EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in Teaching- Learning Process and Its...

[Type text]

ELT Voices – India Volume 3 Issue 2 | April 2013

ISSN 2230-9136

© Ignite (India) Publishing, Bhavnagar, Gujarat – India

www.eltvoices.in

ELT Research Paper 5

EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in Teaching-Learning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation

Gholamreza Abbasian, Ph.D. Department of English, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Aadel Bahmanie, M.A. Department of English, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in Teaching-

Learning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation

62 | E L T V o i c e s – I n d i a ( V o l . 3 I s s u e 2 ) | A p r i l 2 0 1 3 | I S S N 2 2 3 0 - 9 1 3 6

Abstract

The current study was conducted to investigate the relationship between EFL teachers’

and learners’ reflection on pronunciation factor in teaching-learning process and

learners’ motivation. To fulfil the purpose of the study, 30 EFL instructors answered a

pronunciation knowledge and awareness questionnaire, and 70 lower-intermediate EFL

learners responded to a pronunciation knowledge and awareness questionnaire and

Gardner’s Motivation Inventory. Using chi-square, the analysis of the data showed that

EFL teachers’ pronunciation was significantly reflected upon by both EFL teachers and

learners, though EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection did not have any statistically

significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation. However, the

material analysis and qualitative interaction analyses revealed that, pedagogically, the

teachers should care about their pronunciation while teaching. Both EFL teachers and

learners may avail from the findings of this study.

Key words: Reflective teaching, pronunciation reflection, motivation




1. Introduction

For a long time, as a learning tool, reflection has been crucially necessary for effective

decision making in environments in which there are ambiguous problems and unique

elements with approximately no solutions (Pee et al., 2000). As far as curriculum and

education are concerned, students’ reflective thinking has been advocated by many

researchers (Hay, Peltier, & Drago 2004; Kember & Leung 2005). However, research on

reflection has mostly fallen at conceptual level rather than empirical one. This partially stems

from the lack of any consistent theory on reflection. In addition, the majority of reflective

studies has been qualitative in nature (Cope 2003; Dempsey, Halton, & Murphy, 2001) or

applied instruments with low reliability scores and/or that resulted in unacceptable validity

(Kember, Biggs, & Leung 2004). Therefore, this study is an attempt to explore learners’ and

teachers’ knowledge and their deliberation in monitoring it in the process of teaching and

learning.

2. Review of the Related Literature

Reflection can also be discussed from the view point of second language teaching. Richards

and Lockhart (1994) define reflective second language teaching as an approach in which

instructors “collect data about teaching , examine their attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and

teaching practices, and use the information obtained as a basis for critical reflection” (p.1,

cited in Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 500) about their efforts in language courses. Demonstrating

the importance of reflection in material design, Philip Shigeo Brown (2007) introduces the

content of Birmingham MA TEFL/TESL course at the core of which reflection tasks can be

seen.

Reflective practices have also been valued in the realms of speech production and perception.

Rutherford (1987) believes that speakers’ completing self-evaluation forms on the basis of

listeners’ reflection on the delivery of the speech helps to fortify awareness or consciousness-

raising. Teaching and learning pronunciation too need teachers with reflective habits.

Kenworthy (1987) considers providing feedback as a role of an EFL pronunciation teacher.

Yule, Hoffman, and Damico (1987) assume that self-monitoring skills have effects on

pronunciation perception. Morley (1994) considers speech monitoring, important goals for




pronunciation instruction. Pennington (1992) also believes that reflective practice motivates

second language learners. However, Nunan (1993) contends that learner motivation doesn’t

seem to be the biggest concern of EFL teachers.

Oxford (1990) considers motivation among affective factors which has a great role in

language learning success or failure. What follows casts light on the link between motivation,

care, and pronunciation learning. Kenworthy (1987) believes that the affecting factors in

learning pronunciation are the native language, the age factor, the amount of exposure,

phonetic ability, attitude and identity, motivation and concern for good pronunciation.

Niederhauser also discusses that “Korean attitudes toward foreign languages and cultures also

influence student motivation” (1997, p. 7).The role of motivation in improving language

proficiency has been examined in early SLA research; native-like pronunciation has also been

among the elements of language proficiency in much of that research (Gardner & Lambert,

1972).

It is believed when an eager FL student faces an FL teacher having a great command on

pronunciation and speaking skills different from the others; she may be encouraged to speak

like him because it sounds appealing. So, stemming from implanted learning motivation,

there might be more student preparation for a class like that, and learning would be facilitated

indirectly by teacher’s correct pronunciation. That can be among the direct and/or indirect

benefits of pronunciation reflection in teaching-learning process. Of course, other features of

a good English language teacher, such as the ability to transfer the knowledge, should not be

ignored.

Some researchers (e.g. Derwing & Munro, 2005) believe that pronunciation teaching has

been marginalized. Vitanova and Miller (2002) contend that the learner is ignored in the

related literature. However, correlation between motivation and pronunciation training is

what researchers have come to (Vitanova & Miller, 2002). Some years later, Moyer (2004)

came to another conclusion: a few highly motivated adult L2 learners achieve native-like

speech patterns. Leather assumes that motivation causes L2 speech development. Suter

(1976), Purcell and Suter (1980) contend that motivation affects pronunciation, but this effect

has been considered a little. And finally, Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970) conclude that Farsi

EFL learners pay more attention to the factors of learning motivation. Many (e.g. Derwing,

Munro, & Wiebe, 1998) discuss that teaching pronunciation results in improvement of




foreign language production. But Suter (1976), Purcell and Suter (1980) assume that a little

relationship has been found between classroom pronunciation instruction and pronuncial

proficiency. They add that reaching accurate second language pronunciation is not within the

control of educators. They conclude that there is no strong correlation between identifying

accents and the amount of time allocated to studying English.

Seidlhofer (2001) believes that a basic knowledge in pronunciation, after comprehending it is

a valuable and powerful resource. When EFL learners say ‘tree’ instead of ‘three’, they

should not expect the native listener to get what they have wanted to produce at the first step

because the addressee does not live on their mind. However, the degree of importance of

phonological appropriation is a challenge in the domain of TEFL. Communication might be

ruined if there is phonological misunderstanding. Although the native speakers focus on the

addressor in language communication, in cross-cultural comprehensibility, the addressee and

intelligibility/comprehensibility of the message receive the emphasis (Jenkins, 2005).

In countries such as Iran, English language is taught as a Foreign Language (FL). In cases

like that, the effect of the teachers’ accent on the students’ seems to be something inevitable

because of the limited students’ exposure to English language. To study the English language

pronunciation status of Iranian EFL teachers, getting to know some features of Persian

pronunciation system seems to be a warranted. For instance, since there is no /w/ in Persian,

/v/ is mostly used instead. The story might be the same for the final –ng and schwa.

Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) shed light on the difference between the sole Persian

alveolar trill /r/ in the initial position, and the English tap [ɾ , and a voiceless word-final trill

r . o, as it is not imaginable that an EFL learner, who has been exposed to incorrect input,

produces sound output, the input had better get fixed at first. On the other hand, Gilbert

(1995) believes in interdependency of listening comprehension and pronunciation. “If they

cannot hear well, they are cut off from language. If they cannot be understood easily, they are

cut off from conversation with native speakers” (Cited in Robertson, 2005, p.8). Nooteboom

(1983) also has suggested that speech perception affects speech production.

Kenworthy (1990) believes that an EFL pronunciation teacher should help learners hear and

make sounds by providing them with his feedback. More specifically, in communicative

learning programs, “speech coach” or “pronunciation coach” are the roles of the teacher




entitled by Morley (1991). The speech coach, apart from correcting errors and supplying

information, “gives models, offers cues, suggestions and constructive feedback about the

performance, sets high standards, provides a wide variety of practice opportunities, and

overall supports and encourages the learner” (Morley, 1991, p. 507; cited in Robertson, 2005,

p. 10).

On phonological acquisition in multilingualism, Leather (n.d.) considers motivation, an

effective factor in developing L2 speech. It seems that many EFL learners drop classes due to

poor pronunciation inherited by incompetent teachers. Faulty pronunciation may affect

motivation to learn as well. On the other hand, improving pronunciation will enhance self-

esteem and facilitate communication. Effective communication, as a fruit, seems to be of

greatest importance. According to Gardner, motivation is "the extent to which the individual

works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction

experienced in this activity" (Gardner, 1985).

Given the status quo of the affairs such as reflectivity in teaching, pronunciation and

motivation and possibility of their interrelationship, this study was designed to fill the gap in

the literature in order to explore learners’ knowledge and their deliberation in monitoring it in

their teacher’s teaching, to explore teachers’ knowledge and their deliberation and reflection

in using it in their teaching, and to investigate the extent their knowledge and awareness of

pronunciation skill factors match. In line with this trend, this study attempted to investigate

the assumed relationship between EFL teachers’ and learners’ reflection on pronunciation

factor in teaching-learning process and learners’ motivation.

3. Method

3.1.Participants

One hundred randomly selected Iranian lower-intermediate EFL students and thirty EFL

instructors, among which one Ph.D., seven M.A., and twenty-one B.A. in TEFL, and one B.S.

holders, made up the population of 130 people for this study.

3.2. Instrumentation




To collect the data, following instruments were employed.

1. A pronunciation knowledge and awareness questionnaire /inventory to measure the

teachers’ reflection and carefulness on their pronunciation while teaching (Derwing &

Rossiter, 2002)

2. A pronunciation knowledge and awareness questionnaire /inventory to measure the

learners’ awareness and care for their teachers’ pronunciation (Derwing & Rossiter 2002)

3. Gardner’s Motivation Inventory to measure the learners’ motivation (2004)

3.3. Procedures

Instrument Validation

In order to validate the questionnaires, in a piloting phase, 10 MA students in TEFL answered

the questionnaire measuring the learners’ awareness and care for their teachers’

pronunciation, and 6 university instructors, in the same field, commented on the content of

the questionnaire measuring the teachers’ reflection and carefulness on pronunciation while

teaching.

3.4. Data Collection

To collect the data on measuring the learners’ motivation, awareness and care for their

teachers’ pronunciation, the two respective questionnaires were administered in a one-week

interval. Though the distribution and then collection of the questionnaires were anonymous,

no one received the second questionnaire of somebody else. That was done by allocating

every student a number. Then, the questionnaire measuring teachers’ reflection and care on

their pronunciation while teaching, was administered to EFL instructors. Seventy of the

learners answered both questionnaires, and no EFL instructors left a questionnaire blank.

4. Results and Discussions

Given the nature of the data and the instruments used, the data was mainly analyzed based on

frequency and chi-square analyses as follows.




Investigation of the Research Questions

An analysis of chi-square was run to probe the first research question addressing whether

EFL teachers are significantly reflective on their pronunciation skill while teaching. As

displayed in Table 1, the chi-square observed value of 875.41 (P = .000 < .05) indicates that

there are significant differences between the choices selected by the teachers when

responding to the questionnaire. The justification for the application of the analysis of chi-

square lies in the fact that if the teachers are significantly reflective on their pronunciation

skill while teaching, then they should select the “usually and always” choices more than the

negative ones.

Table 1. Analysis of Chi-Square Reflection on Teaching Pronunciation

CHOICES

Chi-Square 875.411a

Df 4

Sig. .000

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency

is 462.0.

Table 2 displays the frequencies, expected and residual values for the teachers’ selection of

the choices regarding their reflection on pronunciation while teaching English. The positive

residual values for the last two choices (usually and always) indicate that their reflection on

pronunciation while teaching is beyond expectation. On the other hand, the negative residuals

for the first three negative and moderate choices indicate that the teachers believe that they

rarely fail to concentrate on pronunciation while teaching. Based on these results, it can be

concluded that the first null-hypothesis as EFL teachers are not significantly reflective on




their pronunciation skill while teaching is rejected. Majority of the EFL teachers significantly

believe that they are reflective on their pronunciation skill while teaching.

Table 2. Frequencies, Expected and Residual Values EFL Teachers’ Reflection on Pronunciation kill while Teaching

Observed N Expected N Residual

Never 132 462.0 -330.0

Seldom 251 462.0 -211.0

Sometimes 365 462.0 -97.0

Usually 919 462.0 457.0

Always 643 462.0 181.0

An analysis of chi-square was also run to probe the second research question addressing

whether EFL learners are significantly reflective on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning

process. As displayed in Table 4.3., the chi-square observed value of 2629.02 (P = .000 < .05)

indicates that there are significant differences between the choices selected by the learners

when responding to the questionnaire on their reflection on teachers’ pronunciation in

learning process. The justification for the application of the analysis of chi-square lies in the

fact that if the learners are significantly reflective on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning

process, then they should select the “usually and always” choices more than the negative

ones.

Table 3. Analysis of Chi- quare Reflection on Teachers’ Pronunciation

CHOICES

Chi-Square 2629.028a

Df 4

Sig. .000




a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum

expected cell frequency is 1247.0.

Table 4 displays the frequencies, expected and residual values for the students’ selection of

the choices regarding their reflection on teachers’ pronunciation in learning process. The

positive residual values for the last three choices (sometimes, usually, and always) indicate

that their reflection on teachers’ pronunciation while learning English is beyond expectation.

On the other hand the negative residuals for the first two negative choices indicate that the

students believe that they rarely fail to concentrate on their teachers’ pronunciation in

learning process. Based on these results it can be concluded that the second null-hypothesis

as EFL learners are not significantly reflective on their teacher’s pronunciation in learning

process is rejected. Majority of the EFL learners significantly believe that they are reflective

on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning process.

Table 4. Frequencies, Expected and Residual Values EFL tudents’ Reflection on Teachers’ Pronunciation

Observed N Expected N Residual

Never 298 1274.0 -976.0

Seldom 434 1274.0 -840.0

Sometimes 1427 1274.0 153.0

Usually 2483 1274.0 1209.0

Always 1728 1274.0 454.0

An analysis of chi-square was again run to probe the third research question addressing

whether EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection has any significant effects on EFL learners’

language learning motivation. If there are not any significant differences between the




teachers’ pronunciation reflection and EFL learners’ language learning motivation and

majority of the answers belong to the positive choices (usually and always) conclusion can be

reached as teacher’s pronunciation reflection has a significant effects on EFL learners’

language learning motivation. On the other hand, if no significant differences are observed or

the responses given by the teachers and students are contradictory, then it can be concluded

that teacher’s pronunciation reflection does not have any significant effects on EFL learners’

language learning motivation.

As displayed in Table 5, the significant chi-square value of 306.89 (P = .000 < .05) indicates

that there are significant differences between the teachers and learners’ responses given to the

reflection on the pronunciation and language learning motivation.

Table 5. Analysis of Chi- quare Teachers’ Reflection on Pronunciation and Learners’ Language Learning

Motivation

Value Df . Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 306.890a 4 .000

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 305.43.

Table 6 displays the frequencies, percentages and the standardized residuals for the teachers

and learners’ responses given to the reflection on the pronunciation and language learning

motivation. The frequencies and percentages are descriptive statistics, however the

standardized residual is an index based on which inferences can be made. Any standardized

residual beyond the ranges of +/- 1.96 (underlined and italicized) denotes significant

differences between the two groups’ responses.

Based on these results, it can be concluded that standardized residuals for the teachers’

responses on the positive side of the table – usually and always – are positive, i.e. the teachers




believe that they are reflective on pronunciation when teaching English while the

standardized residuals on the negative side of the table – never and seldom – are negative, i.e.

the teachers believe that they rarely fail to concentrate on pronunciation when teaching

English.

Table 6. Frequencies, Percentages and tandardized Residuals Teachers’ Reflection on Pronunciation and

Learners’ Language Learning Motivation

CHOICES Total

Never Seldom Sometimes Usually Always

Teacher

Count 132 251 365 919 643 2310

% within STATUS 5.7% 10.9% 15.8% 39.8% 27.8% 100.0%

Std. Residual -9.9 -3.5 -3.8 10.1 2.3

Student

Count 1136 1044 1486 1816 1798 7280

% within STATUS 15.6% 14.3% 20.4% 24.9% 24.7% 100.0%

Std. Residual 5.6 1.9 2.2 -5.7 -1.3

Count 1268 1295 1851 2735 2441 9590

% within STATUS 13.2% 13.5% 19.3% 28.5% 25.5% 100.0%

A reverse pattern is, however, observed for the students. The negative standardized residuals

on the positive side of the table indicate that the students do not hold a positive motivation

towards learning English. Moreover the positive standardized residuals on the negative side

of the table indicate that the EFL students are not motivated to learn English. Based on these

results, it can be concluded that EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection does not have any




significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation is supported. In other words

the teachers’ reflection on pronunciation does not increase the students’ motivation towards

learning English.

Table 7 shows the degrees to which teachers’ reflectivity matches or mismatches that of the

learners. To estimate these degrees, values offered by the EFL teachers and learners on five

measurement scales are compared. The more these two groups act differently on the scales,

the more they mismatch.

Table 7. Comparing Teachers-Learners’ Reflectivity

On all the areas of measurement, their observed and expected values are drastically different

from each other. For example, the teachers and learners’ observed values for the

measurement scale of Sometimes are respectively 365 and 1427, and/or Usually measurement

scale also receives 919 and 2483 in this comparison. In addition, due to fixed expected values

for the teachers and learners respectively 462 and 1274, all the standardized residuals are also

dramatically different. Meanwhile, the teachers’ residual value for Never measurement scale

is -330.0, while that of the learners is -976.0, and/or the residual values for Sometimes




measurement scale are respectively -97.0 and 153.0. All the residual values for the

measurement scales of Usually and Always are positive. The only negative value for

Sometimes measurement scale, -97.0, goes to the teachers and is made up by negative values

for Seldom and Never. The learners are unanimous with the teachers in offering negative

values for the measurement scales of Seldom and Never.

Although EFL teachers’ pronunciation is reflected upon by both EFL teachers and learners,

the difference between residual values the teachers and learners have offered indicates that

the EFL learners are more reflective than the teachers.

5. Discussions and Conclusions

As the analyses show, EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection does not have any significant

effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation. In other words, the teachers’

reflection on pronunciation does not increase the students’ motivation towards learning

English. This is not in line with the finding of Pennington (1992) who reported reflective

practice motivates SL learners and that of Kenworthy (1990) who approved the link between

learning pronunciation, care for it, and motivation.

Regarding the teachers’ reflectivity on their own pronunciation, as perceived in Table 2, EFL

teachers are significantly reflective on their pronunciation skill while teaching. That is,

majority of the EFL teachers, however, believe that they are significantly reflective on their

pronunciation skill while teaching. This, however, does not seem to be in line with the

following presuppositions and/or findings. MacDonald (2002) counted the roots of many

teachers’ neglecting pronunciation teaching in Australia as, lack of “confidence, skills and

knowledge” (p. 3, cited in Derwing & Munro, 2005, p.389). Then, Wang and Munro (2004)




found another source in this regard. The problem is the learners’ experience of pedagogical

misdirection.

In addition, as shown in Table 4, EFL learners are also significantly reflective on their

teacher’s pronunciation in learning process. That is majority of the EFL learners significantly

believe that they are reflective on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning process. This is in

line with what the students confessed in the study done by Wang and Munro (2004).

Reflecting on the teacher’s pronunciation, the students could count the learner’s experience

of pedagogical misdirection as another source for teachers who neglect pronunciation

teaching.

In line with pouring light on the views existing in the related literature, the following are

points worthy of note. Oxford (1990) considers motivation an affective factor which plays a

great role in language learning success or failure. While some studies (Suter, 1976; Purcell &

Suter, 1980) have concluded that the relationship between classroom pronunciation

instruction and gained pronuncial proficiency is little, and motivation and native language, as

the strongest factors affecting pronunciation, seem to be taken into consideration to a limited

extent. They believe that reaching accurate second language pronunciation is not within the

control of educators.

As to the link between motivation, pronunciation and acquisition, Oxford (1990) considers

motivation as an affective factor which plays a great role in language learning success or

failure. Moyer (1999) believes in a correlation between motivation and pronunciation

training. Vitanova and Miller (2002) also concluded that passing a pronunciation course

could motivate a learner to work on her pronunciation continuously. Leather (n.d.), on




phonological acquisition in multilingualism, introduces motivation as a factor which has a

role in developing L2 speech.

As a result, reflecting on pronunciation might be considered crucial for FL learners if self-

involvement and self-monitoring were considered subcategories of reflection. On

pronunciation instruction, Morley (1994) believes in considering learners self-involvement

aspects. It means students should be able to monitor and modify their speech. On

pronunciation perception, Yule, Hoffman, and Damico (1987) highlight self-monitoring skills

obligation. Self-monitoring, as a need for consciousness raising process, makes the learner

independent and competent. A student’s active listening to and mirroring a native speaker

help him realize the relation between listening skills and production of speech (Vitanova &

Miller, 2002). On real language use, Morley (1994) considers speech monitoring and

modification strategies, important goals for pronunciation instruction. As a conclusion,

although EFL teacher’s pronunciation is significantly reflected upon by both EFL teachers

themselves and EFL learners, it does not have any significant effects on EFL learners’

language learning motivation.

6. Final Remarks

In spite of the fact that EFL teachers’ pronunciation is significantly reflected upon by both

EFL teachers and learners, EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection does not have any

significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation. It means that an EFL

student who has been reported to reflect on his EFL teacher’s pronunciation is not

significantly motivated in light of his teacher’s pronunciation skill. It might be

conservatively attributed to the feeling and assumption that EFL students are not really after

learning English language or they suffer from educational indecisiveness. Because

Pennington (1992) contends that reflective practice motivates second language learners, and




Kenworthy (1990) also approves the link between learning pronunciation, care for it, and

motivation. Contrary to necessity of observing the roles besides FL learning motivational

factors, it seems that questionnaire is not much valid instrument to be used for collecting data

on personal traits such as motivation since the respondents are rarely willing to act honestly

and seriously. Other strategies such as longitudinal video-taping while teaching-learning

process might help any other interested researcher come to more reliable depth results.

References

Brown, P. S. (2007). Reflective teaching, reflective learning. Unpublished MA Thesis, Birmingham,

UK, University of Birmingham.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. USA: Heinle & Heinle.

Cope, J. (2003). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection. Management Learning, 34 (4), 429-

50.

Dempsey, M., Halton, C., & Murphy, M. (2001). Reflective learning in social work education:

Scaffolding the

process. Social Work Education, 20(6), 631–641. doi: 10.1080/02615470120089825

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A

research-based approach. Journal of TESOL QUARTERLY, 39,379-397. doi:10.2307/3588486

Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2002). E L learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and

strategies. System 30, 155–166.doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00012-X

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology in second language learning: The role of attitudes and

motivation.

London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Gilbert, J. (1995). Pronunciation practices as an aid to listening comprehension. In D. J. Mendelson

and J. Rubin (Eds.), A Guide for the Teaching of Second Language Learning (pp. 97-111). San Diego:

Dominic Press




Hay, A., J.W. Peltier, and W. A. Drago. 2004. Reflective learning and on-line management education:

A comparison of traditional and on-line MBA students. Strategic Change, 13 (4), 169-82.doi:

10.1177/0273475305279657

Jenkins, J. (2005). Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of

teacher attitudes and identity. Journal of TESOL QUARTERLY, 39,535-543. doi:10.2307/3588493

Kember. D., Biggs, I & Leung, D. (2004). Examining the multidimension- ality of approaches to learning

through the development of a revised version of the learning process questionnaire. British Journal of

Educational Psychology 74 (2), 261-78.

Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2005). The Influence of the Teaching and Learning Environment on

the Development of Generic Capabilities needed for a Knowledge-based Society. Learning

Environments Research,8, 245-266.

Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. Longman, Harlow.

Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.

MacDonald, S. (2002). Pronunciation—views and practices of reluctant teachers. Prospect, 17(3), 3–

18.

Morley, J. (1994). A multidimensional curriculum design for speech-pronunciation instruction. In J.

Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation theory and pedagogy: New views, new directions (64-91). Alexandria,

VA: TESOL.

Moyer, A. (2004). Age, accent and experience in second language acquisition. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters

Nooteboom, S. (1983). Is speech production controlled by speech perception? In van den Broecke et

al. (Eds.), Sound structure (pp. 153-194). Dordrecht: Foris.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York:

Newbury House.

Oller, J.W., & Ziahosseiny, S.M. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors.

Language Learning, 20, 183-89

Pee, B., Woodman, T., Fry, H., & Davenport, E. (2000). Practice-based learning: Views on the

development of a reflective learning tool. Medical Education, 34, 754-561.

Pennington, M. (1992). Reflecting on teaching and learning: A developmental focus for the second

language classroom. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language

teacher education. HongKong: City Polytechnic.

Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Rutherford, W.E. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. Longman

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua

franca’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133-158.

Suter, R. (1976). Predicators of pronunciation accuracy in second language learning. Language

Learning, 26,

233-53.

Suter, R., & Purcell, E. (1980). Predictors of pronunciation accuracy: A re-examination, Language

Learning, 30(2), 271-287.

Vitanova, G., & Miller, A. (2002). Reflective practice in pronunciation learning. The Internet TESOL

Journal, 8(1), 31-39.

Yule, G., Hoffman, P., & Damico, J. (1987). Paying attention to pronunciation: The role of self-

monitoring in

perception. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 765–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586994

Date post:	28-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	abbasiantefl
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in Teaching- Learning Process and Its...

Documents