UNIVERSIDAD DE PLAYA ANCHA DE CIENCIAS DE LA EDUCACIN FACULTAD DE HUMANIDADES DEPARTAMENTO DE LENGUAJE PEDAGOGA EN INGLS.

THE EFFECTS OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY-TO-INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDENTS INTELLIGIBILITY USING READING ALOUD Seminario de Titulacin para optar al Ttulo de Profesor de Ingls Licenciado en Educacin

Maximiliano Fernando Ayala Pozo

Profesor Gua: Mg. Luis G. Vera V. Valparaso, Chile 2012

Acknowledgments Maximiliano Ayala

irst of all, I would really like to thank my parents,

Semiramis and Fernando,

the most important people in my life. Without them, I would not have been able to complete all my personal projects. They worked hard to provide me all the tools to succeed in life, and it is because of them that I am now able to be who I am now. I would also like to thank my partner and my friends. They have made this process an enjoyable journey. To all of them, thank you for being there when I needed you. Finally, I want to thank Mr. Vera, because he was always there when I needed his opinion and he always gave me his support. .

Table of Contents Abstract Resumen Introduction 1 Chapter I Background of the study 1.1 Statement of the Problem 1.2 Statement of Purpose 1.3 General and Specific Objectives 1.4 Researching Questions 1.5 Hypotheses 2 Chapter II Theoretical Framework 2.1 Defining Intelligibility 2.2 The Teaching of Pronunciation 2.2.1 The Problem with the Pronunciation Component 2.2.2 The Controversy between Explicit and Implicit Instruction ............................................ 13 ............................................ 11 ............................................ i ............................................ ii ............................................ iii ............................................ 1 ............................................ 2 ............................................ 3 ............................................ 4 ............................................ 5 ............................................ 5 ............................................ 6 ............................................ 7 ............................................ 11

2.2.3 Explicit Instruction and Metaphonological Awareness 2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Reading Aloud in the EFL Class 2.3.1 Advantages of Using Reading Aloud 2.3.2 Disadvantages of Using Reading Aloud 2.4 What Model of English Should Be Taught? 3 Chapter III Operational Framework 3.1Methodology 3.1.1 Design 3.1.2 The Participants 3.1.3 Demographic Information about the Participants ............................................ 30 ............................................ 28 ............................................ 29 ............................................ 29 ............................................ 30 ............................................ 25 ............................................ 23 ............................................ 20 ............................................ 20 ............................................ 17

3.1.4 Data Collection Procedure 3.1.5 Instrumentation 3.1.6 Description of the Pedagogical Intervention 3.1.7 Data Analysis Procedure 3.1.8 Results of the Participants Performance 3.3 General Conclusions 3.4 Limitations of the Study 3.5 Pedagogical Implications References Appendix

............................................ 31 ............................................ 32 ............................................ 36 ............................................ 39 ............................................ 40 ............................................ 51 ............................................ 53 ............................................ 54 ............................................ 56 ............................................ 59

List of Images Students general results in the Consonants criterion shown in a column graph Students general results in the Vowels criterion shown in a column graph Students general results in the Syllables and Grammatical Endings criterion shown in a column graph Students general results in the Word Stress criterion shown in a column graph Students general results in the Rhythm and Intonation criterion shown in a column graph Students general results in the Focus and Special Emphasis criterion shown in a column graph .......................................... 46 .......................................... 45 .......................................... 44 .......................................... 43 .......................................... 42 .......................................... 41

Students general results in the Intonation/Pitch criterion shown in a column graph Students general results in the Thought Groups and Linking criterion shown in a column graph Students general results in the Delivery criterion shown in a column graph .......................................... 49 .......................................... 48 .......................................... 47

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to conduct an eight-session pedagogical intervention in order to see if explicit pronunciation instruction increases the level of intelligibility in 20 Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students from Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaso. Before the intervention was conducted, students from this facility were first recorded reading aloud an unprepared text to measure their level of intelligibility. Once students were recorded, eight sessions on explicit pronunciation were conducted. Aspects such as segmental (consonants, vowels, and diphthongs) and suprasegmental features (stress, rhythm, intonation, etc.) features were taught during the interventions. After students were taught explicitly, they were recorded again. Students had to prepare a text and apply their knowledge on phonemic features. The recordings were analyzed and compared with the first ones to determine if their level of intelligibility increased.

Resumen

El objetivo de esta investigacin es conducir una intervencin pedaggica de ocho sesiones para determinar si la instruccin explcita de pronunciacin incrementa el nivel de inteligibilidad en 20 estudiantes de Pedagoga en Ingls de la 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 nivel de inteligibilidad. Una vez que los estudiantes fueron grabados, se aplicaron ocho sesiones de pronunciacin explcita. Aspectos tales como rasgos segmentales (consonantes, vocales y diptongos) y suprasegmentales (acento, ritmo, entonacin, etc.) fueron enseadas durante las intervenciones. Despus que los estudiantes fueron instruidos explcitamente, fueron nuevamente grabados. Los estudiantes tuvieron que preparar un texto y aplicar sus conocimientos en rasgos de pronunciacin. Las grabaciones fueron analizadas y comparadas con las primeras para as determinar si su nivel de inteligibilidad increment.

ii

Introduction

The use of explicit instruction in the English classroom is a widely known technique by teachers at the moment of teaching a foreign language. However, according to Derwing and Munro (2005), studies related to explicit instruction have been given more importance to grammar than the pronunciation component. Even though it has been used for many teaching purposes, not many teachers tend to use it when teaching pronunciation. In fact, they neglect the pronunciation 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 to do so (Derwing & Munro, 2005; Kelly, 2001). The present study attempts to use this technique in the English classroom in order to determine if explicit instruction increases the level of intelligibility of language learners by using a reading aloud task as a way to measure it. The participants are students from Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaso. The results obtained will be used to discuss the possible benefits of explicit instruction in the teaching of pronunciation and to provide the necessary knowledge for language teachers.

iii

CHAPTER I BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

1.1

Statement of the Problem

Various studies (Derwing & Munro, 2003; Centeno, 2001; Saito, 2011; Ventakagiri and Levis, 2007) show that explicit pronunciation instruction can help language learners to increase their levels of language learning and intelligibility (the way the speaker is understood by a listener). Pronunciation teaching has been taught by the name of Phonetics, the study of the sounds of a language. However, from now it will be referred as pronunciation or pronunciation features so the readers can get acquainted with the topic of this paper by using simpler and more common terminology.

Explicit instruction has been considered an important factor for teaching a 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 and vocabulary. (p. 380). Furthermore, it has little relevance among teachers of English as a foreign language (TEFL), being grammar the feature that takes most importance. 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 international language there has been a tendency to place lesser and lesser importance on the teaching of pronunciation. There has been a sort of implicit assumption that the standard will be set by the teacher
2

doing the teaching (combined with what the learner picks up from watching English or American TV and film) and that learners will simply 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 pronunciation

instruction in the language class.

1.2

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study is to do an eight session pedagogical intervention that serves as a guide for teaching pronunciation. Additionally, this study seeks to provide the necessary knowledge for future studies related to explicit pronunciation instruction. The participants of this study are all Chileans and are enrolled in a teaching training program in Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaso. They receive a great amount of input since they attend regular classes in this facility. As for the methodology, students will be recorded in order to measure their initial levels of intelligibility by performing a reading aloud task.

Then, students will be exposed to eight sessions on phonemic instruction in which they will learn segmental and suprasegmental features explicitly. In the final session, students will be recorded again reading a different text they had to prepare. The recordings will be analyzed by a board of judges who will determine if explicit instruction is beneficial for language learners when learning to produce the sounds of English by rating their speech. It is expected that learners increase their final levels of intelligibility when using reading aloud as a measuring technique.

1.3

General and Specific Objectives

General Objectives

1.

To determine if the explicit pronunciation instruction using the reading

aloud task increases the level of intelligibility in Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students.

Specific Objectives

1. 2.

To conduct eight explicit pronunciation instruction sessions. To compare students initial levels of intelligibility with the final ones.

3.

To apply tests to measure the levels of intelligibility.

1.4

Researching Question

1.

Does an eight session pedagogical intervention on explicit pronunciation

teaching increase the level of intelligibility in Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students? 2. Is reading aloud a useful technique for measuring Elementary-to-Intermediate

EFL students intelligibility?

1.5 1.

Hypotheses An eight session pedagogical intervention on explicit pronunciation teaching

using the reading aloud task increases the level of intelligibility in Elementary-toIntermediate EFL students. 2. Reading aloud is a useful technique for measuring Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students intelligibility.

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Defining Intelligibility

When a person, for example, a business man, an exchange student, or a student of English as a foreign language (EFL) in a particular setting is learning English, he or she may aim to be either accurate or fluent orally speaking. 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 it really necessary to completely avoid mistakes? Is it really necessary to sound like an NS? According to Abercrombie (1949, p. 120), language learners need no more than a comfortable intelligible pronunciation (as cited in Derwing & Munro, 2005; 384). In other words, the author states learners should only aim to be intelligible, but, what is meant by intelligibility? 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 accurately when said by a particular speaker, the more intelligible that speaker is [] if the foreign speaker substitutes a sound in a particular word, but that word is nonetheless understood, then we say the speech is intelligible. (p.13)

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

other authors, such as Munro and Derwing (1995), focused on three aspects of foreign-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 spoken in the community (accentedness) (as mentioned in Derwing et al 2005;385).

These two authors also explain these three dimensions are partially independent. For example, listeners who find specific second language (L2) utterances to be both unintelligible and incomprehensible always perceive such samples as heavily accented, the reverse is not necessarily true. In other words, accented pronunciation does not impede communication because context helps the listener to get the speakers message across (Derwin, 2005, p. 386). It is because of this correlation that this study will focus only on intelligibility and will leave the other two other components out.

Another definition on intelligibility is offered by Smith and Nelson (1985). They give a definition of intelligibility as the listeners ability to recognize words or utterances, but they use the term comprehensibility to the ability to understand
8

those words or utterances in their given context (as mentioned in Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 2010; 275).

Celce-Murcia et al (2010) point out that intelligibility does not refer to a complete lack of accent but rather an accent (which we all have no matter which variety of English we speak) that does not distract the listener. As such, intelligibility becomes a goal for all speakers of English, not just nonnative ones. (p. 274).

According to the definition above, the ultimate goal for language learners is to become intelligible, not to speak like an NS. Regarding to this, Kenworthy (1987) says the following:

When we set intelligibility as our goal, rather than nativelike pronunciation, in practical terms this means we are aiming for something close enough. In other words, although the foreign speaker doesnt make precisely the same sound or use the exact feature of linkage or stress, it is possible for the listener to match the sound heard with the sound (or feature) a native speaker would use without too much difficulty. (p. 13).

Also, Derwing et al (2005) state that there is no reason to believe that this goal [native-like pronunciation] is achievable in typical ESL classrooms [] Most
9

learners who strive for nativeness are likely to become disheartened. Though all learners should be encouraged to reach their full potential, which may well exceed the minimum required for basic intelligibility, it may do more harm than good for teachers to lead learners to believe that they will eventually achieve native pronunciation or to encourage them to expend time and energy working toward a goal that they are unlikely to achieve (p. 384).

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

10

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, the problem with the pronunciation component has to do with the place it has in the classroom. Through the years, less and less importance has been given to the teaching of pronunciation. However, why is this situation? According to Kelly (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 a feeling of doubt as to how to teach it. Many experienced teachers would admit to a lack of knowledge of the theory of pronunciation and they may therefore feel the need to improve their practical skills in pronunciation teaching. In spite of the fact that trainees and less 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 show considerable enthusiasm for pronunciation. They feel it is something that would help them to communicate better. So, paradoxically, even though both teachers and learners are keen on the subject, it is often neglected (p. 13)

11

Thus, the relative importance the pronunciation component has in the 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 be necessary since the language teacher never knows when a problem related to the production of sounds will arise, but pronunciation should be part of the lesson plan a teacher makes when organizing his or her lessons. Generally speaking, the author says grammar is given more importance at the 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 produce the necessary knowledge regarding to the teaching of pronunciation features or apply the theory to a practical situation such as teaching it in an explicit way. Even though the author suggests it to be integrated in the language lesson, it was decided to be taught as a practice component in which pronunciation is given the main focus and particular features are paid attention to.

12

2.2.2 The Controversy between Explicit and Implicit Instruction

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

On the other hand, Winitz (1996) defines explicit instruction as a language learning process in which the rules of the grammar of the L2 are learned as formal statements [and in which] lexical understanding, in the beginning stages of instruction, is provided through the translation of words and phrases from the first language (as cited in Lally, 1998; p. 154).

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

As Lally (1998) exposes, between the 60s and the 70s, researchers tended to compare the effectiveness of explicit versus implicit by dividing students into two groups. One was taught explicitly and the other one was taught implicitly. Among these authors we can find Green and Karlheinz (1992), who examined the
13

accessibility of explicit grammar rules in 300 German students of English. The subjects were taught explicitly during all the process and then were asked to offer rules for 12 mistakes the researchers showed them. The idea of this experiment was to determine if students could analyze errors and provide a suitable grammar rule. In that way, researchers could made sure explicit grammar instruction was beneficial for students (as mentioned in Lally, 1998; p. 155).

Another study carried out by McCandless and Winitz (1986) compared the effects of an implicit type of instruction with an explicit (or, as they call it, traditional) one on students ability to speak German. The group was also divided into two groups; implicit and explicit. Traditional instruction was characterized by using a textbook to provide explicit explanation and activities such as translation of texts. On the other hand, implicit instruction was characterized by performing activities such as preparing meals, playing games, visiting stores, and participating in outdoor activities. By the end of the experiment, researchers concluded that the group who performed the best was the one who was taught implicitly (as mentioned in Lally, 1998; p. 155). Additionally, Winitz (1996) conducted another similar study, with the difference that students had to determine if given sentences were grammatical or ungrammatical by saying yes or no. The results showed the implicit group showed better results than the explicit one. However, none of the students produced the target language (as mentioned in Lally, 1998; p. 155).

Scott (1989) compared explicit and implicit teaching strategies by characterizing the former by presenting grammar rules and sample sentences that
14

contained the structures to be learned and the latter by presenting a story containing many examples of the already mentioned structures. Both groups took a pre and a posttest. In the end, results showed that explicit instruction was better than implicit. However, Scotts research was critiqued since the session s were highly similar to the posttest taken by students and that, as a result, explicit instruction could not be expanded to other areas such as speaking freely or listening comprehension (as mentioned in Lally, 1998; p. 56).

Seliger (1975) demonstrated under laboratory conditions that explicit instruction (or deductive, as he calls it in his study) was superior over induction (implicit instruction) in terms of long-term retention among university-age students (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 concepts, teachers should capitalize on this asset and speed up the language acquisition process by giving the learner explicit rules in a deductive learning framework (as mentioned in Shaffer, 1989; p. 395).

Finally, a study carried out by Shaffer (1989) aimed to determine the relative effectiveness of an inductive presentation versus a deductive one. As in the studies mentioned above, one group received implicit instruction and the other one received explicit instruction. Results showed that no significant differences were found between the results.
15

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

16

2.2.3 Explicit Pronunciation Instruction and Metaphonological Awareness

Derwing et al (2005) define explicit pronunciation instruction as follows:

Just as students learning certain grammar points benefit from being explicitly instructed to notice the difference between their own productions and those of L1 speakers, so students learning L2 pronunciation benefit from being explicitly taught phonological form to help them notice the differences between their own productions and those of proficient speakers in the L2 community. (p. 388).

Mesmer and Griffith (2006) provide their own understanding of explicit instruction as the way a lesson is delivered. If it is explicit, then the teacher will explain students how sounds are produced and their relationship with graphemes (p. 370).

Thus, explicit pronunciation instruction can be understood as how the teacher makes students aware of phonological rules and the differences between their first language (L1) and the target language (L2). Additionally, explicit instruction can help learners develop phonological awareness (i.e. conscious knowledge of segmentals and suprasegmentals), which might play a key role in L2

17

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

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

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

A study by Centeno (2001) shows that explicit pronunciation instruction is beneficial for language learners when producing the sounds of the English language. In sum, the 60% of the participants of this study got better results in the
18

posttest. However, Centeno remarks that those results were not outstanding and that students improved their communication skills a little bit more than in the beginning of the experiment. He also highlights that if more sessions on pronunciation instruction had been carried out, students would have got better results.

In conclusion, and according to the evidenced work, explicit instruction can be a beneficial approach when teaching pronunciation features to adults.

19

2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Reading Aloud in the EFL class

2.3.1 Advantages of Using Reading Aloud

Many researchers recommend using reading aloud (RA) in the EFL class for pronunciation purposes (Gibson, 2008; Huang, 2010; Zaid, 1998). According to Gibson (2008), reading aloud can help students reinforce graphemic-phonemic correspondences and acquire prosodic features of English (p. 29). Additionally, it can also be used to promote autonomous learning and may help anxious students when speaking publicly (Gibson, 2008, p. 29). Even though some authors, such as Broughton, Brumfit, Flavel, Hill, and Pincas (1980), state RA is a bad practice for teaching a foreign language due to its lack of actual communicative practice (as mentioned in Gibson 2008; 29), the advantages of this technique are suitable for the present study since it is not intended to measure the participants level of comprehension of a text while reading it; the aim of it is to measure their level of intelligibility as they do it.

Some of the benefits of RA for pronunciation purposes in the classroom, as expressed by Zaid (1998, pp. 285-289), are the following:

1. RA deals with the surface structure of the reading skill in the sense that is focuses on the form of language (vocabulary, sentence structure, and pronunciation).
20

2. Development of smooth oral reading.

3. Stimulation of the rapid association of sound and of word meaning and demonstration 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 an exclamation accurately.

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

In this same line, Gibson (2008) suggests a variety of advantages adapted from many authors for improving pronunciation using RA:

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

2. Birch recommends reading aloud as practice so that the students have as much feedback as possible on their decoding skills. Students should read aloud prepared texts at the appropriate level to the teacher and to supportive groups or other individuals (as cited in Gibson, 2008; 30).
21

3. RA can also help to develop reading fluency.

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

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

In sum, RA can be a good indicator on the assessment of pronunciation features. If students have the text, it is easier for them to be assessed because all of them are reading the same passages without having to think about a specific topic. On the other hand, if students were given the option to speak spontaneously, some of them may find it an easy task to perform, but others may hesitate too much or find it difficult to think about something to say (Kenworthy, 1987). Although Kenworthy (1987) recommends using spontaneous speech along with RA, it was decided to use only the latter because the participants of this study are novice teachers who will need to read texts aloud in many academic situations such as
22

reading a passage from a textbook aloud, giving instructions, modeling, reading a speech in the facility he or she works in, etc. About the use of RA, Gibson (2005) supports the idea that students should read aloud prepared texts at the appropriate 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 and can be applied to this study successfully due to the needs of the participants. However, many researches consider RA a bad practice when teaching a foreign language. Among these authors we can find Dwyer (1983), who considers that RA makes students read texts slower than usual because they tend to focus on every word and, therefore, meaning is lost when performing this task (as mentioned in Zaid, 1998; 283). Furthermore, Gardner (1986) believes that reading aloud as a language activity in the foreign language classroom is time consuming, not real reading and does not assist in the process of learning to read (as cited in Zaid, 1998; 284). Gibson (2005; 29-30) provides a list of drawbacks adapted from many authors 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 the students, especially for the listeners.

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

23

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

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

5. Reading slowly (fewer than 200 words per minute), whether aloud or silently, interferes with semantic proposition formation (Grabe and Stoller 2002), 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 and therefore slightly unnatural texts that are often used; these do not necessarily help pronunciation in spontaneous speech. These texts usually edit the redundancy, fragmentation, and incompleteness which feature in everyday speech.

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 skill 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, and this could be demotivating for students.

24

As it can be noticed, RA has many benefits and drawbacks, the latter mostly related to comprehension. These topics will be discussed in greater detail in the operational 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 to the pronunciation component is to become intelligible speakers. However, what model of English should be taught? This question has no need to be answered since language learners may want or need to speak English as a second language (ESL), EFL, or English as an international language (EIL) depending on their nationalities and the level of importance English has in their country. Regarding to interacting with NSs or NNSs, the same applies; students may need to interact with both. In sum, it all depends on the aims and interests of our students (Wells, n.d.).

In this regard, Gimson (2008) argues that for many years it was assumed that the target for any L2 learner of English should be a native-speaker variety and, in 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 phonological features that cause problems to NNSs when speaking English. She proposes a
25

common core in which little relevance is given to word stress, connected speech, and rhythm, because they do not impede communication in oral situations. On the other hand, features such as segmentals, nuclear stress, and articulatory setting are given higher priority.

Gimson (2008) talks about another variety of English called Amalgam English. According to the author, this kind of English is used as an L2 or a lingua franca by speakers who may have limited interactions with NSs. Furthermore, he states Amalgam English is a more realistic variation for NNSs since it consists of a mixture between British and American English and, additionally, it will probably include some characteristics from the L1. In other words, Amalgam English allows transfer 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 in which the learner aims only at easy intelligibility by native speakers rather than aiming to sound like a native speaker. This may especially be a reasonable target to set up where teachers themselves do not aspire to one homogeneous native-speaker accent. (Gimson, 2008, 325)

26

Going back to the question above (what model of English should be taught?), the answer seems to be even more obvious. Students of English may need to learn EFL, ESL, or EIL, according their likes, interests, and context. Furthermore, Celce-Murcia et al (2008) state that when faced with the question of which accent or model to choose, teachers are encouraged to expand the focus of instruction by imagining the multiple speaking situations their learners might face in the future (p. 276).

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

In the case of the present study, the participants are novice teachers who are enrolled in a teacher training program. It is because of this that it was decided to use Amalgam English as the target model for the interventions in this study since the participants do need to get a glimpse of either American or British English, allowing them to transfer features from their L1 since the aim for them is to become intelligible speakers and not to sound like an NS.

27

CHAPTER III OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK

28

3. Methodology 3.1.1 Design

This experimental research was carried out and aimed at measuring students initial and final levels of intelligibility in order to see if explicit instruction is effective when teaching pronunciation by having students read a text aloud. The approach of this study is quantitative because, as it was said above, the aim of this study is to measure students intelligibility. Furthermore, its design is experimental since a pretest and a posttest were applied before and after the intervention, respectively. In order to do so, a rubric adapted from Gerhiser and Wrenn (GA TESOL, 2007) was used. Criteria such as segmental and suprasegmental features were measured 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 of intelligibility of students when teaching pronunciation. In this line, a rubric is a useful tool because it encloses all the criteria needed to do so.

29

3.1.2 The participants

The participants in this study were 20 English Pedagogy students from Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaso, who have been studying about one to two years. All of them are Chileans. Since they attend regular classes in this facility, they 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 administration of time of the present study. In this regard, they helped in the process of the experiment because they are novice teachers who were eager to contribute to this study and, additionally, they felt they needed more pronunciation training in order to improve their intelligibility. Finally, the intervention was not part of their course of studies. It was an external workshop in which students could attend classes and receive feedback on their pronunciation.

3.1.3 Demographic Information about the Participants

The demographic data of the participants was collected in the institution where they study. The course was made up of 15 women and 5 men whose ages ranged from 21 to 25 years old.

30

3.1.4 Data Collection Procedure

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

Then, with the help of a board of judges, results were analyzed by using an intelligibility rubric adapted from Gerhiser and Wrenn (2007) in which they had to count the mistakes that appeared in the recording if there were any. The experts who analyzed the recordings were the author of this study and two teachers of English from the facility, and two native speakers who were contacted by one of the teachers. Native speakers were previously explained to choose the recording in which intelligibility improved the most in order to see if objective analysis coincided with subjective analysis.
31

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

3.1.5 Instrumentation

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

Despite the objections dealt in the theoretical framework about RA, it was considered to be a useful tool when the reasons of its use are clear. Many of the drawbacks have to do with the relative usefulness of RA for comprehension and the lack of nature of the texts that are chosen for this kind of task. However, as it
32

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

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

Participants were recorded using the Audacity Program. The first step was to provide them with a text that was taken from the PET handbook and give them five minutes to get acquainted with it. Consequently, they read the text aloud with no further preparation.

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

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

33

further preparation. Students used strategies such as underlying content words to split 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 to Stevens and Levis (2005), a rubric can be defined as follows:

At its most basic, a rubric is a scoring tool that lays out the specific expectations for an assignment. Rubrics divide an assignment into its component parts and provide a detailed description 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 the task. In total, the rubric included nine categories for judges to fill up. Every mistake a student made was written down. For example:

Elements of Speech
Consonants: Does the speaker have repeated problems with any consonants or clusters?

Number of Errors
1. Mishap, pronounced as [miap]

34

The research continued by preparing eight sessions on pronunciation features, in which students were instructed on strong and weak syllables, emphasis and assimilation, rhythm, intonation, sentence stress, and linking sounds. The aim of these sessions was to give them the tools to read aloud in English with an intelligible pronunciation.

After the eight sessions made in approximately one and a half months, both groups took a post-test which consisted of reading another text aloud also taken from the PET reading handbook with the purpose of comparing their levels of intelligibility. The test was applied in the same manner as the pre-test; learners read the text aloud and were recorded. A board of judges was asked to compare learners initial levels of intelligibility with the final ones.

35

3.1.6 Description of the Pedagogical Intervention

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

In the second intervention, students learned about strong and weak syllables. They were first given the definition of the concept and then the basic rules and types of syllables. Then, students had to complete activities from the Clear Speech from the Start textbook, mostly characterized by producing isolated words and short dialogues using as examples written texts and recordings from the same book. Thus, the second intervention provided the tools for the third one. In this one, learners were taught about strong and weak forms, getting closer and closer to the suprasegmental aspects of pronunciation.
36

From the fourth intervention on, students faced the strong points of pronunciation and those ones which were more advanced such as linking sounds, sentence stress, emphasis and assimilation, intonation and rhythm. These suprasegmental features helped them to improve their reading aloud. In each intervention in which they faced these topics, they were explained first the rules of each component and then were shown examples to practice. Then, they received feedback on their pronunciation while they were reading long sentences or paragraphs similar to the type of text they had to prepare for the posttest. For example, in the linking sounds sessions, they were first given the definition of the concept being treated. Then, students were shown a variety of linking rules with their correspondent examples (/y/ and /w/ with V+V sequences, intervocalic consonant in VC+V sequences, etc.) and strategies such as underlying content words to split them from grammar words. As a final activity, students listened to a recording about earthquake safety and then they had to read the written text extracted from the Teaching Pronunciation textbook.

In the word and sentence stress session, the instructor used the Clear Speech from the Start (Gilbert, 2011) textbook and provided handouts. He first showed students the rules related to sentence stress on page 43. For example, the unit says that each sentence has one most important word, the vowel sound in the strong syllable of that word is extra-long and that the voice goes up or down on the strong syllable in the most important word. Then, students were shown examples from the same textbook. As a final activity, students had to complete from activity

37

D to K in the handouts, which consisted of producing short dialogues and applying their knowledge on the topic as they performed the tasks in pairs.

Students were able to practice and improve their speech and reading aloud by using the techniques and tips they received in class. After that, students took the posttest that they had to prepare for that final session. They were recorded and showed their progress with the purpose of later comparing their before-the-process performance with the one after the pedagogical intervention.

38

3.1.7 Data Analysis Procedure

After results were obtained, the board of judges analyzed the posttest in order to determine if explicit pronunciation instruction increased students final levels of intelligibility. The recordings were analyzed in the facility were learners attend their regular classes, again keeping external noises out so there was not any interference at the moment of listening to the tracks. The experts wrote down all the salient mistakes in each recording in the intelligibility rubric.

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

39

3.1.8 Results of the Participants Performance

The following information was obtained from the rubric used when rating students performance. The graphs include the total results of the two applications of this instrument; the students initial mistakes and their final ones. To obtain the results, mistakes and errors were counted and compared by writing them down in the intelligibility rubric. In order to differentiate results, a column graph was used. The blue column shows learners initial mistakes and the red column exposes the final ones. In the end of this section, a general students result is shown. This graph exposes individual mistakes made by the participants.

40

Image 1 Students general results in the consonants criteria shown in a column graph
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Consonants Pretest Posttest

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 total of 9.

41

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

9.2 9 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 8 7.8 7.6 7.4 Vowels Pretest Posttest

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 increased in the posttest, 13 students out of 20 did not make any mistake the second time they were recorded.

42

Image 3 Students general results in the syllables and grammatical endings criterion shown in a column graph
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Syllables and Grammatical Endings Pretest Posttest

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

43

Image 4 Students general results in the word stress criterion shown in a column graph
12

10

8 Pretest Posttest 4

0 Word Stress

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

44

Image 5 Students general results in the rhythm and intonation criterion shown in a column graph
35 30 25 20 Pretest 15 10 5 0 Rhythm and Intonation Posttest

Rhythm and intonation was the criterion which caused more problems to students when the pretest was taken. In total, students made 30 mistakes in the first administration. By the end of the pedagogical intervention, mistakes went down from 30 to 4.

45

Image 6 Students general results in the focus and special emphasis criterion shown in a column graph
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Focus and Special Emphasis Pretest Posttest

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

46

Image 7 Students general results in the intonation/pitch criterion shown in a column graph
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Intonation/Pitch Pretest Posttest

The graph clearly shows students made more mistakes related to intonation and 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 time students were recorded.

47

Image 8 Students general results in the thought groups and linking criterion shown in a column graph
3.5 3 2.5 2 Pretest 1.5 1 0.5 0 Thought Groups and Linking Posttest

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

48

Image 9 Students general results in the delivery criterion shown in a column graph
2.5

1.5 Pretest 1 Posttest

0.5

0 Delivery

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 second application. However, only 2 students out of 20 made these mistakes, which were not considered to be alarming.

49

Image 10 Students general results shown in a column graph

Students' General Results

8

First Administration Second Administration

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 taken, those 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 the pretest or posttest: First Administration 4.05 1.65 Second Administration

50

3.3 General Conclusions

At the beginning of the process, students made a variety of mistakes mostly related to prosodic features and, to a lesser extent, segmental features. Going back to the research questions of the present study, it can be concluded that: 1. An eight session pedagogical intervention on explicit instruction increases the level of intelligibility of Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students when reading aloud. When the participants were first recorded, the majority showed problems when reading a text aloud. After the intervention finished, they were asked again to perform the task, and mistakes and errors were greatly reduced.

2. Reading aloud is a difficult technique to use when its purpose is not clear in the EFL classroom. Teachers tend to use it in order to see if students comprehend the content. In the case of the present study, its purpose was to use it for measuring students level of intelligibility, not to determine their level of comprehension. In sum, reading aloud is a useful technique when it is used by the teacher wisely and in specific situations. Additionally, when a teacher decides to explain pronunciation features explicitly, students get the chance to learn the necessary tips to become more intelligible in oral situations. In this particular case, the participants, who are novice teachers, will be able to expand this knowledge to their future students and provide them with the necessary tools to improve their pronunciation.

51

These results have served as a proof for teachers of English in the sense that explicit instruction can be beneficial when learning pronunciation and that RA can 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 course. The idea is to keep trying until any problem related to the English class is solved and, in this regard, the teacher is an important component to get positive results.

52

3.4 Limitations of the Study

At the beginning of the experiment, eight sessions were planned for the interventions. Even though it was considered that the administration of time in this study was good enough, more sessions would have been better in order to cover more contents related to the teaching of pronunciation or giving more feedback to the participants. However, in the end of the experiment, students ended up showing 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 was stated in the present study, reading aloud is a useful strategy when the purpose of its 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 with spontaneous speech, it was decided to use only the former because students would read the same stretches, which helped in the administration of time. Another limitation was that we could not control the variable of the improvement that they might have gotten from the sessions of pronunciation training. We have to consider that students also attended their regular English classes where they are exposed to input and teachers corrections on pronunciation

53

3.5 Pedagogical Implications

We have seen that explicit pronunciation instruction can increase students level of intelligibility when reading aloud, allowing them either to get a clear pronunciation or apply the necessary knowledge to produce the sounds of the English language. In this same line, when teaching pronunciation, teachers should explain pronunciation points explicitly in order to improve learners intelligibility. In other words, they should train students in the sense of making them realize about the different positions of the mouth and tongue, using the L1 to show examples of sounds that are part of either the L1 or L2, tips which will be good for them since they know (or, at least, the teacher can make them realize) the sounds of their own language, among others. In summary, the language teacher should make the teaching of pronunciation explicit instead of expecting students to get the rules of pronunciation by themselves, which could not be good for them since the teacher is not objectively measuring their levels of intelligibility. When the teacher leaves students to learn the rules of pronunciation by themselves, he is not really making sure they understood them. Regarding to the use of reading aloud, teachers of English should start using it in the EFL classroom for pronunciation purposes without comprehension tasks. Reading aloud is a useful technique when the reasons of its use are clear. As this study shows in the theoretical framework, the use of reading aloud as a comprehension strategy is not recommended by specialists because when students are asked to answer questions about the text, the student will say he or she needs to read again in order to properly perform the task, not fulfilling the objective the
54

teacher gave to this strategy. When assessing students intelligibility, comprehension questions are unnecessary since the idea of using it should be based on getting a sample of students speech in order to be measured. In the end, drawbacks should be properly and carefully considered when using reading aloud. In order to contribute to body of research related to pronunciation issues, teachers should also start using reading aloud when the semester has just started in order to assess his or her students intelligibility and determine what to focus on in the next lessons. In that way, the teacher will be focusing on two factors: evaluating what students need to learn or what students have more problems with at the moment of learning English pronunciation and provide or support existent theory to the study of English pronunciation. Finally, this project seeks to shed some light on the issue of explicit pronunciation instruction among language teachers. The implementation of this teaching method in the classroom should be considered at least as formative assessment.

55

References Centeno, A. (2001). Efectos de la Enseanza Explcita de Pronunciacin en Estudiantes de Espaol de Nivel Intermedio. Spain, Valencia. Retrieved from http://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/bitstream/handle/10724/7559/centenopulido_alberto_200408_ma.pdf?sequence=1 Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., & Goodwin, J.M. (2010). Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book and Reference Guide. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Derwing, T.M. & Munro, M.J. (2005). Second Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: A Research-Based Approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379397. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588486 Fischer, R. (1979) The Inductive-Deductive Controversy Revisited. Modern Language Journal, 63, 98-105. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/325777 Gibson, S. (2008). Reading Aloud: A Useful Learning Tool? ELT Journal, 62, 2936. 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 from

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/5683/4602

56

Jenkins, J. (1998). Which Pronunciation Norms and Models for English as an International Language? ELT Journal, 52, 119-126. Retrieved from

http://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: Longman Handbooks for Language Teachers. Lally, C. (1998). The Implicit versus Explicit Division in Language Learning Theory, Method, and Practice. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 31, 154159. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3531176 Mesmer, H.A., & Griffith, P.L. (2006). Everybodys Selling It: But Just What is Explicit, 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 Teaching and Applied Linguistics. (4th ed.) Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited. Saito, K. (2011). Examining the Role of Explicit Phonetic Instruction in NativeLike and Comprehensible Pronunciation Development: An Instructed SLA Approach to L2 Phonology. Language Awareness, 20, 45-59. Retrieved from http://www.routledge.com/ Shaffer, C. (1989). A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching Foreign Languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 395-403. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/326874

57

Stevens, D.D., & Levis, A.J. (2005). Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback And Promote Student Learning . Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing. Wells, J. (n.d.). Goals in Teaching English Pronunciation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College London. Yopp, H.K., & Yopp, R.H. (2000). Supporting Phonemic Awareness Development in the Classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54, 130-143. Retrieved from http://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.pdf

58

APPENDIX

59

Intelligibility Pretest Rubric

Judges Name: Students Name: The following rubric has been adapted for counting the number of errors made by a speaker when reading a text aloud. Judges should write down the errors and write the total in the last section.

Elements of Speech
Consonants: Does the speaker have repeated problems with any consonants or clusters? Vowels: Do vowel sounds negatively affect intelligibility? Syllables and Grammatical Endings: -s endings (Americans, relationships) -d endings (considered, appreciated) Word Stress: Does stress fall on the appropriate syllable? Rhythm and Intonation: Does the speaker speak in a natural rhythm? Or does language sound abrupt or choppy? Is every word given the 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 the appropriate places? Or, does it sound monotone? Thought Groups and Linking: Does the speaker pause at commas and other appropriate places? Delivery (rate of speech, loudness): Does the speaker speak too loudly or quietly, too fast, or too slow?
Total: _______________

Number of Errors

Adapted from Gerhiser & Wrenn, GA TESOL, 2007.

60

Intelligibility Posttest Rubric

Judges Name: Students Name: The following rubric has been adapted for counting the number of errors made by a speaker when reading a text aloud. Judges should write down the errors and write the total in the last section.

Elements of Speech
Consonants: Does the speaker have repeated problems with any consonants or clusters? Vowels: Do vowel sounds negatively affect intelligibility? Syllables and Grammatical Endings: -s endings (Americans, relationships) -d endings (considered, appreciated) Word Stress: Does stress fall on the appropriate syllable? Rhythm and Intonation: Does the speaker speak in a natural rhythm? Or does language sound abrupt or choppy? Is every word given the 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 the appropriate places? Or, does it sound monotone? Thought Groups and Linking: Does the speaker pause at commas and other appropriate places? Delivery (rate of speech, loudness): Does the speaker speak too loudly or quietly, too fast, or too slow?
Total: _______________

Number of Errors

Adapted from Gerhiser & Wrenn, GA TESOL, 2007.

61

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 sounds by reading aloud a passage from a textbook. Skill: Listening, Speaking. Materials & Equipment: Teaching Pronunciation textbook, pp. 219 -220, track 13 from the book, transcript from the audio file, projector, computer, PowerPoint. Length of Class: 60 minutes. Skill P,G, I, WC WC Time 5 Procedures Introduction: The teacher will start the lesson by greeting students, calling the roll, and writing the objective of the lesson on the board. Then, he will ask students what they learned from last class as a warm-up. WC 25 Pre-stage: After this, the teacher will introduce the new content using a PowerPoint presentation and the projector. He will start the lesson by asking students the meaning of the word linking by using the projector. Once students have shared their answers, the teacher will show the correct one. Then, he will explain students that there are many types of linking. The teacher will explain each one using examples and modeling. By the end of the presentation, he will ask students if they have questions. L GW 10 While-stage: Once the teacher has done this, he will play track 13 from the Teaching Pronunciation textbook and will give students the transcript. Students will have to listen to a native speaker talking about earthquake safety and then produce it. The teacher will play the audio file two to three times so students get a glimpse of the text. Post-stage: S WC 20 After students have listened to the track, the teacher will ask them to read it aloud one by one. The teacher will correct if necessary. Then, he will go back to the objective of the lesson and point it out again.
62

63