1. Journal of Teaching and Education,
CD-ROM. ISSN: 2165-6266 :: 2(3):71–77 (2013)
Copyright c 2013 by UniversityPublications.net
THAI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ ENGLISH
PRONUNCIATION AND EFFECTS OF TEACHER VARIABLES: ASIAN
PREPARATION
Budsaba Kanoksilapatham
Silpakorn University, Thailand
English is considered a pivotal means of communication. Studies have revealed that successful
communication lies heavily on the accurate placement of stress. With the advent of the ASEAN
Economic Community (AEC) in 2015, English has been selected as the working language for ASEAN.
In this regard, English teachers, particularly elementary school teachers, are recognized as one of the
crucial driving forces propelling English language teaching. The objective of this study is to describe
Thai elementary school teachers’ English pronunciation competence. The participants of this study
were 147 elementary school teachers. An instrument consisting of two parts was devised: the first part
elicited Thai teachers’ personal information (i.e., seven variables in all), and the second part was a
stress identification test, consisting of a set of 50 multisyllabic words. The test scores were used to help
describe Thai teachers’ pronunciation competence, whereas the test scores in conjunction with the
personal information were quantitatively analyzed by ANOVAs or sample t-tests to identify the extent
to which each variable contributed to the teachers’ test scores. The results showed that Thai teachers
have difficulty in identifying the stressed syllables. In addition, among the seven variables explored,
the teachers’ major subject was found to be the only factor significantly impacting the test scores. The
findings are crucial for devising appropriate schemes for professional development of English teachers
in Thailand in order to effectively prepare our Thai students of English for international and ASEAN
communication.
Keywords: Pronunciation, Teacher, Competence, Factor.
Introduction
It is acknowledged that English is an international language. With the advent of ASEAN
Economic Community (AEC), a number of activities and measures related to the use of the
English language have been implemented. For instance, the Charter of the ASEAN was officially
adopted in February 2009 (http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/association-southeast-asian-
nations-asean/). Specifically, according to Article 34 of the Charter, English has been accepted as the
working language of the ASEAN community to promote mutual understanding among the ASEAN
members [1].
With Thailand’s commitment to participate in the ASEAN community in the near future, a number
of social, economic, and educational developments need to be made. Among all these three areas,
education is considered the foundation and driving force to push forward the other two areas. In this
regard, English education in Thailand deserves our scrutiny. That is, not only learners but also scholars
71

2. 72 Budsaba Kanoksilapatham
involved in the English language teaching of all levels need to be more conscious of the increasingly
important role of English and the need to develop and prepare our English language students to be able to
compete with other ASEAN countries not only in the short but also in the long term. In short, the English
teaching in Thailand has embarked on another crucial and more challenging chapter of its development.
In order to successfully accommodate this AEC event and meanwhile prepare Thai learners of
English to be able to compete in the ASEAN market, all educational practitioners at all levels must come
up with certain strategies to achieve this goal. However, according to a number of studies investigating
the success of English language teaching and learning in Thailand [2-6], Thai learners’ performance in
English is not yet satisfactory. This conclusion leads scholars to cast doubt upon the efficiency and
effectiveness of the English language teaching in Thailand in general. A number of possible factors have
been identified to be responsible for this dissatisfaction. For instance, Kanoksilapatham [3] investigated
the stress placement of 574 Thai teachers of English in different levels below high school and found that
Thai teachers of all levels in public schools (teaching Grades 1 to 12) in many provinces made a large
number of mistakes in stress placement in words taken directly from nationally prescribed textbooks.
Many factors are claimed to be responsible for this failure, including qualified teachers, learners’ attitude
towards the English language teaching, instructional materials, and curriculum. Moreover, Isarankura [7]
demonstrated that explicit instruction on prosodic features could improve Thai university students’
pronunciation, a finding that goes against the common belief and practice of neglecting prosodic features
in language instruction [8-9].
In an attempt to encourage and prepare young Thai learners to enhance their English language skill,
the Thai Government has launched a plan to provide young students nation-wide with free tablets. In this
regard, clearly, the emphasis is placed on young Thai elementary students. With additional instructional
media, it is anticipated that they will be better equipped to thrive in the English language use and
communication. However, education in Thailand has been traditionally teacher-fronted; the English
language teaching scenario is not an exception either. This means that teachers still play a vital role in
determining the learning outcomes and success. In this regard, in order to develop Thai learners’
proficiency of English, it is a must that Thai teachers of English possess a body of English language
knowledge that can be shared with and disseminated to their students.
Among all educational levels, elementary education is considered the most important because it is
supposed to lay a basic foundation for individual subject areas and for advanced English skills. A
pertinent question emerges: How ready are Thai teachers of English as resource persons as far as English
pronunciation is concerned? To address this research question, this study investigates the English
pronunciation competence of Thai elementary teachers in public schools. Since stress is one of the
principal prosodic features to the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the English language [7, 10-13],
this study focuses on Thai teachers’ ability in identifying stressed syllables of multisyllabic words. The
study elucidates the linguistic competence of Thai elementary teachers of English. It also allows
administrators and language planners to accordingly cater to these teachers’ needs to improve their
pronunciation competence for the benefits of English education in Thailand in general and their students
in particular.
Methods
The objective of this study is to describe Thai elementary school teachers’ English pronunciation
competence as assessed by the stress identification test. Two specific questions related to the objective
are: 1) What is Thai teachers’ English pronunciation competence like? and 2) What are possible factors
contributing to their test scores?
Participants
The participants of this research were 160 teachers, teaching English in different public elementary
schools of Samut Sakhon (a province about 29 kilometers from Bangkok), Thailand. These teachers were

3. Thai Elementary School Teachers’ English Pronunciation... 73
those attending a 6-hour workshop on the English language teaching organized by the Primary
Educational Service Area Office of Samut Sakhon in July, 2012. The researcher singled-handedly played
the role of the trainer and speaker of the workshop.
Instrument
The instrument used in this project consists of two parts: personal information questionnaire and stress
identification test.
Part A: Personal Information Questionnaire
Personal information of Thai elementary school teachers was elicited by a questionnaire probing into the
seven teacher variables of age, gender, highest academic qualification, major subject, grade level(s)
taught at the time of study, years of teaching English, and experience in an English-speaking country.
Part B: Stress Placement Test
In order to make sure that the words tested were appropriate and suitable for the elementary school
teachers, lists of vocabulary items at the end of the English elementary textbooks prescribed by the
Ministry of Education were examined. A total of 400 words were collected. Given the purpose of this
study was to determine Thai teachers’ ability to identify stress in words, monosyllabic words were
excluded, resulting in the pool of 286 multisyllabic words and compound nouns. Because compound
nouns follow the same stress pattern, only five compound nouns were randomly selected. In addition,
based on the 15 categories of words adopted in the textbooks (day, month, season, weather, body part,
animal, fruit, family member, color, job, food and drink, musical instrument, classroom item, descriptive
adjective, and frequency adverb), three words were randomly selected to represent each category.
Therefore, the stress identification test consists of a list of 50 words (as shown in the appendix). The list
was, however, mixed in terms of syllable numbers, ranging from 2 to 4 syllables. That is, 27, 17, and 6
words contain 2, 3, and 4 syllables, respectively.
Data Collection
Before the workshop started, the researcher distributed the profile questionnaire and the test to 160
teachers. The researcher explained to the teachers how to complete the profile questionnaire and the test.
For the pronunciation identification task, put simply, the teachers were asked to identify the stressed
syllable of each word by making a cross on the number (1, 2, 3, or 4) corresponding to the stressed
syllable of individual words. The test took about 20 minutes.
Data Analyses
First, the personal information was coded, and the test was marked by the researcher. One item was
worth one point, resulting in a total of 50 points. Incomplete questionnaires were excluded.
Subsequently, statistical analyses were conducted by using the SPSS software program to provide
descriptive statistics and to determine a main effect of the seven variables explored.
Results and Discussion
Out of the 160 questionnaires collected, 13 questionnaires were not completely filled and thus were
excluded, resulting in a set of 147 questionnaires for further statistical analysis. Out of 50 points for the

4. 74 Budsaba Kanoksilapatham
stress identification test, the minimum score was 1, and the maximum was 46, with the mean score of
31.52 and the SD value of 9.499, suggesting a wide range of test scores among 147 teachers. Moreover,
the mean of about 32 or 64% seemed to be quite low, given the fact that the words tested were taken
directly from the national prescribed textbooks for elementary schools. In order to explore further what
factors related to the teachers were responsible for the teachers’ general unsatisfactory test scores, the
questionnaire data and the identification test scores were quantitatively analyzed, as summarized in the
following table.
Variable Sub-group N (percent) Mean Score SD p value
Age 1. 21-30 yrs
2. 31-40 yrs
3. 41-50 yrs
4. 51-60 yrs
55 (37.41%)
36 (24.48%)
25 (17.01%)
31 (21.09%)
28.76
34.97
30.88
32.94
10.639
6.793
10.084
8.338
.016
Gender 1. Male
2. Female
24 (16.33%)
123 (83.7%)
33.33
31.17
8.334
9.701
.309
Academic
qualification
1. < Bachelor’s
2. Bachelor’s
3. > Bachelor’s
6 (4.08%)
128 (87.07%)
13 (8.84%)
39.50
31.24
29.77
4.278
9.103
13.223
.091
Major subject 1. English
2. Non-English
69 (46.94%)
78 (53.06%)
34.16
29.19
8.071
10.091
.001*
Grade level 1. Grades 1-3
2. Grades 4-6
3. Grades 1-6
44 (29.93%)
64 (43.54%)
39 (26.53%)
30.70
31.27
32.87
10.197
9.376
8.971
.563
Teaching years 1. < 1 year
2. 1-10 yrs
3. 11-20 yrs
4. 21-30 yrs
5. 31-40 yrs
34 (23.13%)
81 (55.10%)
19 (12.93%)
10 (6.80%)
3 (20.41%)
28.71
31.20
35.32
35.70
34.33
9.691
9.998
7.008
6.865
3.055
.079
Experience
abroad
1. With
2. Without
6 (4.08%)
141 (95.92%)
36.36
31.30
5.574
9.581
.177
The table above presents the statistical results of the seven variables (their sub-groups and
corresponding numbers of the teachers). The table also highlights both the mean test scores in relation to
individual teacher variables elicited through the profile questionnaire and the magnitude of the effects of
the variables on the test scores. The following sections present the analysis of the test scores by each
variable.
Age: The 147 teachers’ age represented a wide range from 24 to 60 years old, with the average of about
38 years old. The teachers’ ages were grouped into four categories, each with 10 increments. Most of the
teachers were in the 21-30 age group (about 37%), but the highest mean score belonged to the 31-40 age
group. Based on the mean scores for the four age groups, an analysis of variance or ANOVA was
conducted and showed that the effect of age on the test scores was insignificant, F(3,143) = 3.576, p =
0.016.
Gender: Conforming to a typical scenario of Thailand across all academic levels, English language
teaching in this province was dominated by female teachers (about 84%). However, males performed
better on this pronunciation test. An independent sample t-test comparing the test scores obtained by

5. Thai Elementary School Teachers’ English Pronunciation... 75
male and female teachers found no significant difference. That is, gender did not seem to have a
substantial impact on the test scores: t(145)=1.020, p =.309.
Academic qualification: The 147 participants, though taught in elementary schools, are quite diverse in
their academic backgrounds. Most of the teachers completed their bachelor’s degree (about 87%),
whereas some with a master’s degree and very few did not earn a bachelor’s degree. In this regard, the
comparison of the three mean scores from the three groups as defined by the academic qualification,
based on ANOVA, showed that the effect of the academic qualification was insignificant: F(2,143) =
2.439, p =.091.
English major: The numbers of the teachers who completed their degree with a major in English and
those who did not were not vastly different. The non-English major teachers (about 53%) slightly
outnumber those with English major (about 47%) and have a higher mean score. An independent-sample
t-test comparing test scores obtained by these two groups revealed significant difference: t(145)=3.267,
p =.001.
Grade level taught: Based on their answers about grade levels taught, the 147 teachers were assigned
into 3 groups: those teaching grade levels 1-3, 4-6, and 1-6. The teachers who taught grade levels 1-6
performed the best. However, ANOVA showed that the effect of the current grade level the teachers
were teaching was insignificant: F(2,144) = .577, p =.563.
Teaching years: Based on their reported teaching years, the 147 teachers were categorized into five
groups, each with 10 increments similar to the age variable. Some of them had less than a year of
teaching experience, while the majority of them (about 55%) taught for 1 to 10 years. ANOVA
conducted on the test mean scores obtained by the teachers in each of the five groups showed no
significant effect of the teaching years on the test scores: F(3,142) = 2.143, p = 0.079.
Experience abroad: Experience abroad here refers to the experience the teachers had in an English
speaking country. Few teachers had this kind of exposure (only 6 teachers or 4%). An independent
sample t-test showed no significant difference in the scores between these two teacher groups:
t(145)=1.358, p =.177.
As demonstrated above, among the seven variables investigated, being an English major was the
only factor that contributed significantly to the stress identification test scores. As English majors when
they were students, these teachers were likely required to enrol in a course of pronunciation or phonetics.
In this course or courses of similar nature, explicit instruction on different aspects of pronunciation
including stress placement in words are likely to contribute to the high scores of the test. Along the same
line of argument, the teachers who did not have their degree(s) in English were thus compelled to acquire
pronunciation knowledge from the linguistic input available around them. Because English is a foreign
language in Thailand, the English language input, particularly in pronunciation, is not only minimal in
quantity but also low in quality. This interpretation supports previous studies [2-3, 7] that students’
English pronunciation of prosodic features was significantly improved after weeks of explicit instruction.
Therefore, language teaching in Thailand needs to be improved, and the role of teachers as a resource
person should be highlighted in making the pronunciation knowledge explicit and attainable by English
language learners. Appropriate teaching and communicative strategies to raise awareness of English
prosodic features and enhance communicative ability should be implemented.
This study does not mean to claim that being an English major is the only sole contributor to the high
scores of the test. This finding indicates that exposure to the authentic English language input (which is
limited) does not automatically lead to stress acquisition, and, in turn, substantially improved
pronunciation. This is probably because, when exposed to English, learners were busy grappling with the
understanding of the input, and thus little or no attention was paid to the prosodic features. To empower
teachers and learners alike, first, teachers should be aware that prosodic features play an essential role in
communication comprehension and intelligibility. Thus, stress instruction should be integrated into

6. 76 Budsaba Kanoksilapatham
English language instruction whenever time and chance permits. For example, pedagogical priorities for
the students to practice prosodic features should be recognized, and more informed methods of teaching
pronunciation in EFL contexts for intelligible pronunciation should be developed.
This study emphasizes the role of pronunciation or precisely the prosodic features in enhancing
successful communication. However, limitations are in order. First, this study does not, by all means,
claim that the successful and effective pronunciation lies in accurate stress placement only. Other
pronunciation elements including accurate production of consonant and vowel sounds and intonation are
also integral. Next, the study focuses on Thai teachers’ pronunciation competence, and thus a study on
teachers’ actual performance in speaking or to be precise in the use of prosodic features will be quite
elucidating. Finally, the participants were teachers from one province, and generalizations of the findings
must be carefully made.
This study has made a small but crucial contribution towards language teaching by identifying the
factor that can be integral in improving ELT in Thailand upon the AEC integration. This study provides a
better understanding of the teachers’ English pronunciation competence. In addition, it allows language
planners and administrators to prepare teachers of English accordingly, taking into consideration the
teachers’ needs, their proficiency level, and educational background. With these, quality teachers in
English for elementary school students can be attained, potentially implicating a more successful
preparation of Thai students for the ASEAN participation and international communication.
Consequently, Thai learners will have better communicative skills to help them be responsible in the Thai
workforce for the AEC and global citizens in an international market.
Appendix
Word list for the stress identification task: Friday, Saturday, Wednesday, February, January, September,
autumn, summer, winter, hurricane, temperature, tornado, bottom, moustache, stomach, buffalo, elephant,
octopus, banana, orange, papaya, cousin, husband, uncle, purple, silver, yellow, journalist, musician,
secretary, macaroni, soda, tuna, guitar, piano, trumpet, eraser, paper, teacher, convenient, dangerous,
intelligent, always, general, often, peacock, thunderstorm, pineapple, keyboard, and homework.
References
1. Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Retrieved from http://www.nti.org/treaties-and regimes/association-
southeast-asian-nations-asean/.
2. B. Kanoksilapatham. Navigating pathways to success in ELT. Journal of English Studies. 2007, 3: 6–25.
3. B. Kanoksilapatham. Examining English pronunciation competence of Thai teachers: Word stress assignment.
In G. Papanikos & Nicholas C. J. Pappas (eds.). Horizons in Education. Athens: Athens Institute for Education
and Research (ATINER), 2010, pp. 467–480.
4. S. Noom-ura. Teaching listening speaking skills to Thai students with low English proficiency. Asian EFL
Journal. 2008, 10 (4): 173–192.
5. K. Prapphal. English proficiency of Thai learners and directions of English teaching and learning in Thailand.
Journal of English Language Studies. 2003, 1 (1): 6–12.
6. R. Watson Todd and S. Keyuravong. Process and product of English language learning in the National
Education Act, Ministry of Education Standards and recommended textbooks at the secondary level. Thai
TESOL Bulletin. 2004, 17 (1): 15–45.
7. S. Isarankura. Raising awareness of English prosody among Thai university students. Proc. of the 14th
Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. Kyoto: Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics. 2009, pp. 71–76.
8. J. Greenwood. The role of teaching English pronunciation: Issues and approaches. International Conference
IPBA. Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia. 2002, pp. 24–26.

7. Thai Elementary School Teachers’ English Pronunciation... 77
9. R. Silveira. Pronunciation instruction classroom practices and empirical research. Linguagem & Ensino. 2002,
5 (1): 93–126.
10. T.M. Derwing and M.J. Rossiter. ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies.
System. 2002, 30: 155–166.
11. T.M. Derwing, R.I. Thomson, and M.J. Munro. English pronunciation and fluency development in Mandarin
and Slavic speakers. System. 2006, 34: 183–193.
12. T.M. Derwing and M.J. Munro. Accent intelligibility and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition. 2001, 19: 1–16.
13. L.D. Hahn. Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL
Quarterly. 2004, 38 (2): 201–223.