediate-proficiency students report higher perceived usefulness, ease of use, and satisfaction for AI-assisted English tools than high-proficiency students — related
- Pre-deep-learning speech recognition was markedly less accurate on non-native speech, undermining automated oral feedback for learners, as the article reports citing prior studies — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
low-proficiency-intelligibility-barrier-asr |
title |
Some ESL learners felt their English was not high enough to use ASR because their speech was not always intelligible to it, although overall perceived usefulness was positive |
description |
Some ESL learners felt their English was not high enough to use ASR because their speech was not always intelligible to it, although overall perceived usefulness was positive |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — johnson-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.