Presentation 1030324(v2)

351 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
351
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
79
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation 1030324(v2)

  1. 1. Examining the Role of Explicit Phonetic Instruction in Native-like and Comprehensible Pronunciation Development: An Instructed SLA Approach to L2 Phonology Presenter: Sze-Chu Liu Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu Date: March 24, 2014
  2. 2. Citation Saito, K. (2011). Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehensible pronunciation development: An instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language Awareness, 20(1), 45- 59. 22014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  3. 3. Content Introduction Literature Review Method Results Conclusion Critiques and Suggestions 32014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  4. 4. INTRODUCTION 4
  5. 5. Introduction Background Related Works The Gap Purpose of the Study 2014/3/23 5Individual Presentation
  6. 6. Background • ‘the degree to which the pronunciation of an utterance sounds differ from an expected pronunciation pattern’ Accentedness • ‘listeners’ estimation of difficulty in understanding an utterance’ Comprehensibility (Derwing & Munro, 2005) Second language speech 2014/3/23 6Individual Presentation
  7. 7. Related Works 7 (Levis, 2005; Setter & Jenkins, 2005) Accentedness vs. Comprehensibility Realistic goals should be set for L2 learners such as comprehensibility rather than accentedness. Comprehensibility Accentedness 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  8. 8. Related Works 8 The importance of explicit phonetic instruction has been extensively discussed in the field of experimental phonetics as well as second language education. (Derwing, 2008) An instructional treatment is explicit if rule explanation forms part of the instruction (deduction) or if learners are asked to attend to particular forms and try to find the rules themselves (induction). (DeKeyser, 2003) Explicit Phonic Instruction 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  9. 9. The Gap 9 It still remains unclear the extent to which their instruction treatment impacted learners’ comprehensible pronunciation. (Derwing, 2008; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Levis, 2005). 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  10. 10. Purpose of the Study 10 The current study investigates the relative effects of instruction via two different evaluation methods: accentedness and comprehensibility. 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  11. 11. LITERATURE REVIEW 11
  12. 12. Explicit Pronunciation Teaching (Derwing & Munro, 2005) Students learning L2 pronunciation benefit from being explicitly taught phonological form to help them notice the difference between their own productions and those of proficient speakers in the L2 community. 2014/3/23 12Individual Presentation
  13. 13. Segmental-Based Instruction 13 (Ladefoged, 2003) English segmental features Articulator organs Place of articulation Manner of articulation 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  14. 14. Eight English-Specific Segmental Features 142014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  15. 15. Explicit Phonetic Instruction 15 Perception Production Feedback 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  16. 16. Perception Activities 16 • Clear account of formal properties of English-specific sounds one by one in a sequence Identification • Japanese sounds which might be confused with English sounds and asked to discriminate the target English sounds from the closest Japanese counterparts Discrimination 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  17. 17. Production activities and feedback techniques 17 • segmental-level reading task • word-level reading task • sentence-level reading task Production activities • produce more output • notice their errors • self-repair errors in phonetic forms Corrective Feedback (Derwing, Munro, & Thomson, 2004) 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001)
  18. 18. Research Questions Does explicit phonetic instruction significantly improve ESL students’ accentedness? Does explicit phonetic instruction significantly improve ESL students’ comprehensibility? 182014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  19. 19. METHOD 19
  20. 20. Participants (I) • 20 adult NJs of intermediate proficiency • Aged 27.6 years old in average • Time in the USA: mean = 2.3 months • Had learned English for more than 10 years ESL Students 202014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  21. 21. Participants (II) • 4 (1 male, 3 females) • Recruited from X University (in the USA) • All had grown up in the United States • Reported normal hearing • Experienced instructors of either phonetics or ESL classes at X University • ‘trained NE listeners’ NE listeners 212014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  22. 22. Participants (II) • a non-native speaking teacher (L1 Japanese) • graduated from an MA program in linguistics in the USA with a concentration in TESOL The instructor 222014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  23. 23. Research Design 23 Experimental Group Control Group Pre-testPre-test Compare Post-test Post-test 4-hour Explicit phonetic instruction None 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  24. 24. Instruction Setting A laboratory setting 1 hour/week × 4 weeks Instruction presented both in Japanese and English 242014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  25. 25. Pre- and Post- Tests 25 Sentence-reading task Picture-description task (Derwing & Munro, 1997; Derwing et al., 1998; Munro, Derwing, & Morton, 2006) 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  26. 26. Contents of loaded sentences 262014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  27. 27. Rating Four trained NE listeners listen to one data CD that contained 210 randomized stimuli rate them on the basis of the 9-point scale accentedness – from 1 = native-like to 9 = heavily accented comprehensibility – from 1 = no effort to understand to 9 = very hard to understand 272014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  28. 28. RESULTS 28
  29. 29. Inter-rater reliability Accentedness: r = .66 Comprehensibility: r = .53 Adequate reliability 2014/3/23 29Individual Presentation
  30. 30. Results - Accentedness • no significant differences • for group • for time Sentence Reading Task • no significant differences • for group • for time Picture Description Task 302014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  31. 31. Results – comprehensibility ratings – The Experimental Group 312014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  32. 32. Summary of comprehensibility ratings – The Control Group 322014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  33. 33. ANOVA Results - Comprehensibility • Significant differences for Group × Time interaction • A simple main effect for Time was found significant for the experimental group. • The control group did not show any significant gains. Sentence Reading Task • no significant differences • for group • for time Picture Description Task 332014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  34. 34. CONCLUSION 34
  35. 35. Conclusion The experiment confirmed that explicit instruction benefited NJs’ comprehensibility in the experimental group especially at the controlled speech level (sentence-reading). It is important to make pedagogical suggestions for L2 classrooms and to inform future directions for instructed L2 phonology studies. 352014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  36. 36. CRITIQUES AND SUGGESTIONS 36
  37. 37. Limited number of participants Short Period of instruction No summary for ANOVA Increase the number of participants • at least 30 Extend the instruction period • more than 12 weeks Provide the ANOVA summary • detail information 37 Critiques Suggestions 2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
  38. 38. Thank you for listening!

×