Chinese Language Learners’ Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Perceptions of a Pinyin Text-to-Speech System

  • Goh Ying SoonEmail author
  • Saiful Nizam Warris
  • Rasaya Al Marimuthu
Part of the New Language Learning and Teaching Environments book series (NLLTE)


This study considered the intrapersonal and interpersonal perceptions of Chinese language learners’ usage of a pinyin text-to-speech system (developed by the researchers) to support students’ listening and speaking skills. Regarding the intrapersonal attributes, the focus was on the learners’ personal perceptions; concerning the interpersonal attributes, the focus was on their perceptions of using the system for communication. The data generated by the 119 learners from a large university in Malaysia showed that the students had a somewhat negative assessment when considering their intrapersonal perspective but had a fairly positive assessment from an interpersonal perspective. In spite of this mixed assessment, the students generally agreed that the system was able to improve pronunciation as a means to heighten their speaking skills for communication purposes.


  1. Ahmed, W., Van der Werf, G., Minnaert, A., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Students’ daily emotions in the classroom: Intra-individual variability and appraisal correlates. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2010), 583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Jarf, R. (2012). Mobile technology and student autonomy in oral skill acquisition. In E. D.-V. Javier (Ed.), Left to my own devices: Learner autonomy and mobile-assisted language learning (pp. 105–130). Bingley: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R., Thier, M., & Pitts, C. (2017). Interpersonal and intrapersonal skill assessment alternatives: Self-reports, situational-judgment tests, and discrete-choice experiments. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 47–60. ISSN 1041–6080. Retrieved from
  4. Andújar-Vaca, A., & Cruz-Martínez, M. (2017). Mensajeríainstantáneamóvil: Whatsapp y supotencialparadesarrollarlas destrezasorales [Mobile instant messaging: Whats app and its potential to develop oral skills]. Comunicar, XXV(50), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aysmontas, B., & Uddin, M. A. (2016). The modern problem of psychological and pedagogical foundations of Russian E-learning systems: The possible solutions and the future challenges of psychology and pedagogy. In V. Mkrttchian, A. Bershadsky, A. Bozhday, M. Kataev, & S. Kataev (Eds.), Handbook of research on estimation and control techniques in E-learning systems (pp. 197–215). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Scholar
  6. Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2011). Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 419–432. Scholar
  9. Carroll, R., & Ruigendijk, E. (2013). The effects of syntactic complexity on processing sentences in noise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(2), 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., Boyle, E., Baxter, G., & Moreno-Ger, P. (2014). Psychology, pedagogy, and assessment in serious games (pp. 1–522). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Scholar
  11. Conti-Ramsden, G., Durkin, K., & Walker, A. J. (2010). Computer anxiety: A comparison of adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI). Computers & Education, 54(2010), 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105–123.Google Scholar
  13. Essays, U. K. (2013, November). Definition and the five stages of perception psychology essay. Retrieved from
  14. Francis, A. L. (2010). Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geist, E. A. (2012). A qualitative examination of two-year-olds interaction with tablet based interactive technology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(1), 26–35.Google Scholar
  16. Gkonou, C., Tatzl, D., & Mercer, S. (Eds.). (2016). New directions in language learning psychology. New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Heald, S., & Nusbaum, H. (2014). Speech perception as an active cognitive process. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567–1579. Scholar
  19. Humes, L. E. (2013). Understanding the speech-understanding problems of older adults. American Journal of Audiology, 22, 303–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Junior, I. P., & Marques dos Santos, E. (2017). A proposal for UTAUT model extension in the virtual learning environments use as presential learning support context. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 13(3), 33–46. Scholar
  21. Keengwe, J., & Maxfield, M. B. (2015). Advancing higher education with mobile learning technologies: Cases, trends, and inquiry-based methods (pp. 1–364). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Scholar
  22. Lecumberri, M. L. G., Cooke, M., & Cutler, A. (2010). Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions. A review. Speech Communication, 52(11), 864–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, A. M. C., Cerisano, S., Humphreys, K. R., & Watter, S. (2017). Talking is harder than listening: The time course of dual-task costs during naturalistic conversation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologieexpérimentale, 71(2), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macaskill, A., & Denovan, A. (2013). Developing autonomous learning in first year university students using perspectives from positive psychology. Studies in Higher Education, 38(1), 124–142. Scholar
  25. Magen-Nagar, N., & Steinberger, P. (2017). Characteristics of an innovative learning environment according to students’ perceptions. Learning Environ Res, 20, 307. Scholar
  26. Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions. A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 953–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGarrigle, R., Munro, K. J., Dawes, P., Stewart, A. J., Moore, D. R., Barry, J. G., et al. (2014). Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British society of audiology cognition in hearing special interest group ‘white paper’. International Journal of Audiology, 53, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mercer, S., Ryan, S., & Williams, M. (Eds.). (2012). Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Mohammadi, M., Moenikia, M., & Zahed-Babelan, A. (2010). The relationship between motivational systems and second language learning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3258–3262. ISSN 1877–0428. Retrieved from
  30. Ng, E., Karacapilidis, N. I., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2012). Evaluating the impact of technology on learning, teaching, and designing curriculum: Emerging trends. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Scholar
  31. Odogwu, H. N., & Nyala, J. I. (2010). Female students’ competence in the use of ICT and their future career. European Journal of Scientific Research, 43, 554–562.Google Scholar
  32. Rahimi, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2010). Computer-Assisted language learning: Iranian students’ attitudes. Paper presented in the second national Conference on modern instructional methods. SRTTU, Tehran.Google Scholar
  33. Rahimi, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2011). Foreign language learning attitude as a predictor of attitudes towards computer-assisted language learning. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 167–174. ISSN 1877–0509. Retrieved from
  34. Richter, M. (2016). The moderating effect of success importance on the relationship between listening demand and listening effort. Ear and Hearing, 37, 111S–117S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roscoe, R. D., Wilson, J., Johnson, A. C., & Mayra, C. R. (2017). Presentation, expectations, and experience: Sources of student perceptions of automated writing evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 207–221. ISSN 0747–5632. Retrieved from
  36. Schneider, B. A., Avivi-Reich, M., & Daneman, M. (2016). How spoken language comprehension is achieved by older listeners in difficult listening situations. Experimental Aging Research, 42, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: Exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006–1021. United Kingdom: Routledge.
  38. Spencer, K. (2017). The psychology of educational technology and instructional media. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strauss, D. J., & Francis, A. L. (2017). Toward a taxonomic model of attention in effortful listening. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17, 809. Scholar
  40. Tao, L., & Taft, M. (2017). Influences of cognitive processing capacities on speech perception in young adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 266.Google Scholar
  41. Terras, M. M., & Ramsay, J. (2018). A psychological perspective on mobile learning. In Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, D.B.A. Encyclopaedia of information science and technology, 4th (pp. 6398–6411). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Scholar
  42. Van Engen, K. J., & Peelle, J. E. (2014). Listening effort and accented speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 577. Scholar
  43. Wild, C. J., Yusuf, A., Wilson, D. E., Peelle, J. E., Davis, M. H., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2012). Effortful listening: The processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(40), 14010–14021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zosh, J. M., Lytle, S. R., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2017). Putting the education back in educational apps: How content and context interact to promote learning. In R. Barr & D. Linebarger (Eds.), Media exposure during infancy and early childhood (pp. 103–138). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Goh Ying Soon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Saiful Nizam Warris
    • 2
  • Rasaya Al Marimuthu
    • 2
  1. 1.Universiti Teknologi MARATerengganu CampusMalaysia
  2. 2.Universiti Teknologi MARAPenang CampusMalaysia

Personalised recommendations