Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 25, No. 0, pp.1416-1443
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 22 Aug 2025 Revised 16 Oct 2025 Accepted 22 Oct 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202510.1416

The Efficacy of High Variability Phonetic Training for L2 Speech Perception in EFL Contexts: A Meta-Analytic Approach

Seyeon Choe ; Hyoyoung Park ; Hyunkee Ahn
(First author) Ph.D. student, Department of English Language Education Seoul National University 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu Seoul, Korea caomei214@snu.ac.kr
(Co-author) Ph.D. candidate, Department of English Language Education Seoul National University hpark412@snu.ac.kr
(Corresponding author) Professor, Department of English Language Education Seoul National University ahnhk@snu.ac.kr


© 2025 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of High Variability Phonetic Training (HVPT) in improving English L2 speech perception among EFL learners and examines how learner-, training-, and testing-related factors moderate its efficacy. Synthesizing data from 15 studies, the overall immediate effect of HVPT was small to medium (g = 0.62, 95% CI [0.53; 0.71]). HVPT effects diminished over time, with smaller effect sizes at one- to two- month follow-ups, suggesting limited long-term retention. Learner-related moderators revealed stronger effects for adolescents (g = 0.76), and pre-intermediate learners (g = 0.99). Training-related factors associated with greater effectiveness included real-word training stimuli (g = 0.69), exposure to more than ten talkers (g = 0.79), and inclusion of visual support during L2 speech training (g = 0.75). Shorter overall training durations (≤5 weeks; g = 0.73), and training sessions longer than 30 minutes (g = 0.75) were also linked to larger effects. Identification training was generally more effective than discrimination training (g = 0.62 vs. 0.33), yet training that combined both tasks yielded the largest effect (g = 0.96). Testing task type (identification vs. discrimination) showed little impact, but testing stimulus type (word vs. nonword) made a clear difference (g = 0.68 vs. 0.36). Transfer effects were stronger for word-based than nonword-based training, particularly in long-term retention (g = 0.98). Overall, the findings suggest that HVPT can produce meaningful improvements in L2 speech perception among EFL learners, particularly under specific learner and training conditions.

Keywords:

EFL, high variability phonetic training, HVPT, meta-analysis, L2 speech perception training

References

  • Aliaga-García, C. 2017. The Effect of Auditory and Articulatory Phonetic Training on the Perception and Production of L2 Vowels by Catalan-Spanish Learners of English. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona.
  • Barriuso, T. A. and R. Hayes-Harb. 2018. High variability phonetic training as a bridge from research to practice. The CATESOL Journal 30(1), 177-194 [https://doi.org/10.5070/B5.35970]
  • Beheshti, A., M. L. Chavanon and H. Christiansen. 2020. Emotion dysregulation in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 20, 1-11. [Online platform]. Available online at https://www.meta-mar.com [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2442-7]
  • Borenstein, M., L. V. Hedges, J. P. T. Higgins and H. R. Rothstein. 2009. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, Wiley. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386]
  • Brekelmans, G., B. G. Evans and E. Wonnacott. 2024. Training child learners on nonnative vowel contrasts with phonetic training: the role of task and variability. Language Learning. 1-36. [https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12677]
  • Brown, H. D. 2000. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd ed.). Longman.
  • Cebrian, J., N. Gavaldà, C. Gorba and A. Carlet. 2024. Differential effects of identification and discrimination training tasks on L2 vowel identification and discrimination. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 46(4), 1069-1093. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263124000408]
  • Choe, S., K. Lee and Y. So. 2020. The effects of phonemic awareness instructions on L2 listening comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Asia TEFL 17(4), 1294-1309. [https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.4.9.1294]
  • Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Derwing, T. M. and M. J. Munro. 2015. Pronunciation Fundamentals: Evidence-Based Perspectives for L2 Teaching and Research. John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.42]
  • Derwing, T. M., M. J. Munro and R.I. Thomson. 2008. A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics 29(3), 359-380. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm041]
  • Escudero, P. 2005. Linguistic Perception and Second Language Acquisition: Explaining the Attainment of Optimal Phonological Categorization. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
  • Escudero, P. 2007. Second-language phonology: The role of perception. In M. Pennington., ed., Phonology in Context, 109-134. Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625396_5]
  • Fekete, J. T. and B. Gyorffy. 2025. MetaAnalysisOnline.com: An online tool for the rapid meta-analysis of clinical and epidemiological studies. [Online platform]. Available online at https://metaanalysisonline.com/ [https://doi.org/10.2196/64016]
  • Flege, J. E. 1995a. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research 92(1), 233-277.
  • Flege, J. E. 1995b. Two procedures for training a novel second language phonetic contrast. Applied Psycholinguistics 16, 425-442. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400066029]
  • Flege, J. E. and O. S. Bohn. 2021. The revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r): Learning L2 sounds in a new language. In R. Wayland., ed., Second Language Speech Learning: Theoretical and Empirical Progress, 84-118. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108886901.003]
  • Foote, J. A., P. Trofimovich, L. Collins and F. S. Urzúa. 2016. Pronunciation teaching practices in communicative second language classes. The Language Learning Journal 44(2), 181-196. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.784345]
  • Georgiou, G. P. 2022. The impact of auditory perceptual training on the perception and production of English vowels by Cypriot Greek children and adults. Language Learning and Development 18(4), 379-392. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1977644]
  • Giannakopoulou, A., H. Brown, M. Clayards and E. Wonnacott. 2017. High or low? comparing high and low-variability phonetic training in adult and child second language learners. PeerJ 5. 1-35. [https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3209]
  • Goto, H. 1971. Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “L” and “R”. Neuropsychologia 9, 317-323. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90027-3]
  • Haddaway, N. R., M. J. Page, C. C. Pritchard and L. A. McGuinness. 2022. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews 18, e1230. [https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230]
  • Harrer, M., P. Cuijpers, T. A. Furukawa and D. D. Ebert. 2021. Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press. [https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003107347]
  • Hardison, D. M. 2003. Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context, and talker variability. Applied Psycholinguistics 24(4), 495-522. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000250]
  • Hardison, D. M. 2005. Second-language spoken word identification: Effects of perceptual training, visual cues, and phonetic environment. Applied Psycholinguistics 26(4), 579-596. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716405050319]
  • Hardison, D. M. and M. C. Pennington. 2021. Multimodal second-language communication: Research findings and pedagogical implications. RELC Journal 52(1), 62-76. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966635]
  • Harzing, A. W. 2007. Publish or perish. [Computer software]. Available online at https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
  • Hedges, L. V. and I. Olkin. 1985. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press.
  • Houde, J. F. and M. I. Jordan. 1998. Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science 279(5354), 1213-1216. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5354.1213]
  • Houde, J. F. and M. I. Jordan. 2002. Sensorimotor adaptation of speech I: Compensation and adaptation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45, 295-310. [https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/023)]
  • Iverson, P., M. Pinet and B. G. Evans. 2012. Auditory training for experienced and inexperienced second-language learners: Native French speakers learning English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics 33, 145-160. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000300]
  • Jackson, D., M. Law, G. Rücker and G. Schwarzer. 2017. The Hartung‐Knapp modification for random‐effects meta‐analysis: A useful refinement but are there any residual concerns?. Statistics in Medicine 36(25), 3923-3934. [https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7411]
  • Kingston, J. 2007. The phonetics-phonology interface. In P. de Lacy, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 401-434. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486371.018]
  • Lacabex, E. G. and F. Gallardo del Puerto. 2014. Two phonetic-training procedures for young learners: Investigating instructional effects on perceptual awareness. The Canadian Modern Language Review 70(4), 500-531. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2324]
  • Lee, H. Y. and H. Hwang. 2016. Gradient of learnability in teaching English pronunciation to Korean learners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(4), 1859-1872. [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4945716]
  • Lee, J., J. Jang and L. Plonsky. 2015. The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics 36(3), 345-366. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu040]
  • Levelt, W. J., A. Roelofs and A. S. Meyer. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1), 1-38. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776]
  • Levis, J. M. 2005. Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly 39(3), 369-377. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485]
  • Levis, J. M. 2016. Research into practice: How research appears in pronunciation teaching materials. Language Teaching 49(3), 423-437. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000045]
  • Levis, J. M. 2020. Revisiting the intelligibility and nativeness principles. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 6(3), 310-328. [https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20050.lev]
  • Logan, J. S., S. E. Lively and D. B. Pisoni. 1991. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89(2), 874-886. [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1894649]
  • Mahdi, H. S. and M. A. Mohsen. 2024. Enhancing Pronunciation Learning through High Variability Phonetic Training: A Meta-Analysis. Language Teaching Research Quarterly 40, 29-45. [https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.40.02]
  • Mora, J. C. 2005. Lexical knowledge effects on the discrimination of non-native phonemic contrasts in words and nonwords by Catalan/Spanish bilingual learners of English. In Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Plasticity in Speech Perception, 43-46.
  • Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 1995. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 45(1), 73-97. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x]
  • Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2015. A prospectus for pronunciation research in the 21st century: A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 1(1), 11-42. [https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.1.1.01mun]
  • Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2020. Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility, redux. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 6(3), 283-309. [https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20038.mun]
  • Nayar, P. B. 1997. ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly 31(1), 9-37. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3587973]
  • Ortega, M., J. C. Mora and I. Mora-Plaza. 2021. Differential effects of lexical and non-lexical high-variability phonetic training on the production of L2 vowels. In A. Kirkova-Naskova, A. Henderson, and J. Fouz-González, eds., English Pronunciation Instruction: Research-based Insights, 327-356. John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.19.14ort]
  • Page, M. J., J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, R. Chou, J. Glanville, J. M. Grimshaw, A. Hróbjartsson, M. M. Lalu, T. Li, E. W. Loder, E. Mayo-Wilson, S. McDonald, ... and D. Moher. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372(71), 1-9. [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71]
  • Pennington, M. C. 2021. Teaching pronunciation: The state of the art 2021. RELC Journal 52(1), 3-21. [https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211002283]
  • Plonsky, L. and F. L. Oswald. 2014. How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64(4), 878-912. [https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079]
  • R Core Team 2024. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Computer software]. Available online at https://www.R-project.org/
  • Rato, A. 2013. Cross-Language Perception and Production of English Vowels by Portuguese Learners: The Effects of Perceptual Training. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade do Minho.
  • Rato, A. and A. Carlet. 2020. Second language perception of English vowels by Portuguese learners: The effect of stimulus type. Ilha do Desterro, 73, 205-226. [https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2020v73n3p205]
  • Saito, H. and M. E. Ebsworth. 2004. Seeing English language teaching and learning through the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign Language Annals 37(1), 111-124. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02178.x]
  • Sánchez-Meca, J. and F. Marín-Martínez. 2008. Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis. Psychological Methods 13(1), 31-48. [https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.31]
  • Schwarzer, G., J. R. Carpenter, G. Rücker and M. Schumacher. 2024. meta: General package for meta-analysis (Version 6.5-0). [R package]. Available online at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/meta/meta.pdf
  • Sebastián-Gallés, N. and C. Baus. 2005. On the relationship between perception and production in L2 categories. In A. Cutler, ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, 266-277. Taylor and Francis Group. ProQuest Ebook Central.
  • Shinohara, Y. and P. Iverson. 2018. High variability identification and discrimination training for Japanese speakers learning English/r/-/l/. Journal of Phonetics 66, 242-251. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.11.002]
  • Shinohara, Y. and P. Iverson. 2021. The effect of age on English /r/-/l/ perceptual training outcomes for Japanese speakers. Journal of Phonetics 89, 1-24. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101108]
  • Shum, K. K. M., T. K. F. Au, L. F. Romo and S.-A. Jun. 2021. Learning challenging L2 sounds via computer training: High-variability perceptual training for children and adults. Language Learning and Development 17(3), 327-342. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1876699]
  • Tanner, M. and L. Henrichsen. 2022. Pronunciation in varied teaching and learning contexts. In J. M. Levis, T. M. Derwing, and S. Sonsaat-Hegelheimer, eds., Second Language Pronunciation: Bridging the Gap between Research and Teaching, 215-234. Wiley-Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394259663.ch11]
  • Thomson, R. I. 2018. High variability [pronunciation] training (HVPT) A proven technique about which every language teacher and learner ought to know. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 4(2), 208-231. [https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.17038.tho]
  • Thomson, R. I. 2022a. Perception in pronunciation teaching. In J. M. Levis, T. M. Derwing, and S. Sonsaat-Hegelheimer, eds., Second Language Pronunciation: Bridging the Gap between Research and Teaching, 42-60. Wiley-Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394259663.ch3]
  • Thomson, R. I. 2022b. The relationship between L2 speech perception and production. In T. M. Derwing, M. J. Munro, and R. I. Thomson, eds., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Speaking, 554-573. Routledge. ProQuest Ebook Central. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022497-32]
  • Thomson, R. I. and T. M. Derwing. 2015. The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics 36(3), 326-344. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu076]
  • Thomson, R. I. and T. M. Derwing. 2016. Is phonemic training using nonsense or real words more effective? In Proceedings of the 7th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, 88-97.
  • Tsukada, K., D. Birdsong, E. Bialystok, M. Mack, H. Sung and J. E. Flege. 2005. A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics 33(3), 263-290. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.10.002]
  • Uchihara, T., M. Karas and R. I. Thomson. 2024. Does perceptual high variability phonetic training improve L2 speech production? A meta-analysis of perception-production connection. Applied Psycholinguistics 45(4), 591-623. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716424000195]
  • Uchihara, T., M. Karas and R. I. Thomson. 2025. High variability phonetic training (HVPT): A meta-analysis of L2 perceptual training studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1-34. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263125100879]
  • Viechtbauer, W. 2005. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 30(3), 261-293. [https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261]
  • Wayland, R. P. 2007. The relationship between identification and discrimination in cross-language perception: The case of Korean and Thai. In O.-S. Bohn and M. J. Munro, eds., Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In Honor of James E. Flege, 201-218. John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.17.19way]
  • Wong, W. S. 2014. The effects of high and low variability phonetic training on the perception and production of English vowels /e/-/æ/ by Cantonese ESL learners with high and low L2 proficiency levels, Interspeech, 524-528. [https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2014-129]
  • World Health Organization. (n.d.). Adolescent health. WHO. Retrieved June 21, 2025, Available online at https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health
  • Zhang, X., B. Cheng and Y. Zhang. 2021. The role of talker variability in nonnative phonetic learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 64(12), 4802-4825. [https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00181]