The Effects of Explicit Instruction in Elementary-To-Intermediate EFL Students' Intelligibility

8/13/2019 The Effects of Explicit Instruction in Elementary-To-Intermediate EFL Students' Intelligibility

1/74


2/74

FAcknowledgments

Maximiliano Ayala

irst of all, I would really liketo thank my parents,Semiramis and Fernando,

the most important people in my life.Without them, I would not have been ableto complete all my personal projects. Theyworked hard to provide me all the tools to

succeed in life, and it is because of themthat I am now able to be who I am now.

I would also like to thank my partner and my friends. They have madethis process an enjoyable journey. To all ofthem, thank you for being there when Ineeded you.

Finally, I want to thank Mr. Vera, because he was always there when I neededhis opinion and he always gave me hissupport.

.


3/74

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................ iResumen ............................................ iiIntroduction ............................................ iii1 Chapter I Background of the study ............................................ 11.1 Statement of the Problem ............................................ 21.2 Statement of Purpose ............................................ 3

1.3 General and Specific Objectives ............................................ 41.4 Researching Questions1.5 Hypotheses

............................................

............................................55

2 Chapter II Theoretical Framework ............................................ 62.1 Defining Intelligibility ............................................ 72.2 The Teaching of Pronunciation ............................................ 112.2.1 The Problem with thePronunciation Component ............................................ 112.2.2 The Controversy between Explicitand Implicit Instruction ............................................ 13


4/74

2.2.3 Explicit Instruction and

Metaphonological Awareness ............................................ 172.3 Advantages and Disadvantages ofUsing Reading Aloud in the EFL Class............................................ 20

2.3.1 Advantages of Using ReadingAloud ............................................ 202.3.2 Disadvantages of Using Reading

Aloud ............................................232.4 What Model of English Should BeTaught? ............................................25

3 Chapter III Operational

Framework ............................................ 283.1Methodology ............................................ 29

3.1.1 Design ............................................ 293.1.2 The Participants ............................................ 30

3.1.3 Demographic Information aboutthe Participants ............................................ 30


5/74

3.1.4 Data Collection Procedure ............................................ 31

3.1.5 Instrumentation3.1.6 Description of the PedagogicalIntervention

............................................

............................................

3236

3.1.7 Data Analysis Procedure ............................................ 39

3.1.8 Results of theParticipantsPerformance

............................................ 40

3.3 General Conclusions ............................................ 51

3.4 Limitations of the Study ............................................ 53

3.5 Pedagogical Implications ............................................ 54

References ............................................ 56

Appendix ............................................ 59


6/74

List of Images

Students general results in the

Consonants criterion shown in a

column graph .......................................... 41

Students general results in the Vowels

criterion shown in a column graph .......................................... 42

Students general results in the Syllables

and Grammatical Endings criterion

shown in a column graph .......................................... 43

Students general results in the Word

Stress criterion sh own in a column

graph .......................................... 44

Students general results in the Rhythm

and Intonation criterion shown in a

column graph .......................................... 45

Students general results in the FocusandSpecial Emphasis criterion shown in

a column graph ..........................................46


7/74


Intonation/Pitch criterion shown in a

column graph .......................................... 47

Students general results in the Thought

Groups and Linking criterion shown in a

column graph .......................................... 48


Delivery criterion shown in a column

graph .......................................... 49


8/74


9/74

i

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to conduct an eight-session pedagogicaintervention in order to see if explicit pronunciation instruction increases the levof intelligibility in 20 Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students from Universidade Playa Ancha, Valparaso.

Before the intervention was conducted, students from this facility were firsrecorded reading aloud an unprepared text to measure their level of intelligibilit

Once students were recorded, eight sessions on explicit pronunciation werconducted. Aspects such as segmental (consonants, vowels, and diphthongs) ansuprasegmental features (stress, rhythm, intonation, etc.) features were taughduring the interventions.

After students were taught explicitly, they were recorded again. Students hato prepare a text and apply their knowledge on phonemic features. The recording

were analyzed and compared with the first ones to determine if their level ointelligibility increased.


10/74

ii

Resumen

El objetivo de esta investigacin es conducir una intervencin pedaggica docho sesiones para determinar si la instruccin explcita de pronunciaciincrementa el nivel de inteligibilidad en 20 estudiantes de Pedagoga en Ingls dla Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaso.

Antes de que se llevara a cabo la intervencin, los estudiantes fueron primeramente grabados leyendo un texto sin preparacin previa para medir su niv

de inteligibilidad. Una vez que los estudiantes fueron grabados, se aplicaron ochsesiones de pronunciacin explcita. Aspectos tales como rasgos segmentale(consonantes, vocales y diptongos) y suprasegmentales (acento, ritmo, entonacietc.) fueron enseadas durante las intervenciones.

Despus que los estudiantes fueron instruidos explcitamente, fueronnuevamente grabados. Los estudiantes tuvieron que preparar un texto y aplicar su

conocimientos en rasgos de pronunciacin. Las grabaciones fueron analizadas comparadas con las primeras para as determinar si su nivel de inteligibilidaincrement.


11/74

iii

Introduction

The use of explicit instruction in the English classroom is a widely knowntechnique by teachers at the moment of teaching a foreign language. Howeveaccording to Derwing and Munro (2005), studies related to explicit instructiohave been given more importance to grammar than the pronunciation component

Even though it has been used for many teaching purposes, not many teachertend to use it when teaching pronunciation. In fact, they neglect the pronunciatio

component in the English classroom.There is also little research on how explicit instruction can be used when

teaching phonetic features and teachers of English lack the necessary knowledge do so (Derwing & Munro, 2005; Kelly, 2001).

The present study attempts to use this technique in the English classroom iorder to determine if explicit instruction increases the level of intelligibility olanguage learners by using a reading aloud task as a way to measure it. Th participants are students from Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaso.

The results obtained will be used to discuss the possible benefits of expliciinstruction in the teaching of pronunciation and to provide the necessaryknowledge for language teachers.


12/74

1

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY


13/74

2

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Various studies (Derwing & Munro, 2003; Centeno, 2001; Saito, 2011Ventakagiri and Levis, 2007) show that explicit pronunciation instruction can hellanguage learners to increase their levels of language learning and intelligibili(the way the speaker is understood by a listener). Pronunciation teaching has beetaught by the name of Phonetics, the study of the sounds of a language.

However, from now it will be referred as pronunciation or pronunciationfeatures so the readers can get acquainted with the topic of this paper by usingsimpler and more common terminology.

Explicit instruction has been considered an important factor for teaching foreign language. However, not many teachers seem to pay attention to pronunciation features. According to Derwing et al(2005), much less research has

been carried out on L2 pronunciation than no other skills such as grammar anvocabulary. (p. 380). Furthermore, it has little relevance among teachers ofEnglish as a foreign language (TEFL), being grammar the feature that takes moimportance. Following this line, Gimson (2008) points out the following:

Because of the pride of place given to grammar together

with the increasingly wider use of English as an internationallanguage there has been a tendency to place lesser and lesserimportance on the teaching of pronunciation. There has been a sortof implicit assumption that the standard will be set by the teacher


14/74

3

doing the teaching (combined with what the learner picks up fromwatching English or American TV and film) and that learners willsimply pick up their pronunciation, often with no explicit teaching

of it all. (p. 315)

In sum, we state this problem as:

There is an absence of pronunciation research and explicit pronunciatioinstruction in the language class.

1.2 Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study is to do an eight session pedagogical interventiothat serves as a guide for teaching pronunciation. Additionally, this study seeks t provide the necessary knowledge for future studies related to explici pronunciation instruction.

The participants of this study are all Chileans and are enrolled in a teachintraining program in Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaso. They receive a gre

amount of input since they attend regular classes in this facility.As for the methodology, students will be recorded in order to measure thei

initial levels of intelligibility by performing a reading aloud task.


15/74

4

Then, students will be exposed to eight sessions on phonemic instruction iwhich they will learn segmental and suprasegmental features explicitly.

In the final session, students will be recorded again reading a different texthey had to prepare. The recordings will be analyzed by a board of judges who wdetermine if explicit instruction is beneficial for language learners when learning produce the sounds of English by rating their speech. It is expected that learneincrease their final levels of intelligibility when using reading aloud as a measurintechnique.

1.3 General and Specific Objectives

General Objectives

1. To determine if the explicit pronunciation instruction using the readinaloud task increases the level of intelligibility in Elementary-to-Intermediate EFstudents.

Specific Objectives

1. To conduct eight explicit pronunciation instruction sessions.

2. To compare students initial levels of intelligibility with the final ones.


16/74

5

3. To apply tests to measure the levels of intelligibility.

1.4 Researching Question

1. Does an eight session pedagogical intervention on explicit pronunciatioteaching increase the level of intelligibility in Elementary-to-Intermediate EFstudents?

2. Is reading aloud a useful technique for measuring Elementary-to-IntermediaEFL students intelligibility?

1.5 Hypotheses

1. An eight session pedagogical intervention on explicit pronunciation teachinusing the reading aloud task increases the level of intelligibility in Elementary-tIntermediate EFL students.

2. Reading aloud is a useful technique for measuring Elementary-to-IntermediaEFL students intelligibility.


17/74

6

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK


18/74

7

2.1 Defining Intelligibility

When a person, for example, a business man, an exchange student, ora student of English as a foreign language (EFL) in a particular setting islearning English, he or she may aim to be either accurate or fluent orallyspeaking. He or she may think they need to acquire a native-like pronunciation in order to be understood by a native speaker (NS). But, is itreally necessary to completely avoid mistakes? Is it really necessary tosound like an NS? According to Abercrombie (1949, p. 120), languagelearners need no more than a comfortable intelligible pronunciation (as

cited in Derwing & Munro, 2005; 384). In other words, the author stateslearners should only aim to be intelligible, but, what is meant byintelligibility? When is a speaker considered to be intelligible? Kenworthy(1987) provides a simple, yet complete, definition:

The more words a listener is able to identify accuratelywhen said by a particular speaker, the more intelligible that speakeris [] if the foreign speaker substitutes a sound in a particularword, but that word is nonetheless understood, then we say thespeech is intelligible. (p.13)

Thus, according to Kenworthy, a speaker is intelligible when he or she iunderstood by a listener, even if their speech is accompanied by an accent. Som


19/74

8

other authors, such as Munro and Derwing (1995), focused on three aspects oforeign-accented speech:

(a) the extent to which the speakers intended utterance is actually understood by a

listener (intelligibility),

(b) the listeners perception of the degree of difficulty encountered when trying to

understand an utterance (comprehensibility), and

(c) how much an L2 accent differs from the variety of English commonly spokein the community (accentedness) (as mentioned in Derwing et al 2005;385).

These two authors also explain these three dimensions are partiallyindependent. For example, listeners who find specific second language (L2

utterances to be both unintelligible and incomprehensible always perceive sucsamples as heavily accented, the reverse is not necessarily true. In other wordaccented pronunciation does not impede communication because context helps thlistener to get thespeakers message across ( Derwin, 2005, p. 386). It is because ofthis correlation that this study will focus only on intelligibility and will leave thother two other components out.

Another definition on intelligibility is offered by Smith and Nelson (1985)They give a definition of intelligibility asthe listeners ability to recognize wordsor utterances, but they use the term comprehensibility to the ability to understan


20/74


21/74

10

learners who strive for nativeness are likely to become disheartened. Though alearners should be encouraged to reach their full potential, which may well exceethe minimum required for basic intelligibility, it may do more harm than good fo

teachers to lead learners to believe that they will eventually achieve nativ pronunciation or to encourage them to expend time and energy working towardgoal that they are unlikely to achieve (p. 384).

In summary, nonnative speakers (NNSs) should be made aware by teacherabout the fact that it will be difficult for them to attain a native-like pronunciatioFurthermore, when learning a foreign language, NNSs have to keep in mind thaeven though native-like pronunciation is not an impossible aim, it is better to attato realistic goals such as simply having an intelligible pronunciation and that theaccent is part of their identity, which can represent identification with a particulgroup (Celce-Murcia et al, 2010, p. 275).


22/74

11

2.2 The Teaching of Pronunciation

2.2.1 The Problem with the Pronunciation Component

As it was expressed in the statement of the problem of the present study, th problem with the pronunciation component has to do with the place it has in thclassroom. Through the years, less and less importance has been given to thteaching of pronunciation. However, why is this situation? According to Kell(2001), the problem lies in the following:

The fact that pronunciation tends to suffer from neglect may

not be due to teachers lacking interest in the subject but rather to afeeling of doubt as to how to teach it. Many experienced teachers

would admit to a lack of knowledge of the theory of pronunciationand they may therefore feel the need to improve their practicalskills in pronunciation teaching. In spite of the fact that trainees andless experienced teachers may be very interested in pronunciation,their concern with grammar and vocabulary tends to take precedence. Language learners, on the other hand, often showconsiderable enthusiasm for pronunciation. They feel it issomething that would help them to communicate better. So, paradoxically, even though both teachers and learners are keen onthe subject, it is often neglected (p. 13)


23/74

12

Thus, the relative importance the pronunciation component has inthe classroom has also to do with the lack of knowledge on the subject.Many language teachers treat the teaching of pronunciation as a reactive

component of the teaching of a foreign language (that is, a focus on pronunciation is given when a problem arises) rather than a planned one.In this regard, Kelly (2001) states reactive teaching will always benecessary since the language teacher never knows when a problem relatedto the production of sounds will arise, but pronunciation should be part ofthe lesson plan a teacher makes when organizing his or her lessons.Generally speaking, the author says grammar is given more importance atthe moment of planning the lesson than pronunciation and that it should be at least part of an integrated teaching approach.

It is because of this situation that this study aims to either producethe necessary knowledge regarding to the teaching of pronunciation

features or apply the theory to a practical situation such as teaching it inan explicit way. Even though the author suggests it to be integrated in thelanguage lesson, it was decided to be taught as a practice component inwhich pronunciation is given the main focus and particular features are paid attention to.


24/74

13

2.2.2 The Controversy between Explicit and Implicit Instruction

The controversy related to explicit and implicit instruction has been a topidealt by many authors in the area of second language acquisition (SLA). Accordinto Fischer (1979), implicit instruction can be defined as the approach in whicstudents discover the grammatical point for themselves instead of the teache providing it.

On the other hand, Winitz (1996) defines explicit instruction asa languagelearning process in which the rules of the grammar of the L2 are learned as formstatements [and in which] lexical understanding, in the beginning stages oinstruction, is provided through the translation of words and phrases from the firlanguage ( as cited in Lally, 1998; p. 154).

Another definition is provided by Fischer (1979), who says that a deductiv(explicit) approach is characterized by the teacher giving a grammaticaexplanation which precedes the examples of the grammar point being treated in thclassroom.

As Lally (1998) exposes, between the 60s and the 70s, researchers tended

to compare the effectiveness of explicit versus implicit by dividing students inttwo groups. One was taught explicitly and the other one was taught implicitlyAmong these authors we can find Green and Karlheinz (1992), who examined th


25/74


26/74

15

contained the structures to be learned and the latter by presenting a storycontaining many examples of the already mentioned structures. Both groups took pre and a posttest. In the end, results showed that explicit instruction was bett

than implicit. However, Scotts research was critiqued since the session s werehighly similar to the posttest taken by students and that, as a result, expliciinstruction could not be expanded to other areas such as speaking freely olistening comprehension (as mentioned in Lally, 1998; p. 56).

Seliger (1975) demonstrated under laboratory conditions that expliciinstruction (or deductive, as he calls it in his study) was superior over induction

(implicit instruction) in terms of long-term retention among university-age studen(as mentioned in Fischer, 1979; p. 99).

Other authors, such as Ausubel and Carroll, maintained that since adults are

endowed with a cognitive network enabling them to understand abstract conceptteachers should capitalize on this asset and speed up the language acquisitio process by giving thelearner explicit rules in a deductive learning framework (asmentioned in Shaffer, 1989; p. 395).

Finally, a study carried out by Shaffer (1989) aimed to determine the relativeffectiveness of an inductive presentation versus a deductive one. As in the studimentioned above, one group received implicit instruction and the other onreceived explicit instruction. Results showed that no significant differences werfound between the results.


27/74

16

As it can be noticed, the evidenced work shows there is a division amonauthors when trying to state an approach is better than the other one. However, Lally (1998) expresses, there is no overwhelming evidence on which approach better. When a study supports implicit instruction, another one appears supportinexplicit instruction.


28/74


29/74

18

speech intelligibility (Ventakagiri & Levis 2007, as menti oned in Saito, 2011;46).

However, what is meant by phonological awareness? According to Yoppand Yopp (2000), it can be described as the awareness the learner has in the sensof recognizing the small units of sounds of an L2 and contrasting themFurthermore, phonemic awareness is part of a larger concept; phonologicaawareness. As the authors state, phonemic awareness is a type of phonologicawareness. In order to differentiate them, the former refers to a control by thlearner over the sounds of the language to be learned, and the latter is related tosensitivity to any size unit of sound. In other words, phonological awareness can brepresented when a student identifies, discriminates, and produces the sounds of aL2.

In addition, phonological awareness can be developed through explici pronunciation instruction. As mentioned in Celce-Murcia et al (2010), Venkatagiand Levis (2007) carried out a study in which they gave students 14 tasks tcomplete in order to measure their knowledge of the sound system of the Englislanguage. The results were positive since learners showed a high level ocomprehensibility of speech after being exposed to explicit instruction.

A study by Centeno (2001) shows that explicit pronunciation instruction i beneficial for language learners when producing the sounds of the Englislanguage. In sum, the 60% of the participants of this study got better results in th


30/74


31/74


32/74

21

2. Development of smooth oral reading.

3. Stimulation of the rapid association of sound and of word meaning anddemonstration of the correct pronunciation of new words in context.

4. Understanding of the mechanics of the English language (syntax and punctuation). Students can learn how to utter a statement, a question or aexclamation accurately.

5. There are situations in which a person will have to read aloud like speechereading a piece of newspaper aloud to other person, reading circulars oinstructions.

In this same line, Gibson (2008) suggests a variety of advantages adapte

from many authors for improving pronunciation using RA:

1. Making accurate connections between graphemes and phonemes is vital ireading in order to speed word recognition and to help pronounce studentnew words (Stanovich 1991, as cited in Gibson, 2008; 30).

2. Birch recommends reading aloud as practice so that the students have amuch feedback as possible on their decoding skills. Students should readaloud prepared texts at the appropriate level to the teacher and to supportivgroups or other individuals (as cited in Gibson, 2008; 30).


33/74

22

3. RA can also help to develop reading fluency.

4. By reading aloud longer stretches of texts, prosodic (rhythm, stressintonation, pitch, etc.) features (which occur in spontaneous speech as weas RA) can be focused upon, with the aim of raising awareness of these an practicing them so that the words flow in as natural-sounding a manner a possible.

In addition, Kelly (2001) defends RA by saying it offers opportunities fo practice. When students read a text aloud, they are actually applying theknowledge on segmental and suprasegmental features such as the links of spellinand pronunciation, of stress and intonation, and of the linking of sounds betweewords in connected speech. However, he highlights that teachers should determinthe appropriacy of a text when used for pronunciation purposes.

In sum, RA can be a good indicator on the assessment of pronunciationfeatures. If students have the text, it is easier for them to be assessed because all them are reading the same passages without having to think about a specific topiOn the other hand, if students were given the option to speak spontaneously, somof them may find it an easy task to perform, but others may hesitate too much ofind it difficult to think about something to say (Kenworthy, 1987). AlthougKenworthy (1987) recommends using spontaneous speech along with RA, it wadecided to use only the latter because the participants of this study are novicteachers who will need to read texts aloud in many academic situations such a


34/74

23

reading a passage from a textbook aloud, giving instructions, modeling, readingspeech in the facility he or she works in, etc. About the use of RA, Gibson (200supports the idea that students should read aloud prepared texts at the appropria

level of the teacher or to supportive groups or other individuals.

2.3.2 Disadvantages of Using Reading Aloud

As it was exposed above, the possible benefits of using RA are many andcan be applied to this study successfully due to the needs of the participantsHowever, many researches consider RA a bad practice when teaching a foreiglanguage. Among these authors we can find Dwyer (1983), who considers that Rmakes students read texts slower than usual because they tend to focus on everword and, therefore, meaning is lost when performing this task (as mentioned iZaid, 1998; 283). Furthermore, Gardner (1986) believes that reading aloud as a

language activity in the foreign language classroom is time consuming, not rereading and does not assist inthe process of learning to read (as cited in Zaid,1998; 284). Gibson (2005; 29-30) provides a list of drawbacks adapted from manauthors that could interfere in the learning of the L2 by using RA:

1. It is dull and boring, anxiety provoking, and of negligible benefit for thstudents, especially for the listeners.

2. For the speaker, such is the working memory processing capacity requirefor decoding, recoding, and articulation that there is little room left focomprehension, yet RA is often used with the aim of comprehension.


35/74

24

3. The linear progression of RA does not aid the development of efficienreading strategies (Klapper 1992).

4. The requirement to focus on every word also slows reading speed andimpedes the chunking of meaningful units (Eskey and Grabe 1988).

5. Reading slowly (fewer than 200 words per minute), whether aloud orsilently, interferes with semantic proposition formation (Grabe and Stolle2002), therefore making it more difficult to understand what has been read.

6. A frequently cited reason for using RA is for the improvement of pronunciation. However, doubt is cast on the effectiveness of this by CelceMurcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (1996) because of the controlled andtherefore slightly unnatural texts that are often used; these do not necessarilhelp pronunciation in spontaneous speech. These texts usually edit theredundancy, fragmentation, and incompleteness which feature in everydaspeech.

7. Students can be distracted by English spelling and make errors in the pronunciation of words they know orally (Birch op. cit.).

8. Reading is usually a silent activity and it is often said that RA is not a skil

that many people need; public speakers and broadcasters are in the minority

9. Reading aloud is a difficult thing to do well, even for native speakers, andthis could be demotivating for students.


36/74

25

As it can be noticed, RA has many benefits and drawbacks, the latter mostlrelated to comprehension. These topics will be discussed in greater detail in thoperational framework of this study.

2.4 What model of English should be taught?

As it was expressed above, the main aim of language learners regarding tthe pronunciation component is to become intelligible speakers. However, whmodel of English should be taught? This question has no need to be answered sinlanguage learners may want or need to speak English as a second language (ESLEFL, or English as an international language (EIL) depending on their nationalitiand the level of importance English has in their country. Regarding to interactinwith NSs or NNSs, the same applies; students may need to interact with both. Isum, it all depends on the aims and interests of our students (Wells, n.d.).

In this regard, Gimson (2008) argues thatfor many years it was assumedthat the target for any L2 learner of English should be a native-speaker variety anin the case of British English, this was assumed to be Received Pronunciation (RP[] but RP is not the only native -speaker variety which may be set up as a model(p. 316). Indeed, there are a variety of models that can fit to the students goals.

A remarkable article by Jenkins (1997) provides a list of phonologicafeatures that cause problems to NNSs when speaking English. She proposes


37/74

26

common core in which little relevance is given to word stress, connected speechand rhythm, because they do not impede communication in oral situations. On thother hand, features such as segmentals, nuclear stress, and articulatory setting a

given higher priority.

Gimson (2008) talks about another variety of English called AmalgamEnglish. According to the author, this kind of English is used as an L2 or a lingufranca by speakers who may have limited interactions with NSs. Furthermore, hstates Amalgam English is a more realistic variation for NNSs since it consists ofmixture between British and American English and, additionally, it will probablinclude some characteristics from the L1. In other words, Amalgam English allowtransfer from the NNSs language as long as intelligibility does not get affected.

Regarding to this, the characteristics of Amalgam English can be

summarized as follows:

This sort of target will involve an amalgam of native -speaker varieties inwhich the learner aims only at easy intelligibility by native speakers rather thaaiming to sound like a native speaker. This may especially be a reasonable target set up where teachers themselves do not aspire to one homogeneous native-speakaccent. (Gimson, 2008, 325)


38/74

27

Going back to the question above (what model of English should betaught?), the answer seems to be even more obvious. Students of English may neeto learn EFL, ESL, or EIL, according their likes, interests, and context

Furthermore, Celce-Murcia et al (2008) state that when faced with the questionof which accent or model to choose, teachers are encouraged to expand the focuof instruction by imagining the multiple speaking situations their learners mighface in the future (p. 276).

Additionally, Kelly (2001) states the model for teaching pronunciationshould be chosen by consider ing students needs and suggests they should beenabled to be exposed to a wide range of models while allowing them to choostheir own as long as it does not interfere in communication.

In the case of the present study, the participants are novice teachers who ar

enrolled in a teacher training program. It is because of this that it was decided tuse Amalgam English as the target model for the interventions in this study sincthe participants do need to get a glimpse of either American or British Englishallowing them to transfer features from their L1 since the aim for them is t become intelligible speakers and not to sound like an NS.


39/74

28

CHAPTER III

OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK


40/74

29

3. Methodology

3.1.1 Design

This experimental research wascarried out and aimed at measuring studentsinitial and final levels of intelligibility in order to see if explicit instruction effective when teaching pronunciation by having students read a text aloud.

The approach of this study is quantitative because, as it was said above, thaim of this study is to measure students intelligibility. Furthermore, its design is

experimental since a pretest and a posttest were applied before and after thintervention, respectively.

In order to do so, a rubric adapted from Gerhiser and Wrenn (GA TESOL2007) was used. Criteria such as segmental and suprasegmental features wermeasured when students read aloud a text.

However, what are the benefits of using a rubric? Stevens and Levis (2005 provide state the following:

Establishing performance anchors.

Providing detailed, formative feedback.

Supporting individualized, flexible, formative feedback.

Conveying summative feedback.

The goal of this study is to see if explicit instruction increases the level ointelligibility of students when teaching pronunciation. In this line, a rubric is useful tool because it encloses all the criteria needed to do so.


41/74

30

3.1.2 The participants

The participants in this study were 20 English Pedagogy students fromUniversidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaso, who have been studying about one to twyears. All of them are Chileans. Since they attend regular classes in this facilitythey receive a great amount of input.

Participants were previously organized by the institution and were chosen because it was an accessible group of students, which helped in the administratio

of time of the present study. In this regard, they helped in the process of thexperiment because they are novice teachers who were eager to contribute to thstudy and, additionally, they felt they needed more pronunciation training in ordto improve their intelligibility.

Finally, the intervention was not part of their course of studies. It was anexternal workshop in which students could attend classes and receive feedback o

their pronunciation.

3.1.3 Demographic Information about the Participants

The demographic data of the participants was collected in the institutionwhere they study.

The course was made up of 15 women and 5 men whose ages ranged from21 to 25 years old.


42/74

31

3.1.4 Data Collection Procedure

In order to answer the research question of the present study (can a phonic program increase the level of intelligibility in students reading aloud?), it wasdecided to work with a group of English Pedagogy students who study aUniversity of Playa Ancha, Valparaso. Students were firstly asked if they wanteto participate in this study, for which they approved their consent. Consequentlythey were informed on how they were going to be assessed and what the eighsessions would entail. Then, they took a pre-test to measure their level ointelligibility in the L2 in a classroom of this facility and were recorded readinaloud a text previously taken from the Preliminary English Test Handbook (PET(2004), which was chosen due to the modification of input these texts usually havand the appealing information in them. Students were called one by one to perforthe task so they did not get distracted or nervous when doing it. The space in whicthey were recorded was adapted to keep external noise out (windows and doo

were closed).

Then, with the help of a board of judges, results were analyzed by using aintelligibility rubric adapted from Gerhiser and Wrenn (2007) in which they had count the mistakes that appeared in the recording if there were any. The experwho analyzed the recordings were the author of this study and two teachers oEnglish from the facility, and two native speakers who were contacted by one othe teachers. Native speakers were previously explained to choose the recording which intelligibility improved the most in order to see if objective analysicoincided with subjective analysis.


43/74

32

When the eight sessions finished, students were recorded again in the exacsame conditions, with the only difference that they did not read the same text as the pretest. Finally, the board of judges analyzed the posttests and counted the mosalient mistakes.

3.1.5 Instrumentation

Richards and Schmidt (2002) defined reading aloud as saying a written textaloud (oral reading) which can be done with or without and understanding of thcontents. Kenworthy ( 1987) states that reading aloud is a task that makes manylearners very anxious because it is not something that people have to do veroften. However, the same author mentions that studies have shown learners tento make more pronunciation errors when reading aloud than when speakinspontaneously. With a reading aloud task, equivalent stretches of speech can b judged. Also, with this type of task, it can be made sure that all students pronounthe same length of words. A reading aloud task can give information regarding tlearners mistakes on spelling, vowels and diphthongs, consonants, and especiall prosodic features such as sentence stress and connected speech.

Despite the objections dealt in the theoretical framework about RA, it waconsidered to be a useful tool when the reasons of its use are clear. Many of thdrawbacks have to do with the relative usefulness of RA for comprehension anthe lack of nature of the texts that are chosen for this kind of task. However, as


44/74

33

was mentioned before, this study does not aim the learners to comprehend thcontent of the text they are reading; its main objective is for them to improve theintelligibility as they read it.

Secondly, its usefulness is justified in this case since the participants of thistudy will need RA for teaching purposes (reading aloud a text, giving instructionmodeling, etc.). Finally, as Celce-Murcia et al (2010) say, RA is doubted to helstudents improve their pronunciation in spontaneous speech, but since this studaims them to improve it by using RA as a measuring technique which might helstudents in elementary-to-intermediate levels when speaking naturally. In othewords, it can be used as a first step to measure students intelligibility.

Participants were recorded using the Audacity Program. The first step was t provide them with a text that was taken from the PET handbook and give them fi

minutes to get acquainted with it. Consequently, they read the text aloud with nfurther preparation.

Then, students were exposed to eight sessions where they were giventraining on reading aloud, including prosodic features.

During session eighth, participants were given another text from the PETreading part that they had to prepare. This time they were given more time fo


45/74

34

further preparation. Students used strategies such as underlying content words tsplit them from grammar words, etc. And they were recorded again.

In order to measure their initial and final levels of intelligibility, a pronunciation rubric by Gerhiser and Wrenn (2007) was used. According tStevens and Levis (2005), a rubric can be defined as follows:

At its most basic, a rubric is a scoring tool that lays out thespecific expectations for an assignment. Rubrics divide anassignment into its component parts and provide a detaileddescription of what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable levels of

performance for each of those parts. (p. 3)

As a result, different criteria were measured when students performed thtask. In total, the rubric included nine categories for judges to fill up. Evermistake a student made was written down. For example:

Elements of Speech Number of ErrorsConsonants: Does the speaker have repeatedproblems with any consonants or clusters?

1. Mishap, pronounced as [mi ap]


46/74

35

The research continued by preparing eight sessions on pronunciationfeatures, in which students were instructed on strong and weak syllables, emphasand assimilation, rhythm, intonation, sentence stress, and linking sounds. The ai

of these sessions was to give them the tools to read aloud in English with aintelligible pronunciation.

After the eight sessions made in approximately one and a half months, botgroups took a post-test which consisted of reading another text aloud also takefrom the PET reading handbook with the purpose of comparing their levels ointelligibility. The test was applied in the same manner as the pre-test; learnerread the text aloud and were recorded. A board of judges was asked to compalearners initial levels of intelligibility with the fina l ones.


47/74

36

3.1.6 Description of the Pedagogical Intervention

The pedagogical intervention began with students taking a pretest whicconsisted of a reading passage taken from the PET. Students read it aloud and werecorded. After that, the instructor presented the topic and how the process of eacintervention would be done. The first session treated topics such as vowelsconsonants, and diphthongs , showing them the way to properly utter each soundand how to avoid or face interferences from their L1. Explicit instruction waconducted by using the English Phonetics and Phonology (Roach, 2009)textbook. Students were firstly given the general descriptions and categories othese sounds. Concepts such as plosives, fricatives, affricates, nasals, short anlong vowels, voicing versus voiceless, among others, were dealt in this sessioAlso, tips related to the position of the mouth, tongue, and lips were shown tclarify the correct production of these sounds. Then, the instructor used tracks frothe CD of the book so students could transcript and notice the common differenc

among the features mentioned above.

In the second intervention, students learned about strong and weak syllableThey were first given the definition of the concept and then the basic rules antypes of syllables.Then, students had to complete activities from the ClearSpeech from the Start textbook, mostly characterized by producing isolated wordsand short dialogues using as examples written texts and recordings from the sam book. Thus, the second intervention provided the tools for the third one. In thone, learners were taught about strong and weak forms, getting closer and closer the suprasegmental aspects of pronunciation.


48/74


49/74


50/74

39

3.1.7 Data Analysis Procedure

After results were obtained, the board of judges analyzed the posttest inorder to determine if explicit pronunciation instruction increased students final

levels of intelligibility. The recordings were analyzed in the facility were learneattend their regular classes, again keeping external noises out so there was not aninterference at the moment of listening to the tracks. The experts wrote down athe salient mistakes in each recording in the intelligibility rubric.

Then, recordings were shown to the native speakers who participated in thistudy and were asked to choose the recordings in which students improved theintelligibility the most. Native speakers were chosen because the learners may neto face situations in the future in which they will need to be intelligible to peopwhose L1 is English or a variety of the same language.


51/74

40

3.1.8 Results of the Participants Performance

The following information was obtained from the rubric used when ratinstudents performance. The graphs include the total results of the two applicationsof this instrument; the students initial mistakes and their final ones. To obtain theresults, mistakes and errors were counted and compared by writing them down the intelligibility rubric.

In order to differentiate results, a column graph was used. The blue colum

shows learners initial mistakes and the red column exposes the final ones. In theend of this section, a general students result is shown. This graph exposesindividual mistakes made by the participants.


52/74

41

Image 1 Students general results in the consonants criteria shown in a columngraph

The graph clearly shows that students tended to make more mistakes in the pretest than in the posttest. In the first administration, students made a total of 18

consonantal mistakes, whereas in the second administration, students made a totaof 9.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Consonants

Pretest Posttest


53/74

42

Image 2 Students general results in the vowels criteria shown in a column graph

When students took the pretest, a total of 8 vocalic mistakes were counted.After the interventions, a total of 9 were noticed. Even though mistakes increasedin the posttest, 13 students out of 20 did not make any mistake the second timethey were recorded.

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

9.2

Vowels

Pretest Posttest


54/74

43

Image 3 Students general results in the syllables and grammatical endingscriterion shown in a column graph

The results in this criterion show that students tended to make more mistakewhen the pretest was taken than in the posttest. In total, students made 8 mistakesin the first administration. On the other hand, students made a total of 3 mistakes

the second administration.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Syllables and Grammatical Endings

Pretest

Posttest


55/74

44

Image 4 Students general results in the word stress criterion shown in a columngraph

The graph shows students made a total of 10 mistakes related to word stressin the pretest. Once students received instruction, results went down from 10 to 5in total.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Word Stress

Pretest

Posttest


56/74


57/74

46

Image 6 Students general results in the focus and special emphasis criterionshown in a column graph

The graph shows that any mistake was made either in the pretest or the posttest. No salient mistakes were noticed.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Focus and Special Emphasis

Pretest

Posttest


58/74

47

Image 7 Students general results in the intonation/pitch criterion shown in acolumn graph

The graph clearly shows students made more mistakes related to intonationand pitch when the pretest was taken. In total, learners made 4 mistakes. Once the posttest was taken, results went down from 4 to 1. Even though there were not too

many mistakes in the pretest, an improvement was noticed the second timestudents were recorded.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Intonation/Pitch

Pretest

Posttest


59/74

48

Image 8 Students general results in the thought groups and linking criterionshown in a column graph

As it can be seen, the graph shows that students made a total of 3 mistakes ithe first application. When the posttest was taken, results went down from 3 to 0.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Thought Groups and Linking

Pretest

Posttest


60/74

49

Image 9 Students general results in the delivery criterion shown in a columngraph

This was the only criterion in which more mistakes were made in the posttest rather than the pretest. In total, students made 2 mistakes in the secondapplication. However, only 2 students out of 20 made these mistakes, which were

not considered to be alarming.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Delivery

Pretest

Posttest


61/74

50

Image 10 Students general r esults shown in a column graph

The graph clearly shows students initial and final results. As it can be seen,

students made a variety of mistakes in the pretest. When the posttest was takenthose results were greatly reduced, with the exception of Student K whose results

maintained. The following chart shows an average of all the mistakes either in th pretest or posttest:

First Administration Second Administration4.05 1.65

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Students' General Results

First Administration

Second Administration


62/74

51

3.3 General Conclusions

At the beginning of the process, students made a variety of mistakes mostlrelated to prosodic features and, to a lesser extent, segmental features.

Going back to the research questions of the present study, it can beconcluded that:

1. An eight session pedagogical intervention on explicit instruction increasethe level of intelligibility of Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students whereading aloud. When the participants were first recorded, the majorityshowed problems when reading a text aloud. After the intervention finishedthey were asked again to perform the task, and mistakes and errors wergreatly reduced.

2. Reading aloud is a difficult technique to use when its purpose is not clear i

the EFL classroom. Teachers tend to use it in order to see if studentscomprehend the content. In the case of the present study, its purpose was tuse it for measuring students level of intelligibility, not to determine their

level of comprehension. In sum, reading aloud is a useful technique when is used by the teacher wisely and in specific situations.

Additionally, when a teacher decides to explain pronunciation feature

explicitly, students get the chance to learn the necessary tips to become morintelligible in oral situations. In this particular case, the participants, who arnovice teachers, will be able to expand this knowledge to their future students an provide them with the necessary tools to improve their pronunciation.


63/74

52

These results have served as a proof for teachers of English in the sense thaexplicit instruction can be beneficial when learning pronunciation and that RA ca

be a useful technique for measuring students intelligibility . Language teachers

should be aware of the variety of methods that exist and others that are in coursThe idea is to keep trying until any problem related to the English class is solveand, in this regard, the teacher is an important component to get positive results.


64/74

53

3.4 Limitations of the Study

At the beginning of the experiment, eight sessions were planned for theinterventions. Even though it was considered that the administration of time in thstudy was good enough, more sessions would have been better in order to covemore contents related to the teaching of pronunciation or giving more feedback the participants. However, in the end of the experiment, students ended up showin positive results.

Regarding to the use of reading aloud, some specialists may say it is an oldfashioned technique when teaching of a second language. However, as it wastated in the present study, reading aloud is a useful strategy when the purpose oits use is clear. In this case, it was used to measure students initial and final levels

of intelligibility. Although Kenworthy (1987) recommends using it along witspontaneous speech, it was decided to use only the former because students woulread the same stretches, which helped in the administration of time.

Another limitation was that we could not control the variable of theimprovement that they might have gotten from the sessions of pronunciatiotraining. We have to consider that students also attended their regular Englisclasses where they are exposed to input and teachers corrections on pronunciation


65/74

54

3.5 Pedagogical Implications

We have seen that explicit pronunciation instruction canincrease studentslevel of intelligibility when reading aloud, allowing them either to get a clea pronunciation or apply the necessary knowledge to produce the sounds of thEnglish language.

In this same line, when teaching pronunciation, teachers should explain pronunciation points explicitlyin order to improve learners intelligibility . In other

words, they should train students in the sense of making them realize about thdifferent positions of the mouth and tongue, using the L1 to show examples osounds that are part of either the L1 or L2, tips which will be good for them sincthey know (or, at least, the teacher can make them realize) the sounds of their owlanguage, among others. In summary, the language teacher should make thteaching of pronunciation explicit instead of expecting students to get the rules pronunciation by themselves, which could not be good for them since the teachernot objectively measuring their levels of intelligibility. When the teacher leavestudents to learn the rules of pronunciation by themselves, he is not really makinsure they understood them.

Regarding to the use of reading aloud, teachers of English should start usinit in the EFL classroom for pronunciation purposes without comprehension taskReading aloud is a useful technique when the reasons of its use are clear. As thstudy shows in the theoretical framework, the use of reading aloud as acomprehension strategy is not recommended by specialists because when studenare asked to answer questions about the text, the student will say he or she needs read again in order to properly perform the task, not fulfilling the objective th


66/74


67/74

56

References

Centeno, A. (2001). Efectos de la Enseanza Explcita de Pronunciacin en Estudiantes de Espaol de Nivel Intermedio . Spain, Valencia. Retrieved fromhttp://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/bitstream/handle/10724/7559/centeno- pulido_alberto_200408_ma.pdf?sequence=1

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., & Goodwin, J.M. (2010). TeachingPronunciation: A Course Book and Reference Guide. (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Derwing, T.M. & Munro, M.J. (2005). Second Language Accent andPronunciation Teaching: A Research-Based Approach.TESOL Quarterly, 39 , 379-397. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588486

Fischer, R. (1979) The Inductive-Deductive Controversy Revisited. Modern Language Journal , 63, 98-105. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/325777

Gibson, S. (2008). Reading Aloud: A Useful Learning Tool? ELT Journal, 62 , 29-36. Retrieved from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/29.full.pdf

Gimson, A.C. (Ed.). (2008).Gimsons Pronunciation of English. (7th ed.). London,UK: Hodder Education.

Huang, L. (2010). Reading Aloud in the Foreign Language Teaching. Asian Social

Science, 6, 148-150. Retrieved fromhttp://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/5683/4602


68/74

57

Jenkins, J. (1998). Which Pronunciation Norms and Models for English as aInternational Language? ELT Journal, 52 , 119-126. Retrieved fromhttp://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/2/119.full.pdf+html

Kelly, G. (2001). How to Teach Pronunciation (J. Harmer, Ed.). Charlbury,Oxfordshire, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Kenworthy, J. (1987).Teaching English Pronunciation. New York: LongmanHandbooks for Language Teachers.

Lally, C. (1998). The Implicit versus Explicit Division in Language Learnin

Theory, Method, and Practice. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 31, 154-159. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3531176

Mesmer, H.A., & Griffith, P.L. (2006).Everybodys Selling It: But Just What isExplicit, Systematic Phonics Instruction?The Reading Teacher, 59 , 366-376.Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204360

Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teachingand Applied Linguistics . (4th ed.) Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.

Saito, K. (2011). Examining the Role of Explicit Phonetic Instruction in NativLike and Comprehensible Pronunciation Development: An Instructed SLAApproach to L2 Phonology. Language Awareness , 20, 45-59. Retrieved fromhttp://www.routledge.com/

Shaffer, C. (1989). A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Approaches tTeaching Foreign Languages.The Modern Language Journal , 73, 395-403.Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/326874


69/74

58

Stevens, D.D., & Levis, A.J. (2005). Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Toolto Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback And Promote Student Learning .Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

Wells, J. (n.d.).Goals in Teaching English Pronunciation. (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University College London.

Yopp, H.K., & Yopp, R.H. (2000). Supporting Phonemic Awareness Developmenin the Classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54 , 130-143. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20204888

Zaid, T. (1998). Reading Aloud in EFL Revisited. Reading in a Foreign Language,12 , 281-294. Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/PastIssues/rfl121kailani.pd


70/74

59

APPENDIX


71/74

60

Intelligibility Pretest Rubric

Judges Name:

Students Name:

The following rubric has been adapted for counting the number of errors made by a speakerwhen reading a text aloud. Judges should write down the errors and write the total in the lastsection.

Elements of Speech Number of ErrorsConsonants: Does the speaker have repeatedproblems with any consonants or clusters?Vowels: Do vowel sounds negatively affectintelligibility?

Syllables and Grammatical Endings:-s endings (Americans, relationships)-d endings (considered, appreciated)Word Stress: Does stress fall on theappropriate syllable?Rhythm and Intonation: Does the speakerspeak in a natural rhythm? Or does languagesound abrupt or choppy? Is every word giventhe same stress?Focus and Special Emphasis: Does the speaker

use emphatic stress to indicate key words,contrasts (not only/all), etc.?Intonation/Pitch: Does tone rise and fall in theappropriate places? Or, does it soundmonotone?Thought Groups and Linking: Does the speakerpause at commas and other appropriateplaces?Delivery (rate of speech, loudness): Does thespeaker speak too loudly or quietly, too fast,or too slow?

Total: _______________

Adapted from Gerhiser & Wrenn, GA TESOL, 2007.


72/74

61

Intelligibility Posttest Rubric

Judges Name:

Students Name:

The following rubric has been adapted for counting the number of errors made by a speakerwhen reading a text aloud. Judges should write down the errors and write the total in the lastsection.

Elements of Speech Number of ErrorsConsonants: Does the speaker have repeatedproblems with any consonants or clusters?Vowels: Do vowel sounds negatively affectintelligibility?

Syllables and Grammatical Endings:-s endings (Americans, relationships)-d endings (considered, appreciated)Word Stress: Does stress fall on theappropriate syllable?Rhythm and Intonation: Does the speakerspeak in a natural rhythm? Or does languagesound abrupt or choppy? Is every word giventhe same stress?Focus and Special Emphasis: Does the speaker

use emphatic stress to indicate key words,contrasts (not only/all), etc.?Intonation/Pitch: Does tone rise and fall in theappropriate places? Or, does it soundmonotone?Thought Groups and Linking: Does the speakerpause at commas and other appropriateplaces?Delivery (rate of speech, loudness): Does thespeaker speak too loudly or quietly, too fast,or too slow?

Total: _______________

Adapted from Gerhiser & Wrenn, GA TESOL, 2007.


73/74

62

Lesson Plan Example: Linking Sounds

Background: Teacher Trainees in an EFL setting.

Main Learning Objective: By the end of the lesson, students will be able to link soundsby reading aloud a passage from a textbook.Skill: Listening, Speaking.Materials & Equipment: Teaching Pronunciation textbook, pp. 219 -220, track 13 fromthe book, transcript from the audio file, projector, computer, PowerPoint.Length of Class: 60 minutes.

Skill P,G,I, WC

Time Procedures

L

S

WC

WC

GW

WC

5

25

10

20

Introduction:

The teacher will start the lesson by greeting students, calling theroll, and writing the objective of the lesson on the board. Then,he will ask students what they learned from last class as awarm-up.

Pre-stage:

After this, the teacher will introduce the new content using aPowerPoint presentation and the projector. He will start thelesson by asking students the meaning of the word linking byusing the projector. Once students have shared their answers,

the teacher will show the correct one. Then, he will explainstudents that there are many types of linking. The teacher willexplain each one using examples and modeling. By the end ofthe presentation, he will ask students if they have questions.

While-stage:

Once the teacher has done this, he will play track 13 from theTeaching Pronunciation textbook and will give students thetranscript. Students will have to listen to a native speaker talkingabout earthquake safety and then produce it. The teacher willplay the audio file two to three times so students get a glimpseof the text.

Post-stage:

After students have listened to the track, the teacher will askthem to read it aloud one by one. The teacher will correct ifnecessary. Then, he will go back to the objective of the lessonand point it out again.


74/74

The Effects of Explicit Instruction in Elementary-To-Intermediate EFL Students' Intelligibility

Documents

Transcript of The Effects of Explicit Instruction in Elementary-To-Intermediate EFL Students' Intelligibility