## 3 Results
### ASR Performance
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Pre-Test**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Post-Test**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**\(\Delta\) (Post-Test-Pre-Test)**} \\ \cline{2-13} \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Group**}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**gASR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**kASR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**gASR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**kASR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**gASR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**kASR**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{n}\) & \(\overline{\Delta}\) & \(\overline{\Delta}\) \\ \hline Experimental & 3.0 & 560 & 4.1 & 560 & 3.7 & 560 & 5.2 & 560 & 0.7 & 1.1 \\ In-classroom & 3.5 & 448 & 5.2 & 448 & 4.1 & 448 & 6.1 & 448 & 0.6 & 0.9 \\ Placebo & 3.0 & 392 & 3.1 & 392 & 3.2 & 392 & 3.5 & 392 & 0.2 & 0.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Pre/post-test scores assigned by both ASR systems. This learning difference at the end of the experiment was supported by the time spent by the speakers on carrying out the pre-test and post-test. Each participant took an average of 83.77 s to complete the pre-test (63.85 s min. and 129 s max.) and an average of 94.10 s to complete the post-test (52.45 and 138.87 s min. and max.). Finally, we analyzed the correlations between (1) the pre/post-test scores of both ASR systems (three groups) and (2) the Japanol CAPT tool scores with the experimental group's post-test scores of both ASR systems (since the experimental group was the only group with a CAPT score) in order to compare the three sources of objective scoring (Table 7). The columns \(x\), \(y\), \(a\), \(b\), \(S.E.\), and \(r\) of Table 7 refer to the dependent variable, independent variable, slope of the line, intercept of the line, standard error, and Pearson coefficient, respectively. The first row of Table 7 and the left graph of Figure 3 represent the moderate positive Pearson correlation found between the gASR and kASR pre-test scores (\(r\) = 0.51, \(p\) = 0.005), whereas the second row of Table 7 and the right graph of Figure 3 show the moderate positive Pearson correlation found between the gASR and kASR post-test scores (\(r\) = 0.57, \(p\) = 0.002). The third row of Table 7 and the left graph of Figure 4 represent the fairly strong positive Pearson correlation found between the CAPT scores and the post-test scores of gASR (\(r\) = 0.81, \(p\) = 0.002), whereas the final row of Table 7 and the right graph of Figure 4 show the fairly strong positive Pearson correlation found between the CAPT scores and the post-test scores of the kASR system (\(r\) = 0.74, \(p\) = 0.007). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \(x\) & \(y\) & \(a\) & \(b\) & \(S.E.\) & \(r\) & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline pre-kASR & pre-gASR & 0.927 & 1.919 & 0.333 & 0.51 & 0.005 \\ post-kASR & post-gASR & 0.934 & 1.897 & 0.283 & 0.57 & 0.002 \\ post-gASR & CAPT score & 0.575 & \(-\)0.553 & 0.148 & 0.81 & 0.002 \\ post-kASR & CAPT score & 0.982 & \(-\)1.713 & 0.314 & 0.74 & 0.007 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Regression coefficients of the CAPT, gASR, and kASR systems. Figure 3: Correlation between the gASR and kASR scores of the pre-test (**left** graph) and post-test (**right** graph).