Exploring Teachers’ Knowledge of Second Language Pronunciation Techniques: Teacher Cognitions, Observed Classroom Practices, and Student Perceptions

Exploring Teachers’ Knowledge of Second Language Pronunciation Techniques: Teacher Cognitions, Observed Classroom Practices, and Student Perceptions AMANDA BAKER University of Wollongong Wollongong, Australia This study explored some of the intricate connections between the cognitions (beliefs, knowledge, perceptions, attitudes) and pedagogical practices of five English language teachers, specifically in relation to pronunciation-oriented techniques Integral to the study was the use of semistructured interviews, classroom observations, and stimulated recall interviews with the teachers and questionnaires with students Findings reveal that the teachers’ knowledge base of pronunciation techniques consisted mainly of controlled techniques— techniques strongly manipulated by the teachers and typically considered less communicative than other techniques Of all techniques, guided techniques (semistructured) were the least frequently used, suggesting in part that the teachers’ knowledge of how to incorporate guided techniques on a consistent basis with oral communication curricula may be limited This article also includes discussion of three sets of beliefs held by some of the teachers: (1) listening perception is essential for producing comprehensible speech, (2) kinesthetic/tactile practice is integral to phonological improvement, and (3) pronunciation instruction can be boring doi: 10.1002/tesq.99 A significant body of research has emerged over the past few decades examining the cognitions of second language (L2) teachers Borg (2006) defines second language teacher cognition (SLTC) as “an often tacit, personally-held practical system of mental constructs held by teachers and which are dynamic—i.e defined and refined on the basis of educational and professional experiences throughout teachers’ lives” (p 35) Teacher cognition encompasses a broad spectrum of notions, including the knowledge, beliefs, perceptions, and 136 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 48, No 1, March 2014 © 2013 TESOL International Association attitudes that teachers have in relation to their actual teaching practices in a local or specific target context SLTC research has provided insight into what constitutes teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about teaching, how these cognitions have developed, and how they are reflected in classroom practice (see Borg, 2006) The present study builds on current SLTC research by examining the intricate relationships between the mental processes and instructional practices of experienced English as a second language (ESL) teachers and the teaching of L2 pronunciation SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER COGNITION The study of teacher cognition has received considerable attention in recent years for the purpose of understanding complexities underlying the interplay between teachers’ cognitions and their classroom behaviors and practice An essential feature of this research is the inclusion of observations of teachers’ actual classroom practices and not merely teachers’ self-reports of their practices (Borg, 2006) This is important because an ESL classroom serves as a meeting place where both teaching and learning takes place and where teacher knowledge and beliefs intersect with student behavior Research into SLTC has targeted teachers’ cognitions in relation to teaching several skills areas, but especially grammar (e.g., Andrews, 2003; Borg & Burns, 2008; Farrell & Lim, 2005), reading (e.g., Johnson, 1992; Kuzborska, 2011), and writing (e.g., Lee, 2010; Shi & Cumming, 1995) In comparison, general oral communication (OC) skills have been largely underrepresented in the literature, with some exceptions, most notably the work of Cohen and Fass (2001), who investigated teachers’ and students’ beliefs on oral language assessment and instruction In fact, pronunciation instruction, an integral component of OC, has received substantially greater attention in comparison, but current SLTC research in this area is limited, as will be discussed later SLTC AND PRONUNCIATION PEDAGOGY The focus of most studies into SLTC and pronunciation pedagogy is mainly on teachers’ beliefs regarding which features of pronunciation to teach and which teaching techniques to use, and, with few exceptions, the data gathering relies on surveys or questionnaires only In English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, several survey studies have been conducted Sifakis and Sougari (2005) surveyed teachers in Greece and found that many teachers strongly valued native-speaker TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 137 (NS) norms and tended to conform to NS-oriented approaches (e.g., role-plays emphasizing NS roles) Hismanoglu and Hismanoglu’s (2010) questionnaire study in North Cyprus determined that reading aloud, dictionaries, and dialogues constituted the top three preferred techniques of teachers Saito’s (2011) survey found that Japanese English teachers identified eight segmentals believed to have a negative impact on learner comprehensibility, and Saito and van Poeteren’s (2012) questionnaire study revealed that the teachers reported using pronunciation-related adjustment strategies (e.g., speech rate modification, word-level enunciation, segmental-level enunciation) to modify their pronunciation in the classroom Finally, two studies by Jenkins (2005, 2007) and one by Timmis (2002) focused on the theme of teachers’ perceptions in relation to accents and L2 instruction In Jenkins’s (2007) study, for example, interviews revealed that teachers appeared to favor teaching English as a lingua franca accents in theory, but in practice considered such teaching as impractical in the classroom In ESL contexts, research into teachers’ beliefs about pronunciation instruction has received less attention to date and has relied almost solely on interview data S Macdonald (2002) interviewed teachers who had reported a reluctance to teach pronunciation and found that lack of institutional resources as well as insufficient knowledge of how to assess student pronunciation contributed to their avoidance to teaching pronunciation Baker’s (2011) interview study revealed that teachers whose TESOL training included a course in pronunciation pedagogy reported prioritizing the teaching of suprasegmental features of pronunciation in their classes; at the same time, however, many of these teachers still seemed to lack confidence in teaching some components of English pronunciation Finally, Cathcart and Olsen (1976) explored teachers’ and students’ beliefs about grammar and pronunciation correction, and found that students wanted teachers to correct them more frequently than the teachers actually did and both teachers and students preferred the “correct” (e.g., NS) model approach This final study alone included an examination of actual classroom practices; however, the article does not clearly connect the observed lessons with the teachers who taught those lessons What is missing from all this research, therefore, is an in-depth exploration of how teachers implement their beliefs efficiently and successfully in the classroom to assist students to achieve comprehensible pronunciation The limited scope of the research into SLTC and pronunciation pedagogy may reflect, on a broader level, a neglect of pronunciation in classroom-oriented research This is surprising, considering the essential role that intelligible pronunciation plays in successful communication and the demand for pronunciation instruction from L2 138 TESOL QUARTERLY learners (Couper, 2003; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002) To date, classroom research has examined the relationship between instruction and improved phonological ability (Couper, 2003, 2006; Saito, 2007) and between instruction and improved intelligibility (Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1997, 1998; D Macdonald, Yule, & Powers, 1994) Such research has also investigated students’ beliefs and attitudes concerning pronunciation instruction (Couper, 2003; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Kang, 2010), particular accents (Derwing & Munro, 2003; Gatbonton, Trofimovich, & Magid, 2005; Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard, & Wu, 2006; Timmis, 2002), and error correction (Cathcart & Olsen, 1976) Aside from these studies, the teaching and learning of pronunciation in typical ESL or EFL classrooms has remained largely unexplored, indicating that research into current pronunciation-oriented teaching practices of L2 instructors is long overdue In a similar vein, relatively few teacher education programs provide courses on how to teach L2 pronunciation Research has shown that many L2 teachers have received only limited training in phonetics or pronunciation pedagogy (Breitkreutz, Derwing, & Rossiter, 2001; Derwing, 2010; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Murphy, 1997; Saito & van Poeteren, 2012), although those numbers are increasing, at least in Canada (Foote, Holtby, & Derwing, 2011) Studies have also shown that some teachers are reluctant to teach pronunciation (Fraser, 2000; S Macdonald, 2002) For an expanded discussion of the current state of pronunciation pedagogy and classroom research, see Baker and Murphy (2011) As demonstrated from this review of literature, numerous studies provide evidence for the importance of pronunciation instruction, but research has yet to generate robust documentation of the actual pronunciation-oriented practices of classroom teachers In particular, the field lacks insight garnered from in-depth investigation into which techniques are commonly and practically useful in the context of teaching pronunciation in the classroom and teachers’ cognitions regarding those techniques Given the overall lack of empirical, classroom-based research on pronunciation teaching and learning and teacher cognition research in this area, the aim of this article is to enhance the pronunciation-specific knowledge base by investigating ESL teachers’ cognitions and practices when teaching pronunciation It addresses the following questions: What cognitions experienced teachers have about techniques for teaching L2 pronunciation in their OC classes? What classroom observations and student questionnaires reveal about the teachers’ knowledge and practices concerning the techniques they use for teaching L2 pronunciation? TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 139 METHODOLOGY Participants Five experienced teachers in the same North American intensive English program (IEP)1 agreed to participate in the project.2 The teachers were selected based on their current placement as an OC instructor, their teaching experience, and willingness to participate in a research study All five teachers had taught their OC course at least once in a previous semester, and each teacher had between and 14 years’ teaching experience: Tanya (7 years), Laura (6 years), Abby (6 years), Ginger (14 years), and Vala (7 years) They had earned a master’s degree in TESOL (or a TESOL-related field) from one of three universities, where their exposure to pronunciation pedagogy varied: from university A, Tanya, Laura, and Abby3 had taken a course devoted to pronunciation pedagogy; from university B, Ginger had completed a course with a combined focus on speaking, listening, and pronunciation pedagogy; and from university C, Vala had not received any relevant coursework in pronunciation pedagogy In terms of language proficiency, four of the teachers grew up speaking English as their first language, whereas Abby grew up as bilingual in Portuguese and English In addition to the teachers, 63 students from their classes participated in the study The majority of these were international students, more than 70% of whom indicated a desire to matriculate into university programs in the United States Curriculum In the IEP, all OC courses consist of 50-minute lessons held three times weekly for approximately 14 weeks The teachers reported that pronunciation plays a strong role in the building of OC skills in these courses, but mainly in Level (high beginning), Level (low intermediate), and Level (intermediate) According to the teachers, pronunciation comprises 90% of the content of Level (Tanya), 33% of Level (Laura), 20%–70%4 of Level (Abby and Ginger, The goal of IEPs is to help L2 learners of English achieve sufficient language proficiency to succeed in undergraduate or graduate programs in North American universities At the beginning of the study, all teachers were informed that the research would focus on the teaching of pronunciation All names are pseudonyms The discrepancy in regard to Level is the result of Ginger feeling that 20% of in-class time was devoted to pronunciation, but a considerable amount of time was spent out of class giving feedback on student work (oral recordings) Abby felt that she devoted 60%– 70% of the course to pronunciation 140 TESOL QUARTERLY respectively), and 20% of Level (Vala) Overall, Levels 1–2 focus on developing conversation skills; the higher levels, conversely, are content-based courses devoted to academic OC skills The following texts were used: Level 1, Well Said Intro (Grant, 2007); Level 2, Interactions II (Tanka & Most, 2006); Level 3, an in-house developed study guide; and Level 4, College Oral Communication (Delk, 2006) Table provides a listing of the pronunciation features addressed in the participants’ classes These features were selected by the curriculum committee because they were considered to have a significant impact on learner comprehensibility Data Gathering Instruments Semistructured interviews, classroom observations, and stimulated recall interviews were the three methods used to examine the teachers’ cognitions and practices The use of these three methods assisted with data triangulation, in that each method provides a different perspective on the data collected in order to better inform any conclusions drawn from one method alone In addition, selected data from student questionnaires was used to gain additional insight into the teachers’ knowledge of pronunciation techniques Semistructured interviews (SSIs) The vast majority of qualitative studies of SLTC attempt to gather large amounts of descriptive data from a small number of participants through SSIs (e.g., Borg, 1998; Farrell & Lim, 2005) In the current study, three SSIs were conducted with each teacher: at the beginning of the semester, three quarters of TABLE Pronunciation Features Taught in the Five Courses Tanya (High beginning) Syllablesa Word stress Vowels Consonants Word endingsb Rhythm Intonation Connected speech Laura (Low intermediate) Syllables Word stress Vowels Consonants Word endings Abby (Intermediate) Ginger (Intermediate) Syllables Word stress Vowels Rhythm Syllables Word stress Vowels Rhythm Vala (High Intermediate) Syllables Word stress Word endings a Students learn to identify the number of syllables in a word In particular, -s endings and verb endings b TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 141 the way through the semester, and end See Appendix for sample interview questions Classroom observations In more robust studies of SLTC, classroom observations are considered essential, typically consisting of one to four observed classes per teacher (e.g., Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2004; Burns & Knox, 2005; Collie Graden, 1996; Johnston & Goettsch, 2000) In the current study, each teacher was observed four times (approximately 200 minutes in total) during one semester The first set of observations, consisting of two consecutive lessons, occurred near the beginning of the semester The second set of observations, again consisting of two consecutive lessons, occurred 3–5 weeks after the first set Each observation was video-recorded and transcribed Stimulated recall interviews (SRIs) Stimulated recall is a type of retrospective verbal report in which a participant receives a stimulus (e.g., a video of teaching) and then recounts her or his cognitions at the time the event took place In research on SLTC, SRIs have been used in tandem with observations to uncover teachers’ thoughts while teaching (Andrews & McNeil, 2005; Gatbonton, 2008; Popko, 2005) The stimuli used in the current study were pronunciation-related activities from the video-recorded classes Each teacher participated in two, 45-minute SRIs, which involved the viewing of 15–20 minutes of video footage selected from two consecutively observed classes All SRIs (except for one) took place within 48 hours of the set of two observed lessons The episodes were chosen to provide a range of different types of instructional activities, including explanations of a pronunciation feature, instructions for activities, feedback on student performance, and so forth Questionnaires The student data consisted of a brief questionnaire about students’ beliefs about pronunciation learning and teaching To date, the inclusion of data about student perceptions has only been collected by a small number of studies focused primarily on SLTC (e.g., Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Cohen & Fass, 2001) The student questionnaire included both Likert-scale items and open-ended questions For the present article, the only item that related to pronunciation techniques was the following open-ended question: “What activity has your teacher used that is most helpful for improving your pronunciation?” Data Analysis The analysis of the interview and classroom data involved a threestage process: (1) transcription of interview and observation data, (2) 142 TESOL QUARTERLY data segmentation and coding of the interview data, and (3) data segmentation and coding of the observation data A qualitative analysis computer program called Transana (Woods & Fassnacht, 2009) was used to assist in the transcription, segmentation, and coding of the video and interview data The coding of the interview transcripts involved the use of a list of codes derived from an adapted version of Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theoretical model of teachers’ seven categories of knowledge Shulman’s model was particularly useful in exploring teachers’ knowledge of pronunciation pedagogy because it offers several discrete categories that include not only subject matter content knowledge (e.g., knowledge of English phonology), but also pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., how to teach pronunciation), knowledge about learners (e.g., how or why to teach pronunciation to a particular group of students), and knowledge about curriculum Observations of the five instructors’ lessons revealed that the coding needed to be more carefully fine-tuned for examining specific knowledge about pronunciation techniques The coding was thereby enhanced based on several sources, including Crookes and Chaudron (2001); Brown (2007); and Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, and Griner (2010) To differentiate between the broad categories of technique types (controlled, guided, free), Brown’s (2007) discussion of a continuum of techniques is used Brown refers to the difference between controlled to free techniques as “a continuum of possibilities between highly manipulative and very communicative— but one that also specifically considers the extent to which the teacher maintains control over the learning activity” (p 184) With controlled techniques, the teacher has a dominant role in their execution, manipulating the highly structured techniques in such a way that student responses can typically be predicted (e.g., repetition drills and listening discrimination minimal pair activities); with free techniques, the student has a more dominant role, frequently collaborating with other students in an open-ended activity that may involve “negotiation,” “unpredicted responses,” and/or real-world or “communicative” performance to a certain degree (e.g., role-play, drama, presentations; Brown, 2007, p 184) In the context of the current study, free techniques were only considered pronunciation-oriented if the teacher explicitly linked the free technique to pronunciation development Finally, guided techniques, also referred to as semicontrolled techniques, fall within the middle area of the continuum and contain a blend of characteristics from both extremes described earlier, in that they may be structured but can be open-ended and/or, even if controlled by the teacher, may involve TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 143 unpredictable responses by students or resemble activities that learners might perform outside the classroom (e.g., information gap activities, interviews, preparation work for presentations or group discussions) As Brown (2007) notes, however, these categories are guidelines: Techniques cannot always be categorized easily because even some “controlled techniques sometimes have communicative elements” (p 184) In studies of second language acquisition, the use of less controlled techniques such as guided and free techniques has been shown to have a significant impact on learner acquisition of linguistic features in English Although focused solely on grammatical features, Lyster and Saito’s (2010) meta-analysis of 15 classroombased studies analyzing the effect of oral corrective feedback revealed greater student improvement when students gave freely constructed responses, as opposed to constrained responses, in tasks Furthermore, Norris and Ortega’s (2000) meta-analysis of 49 experimental and quasi-experimental studies of explicit and implicit types of instruction determined that highly controlled as well as less controlled, contextualized tasks, are “equally effective” (p 501) when teaching target features to language learners Thus, examining the different types of pronunciation techniques included in a teacher’s knowledge base may be important Such an analysis may provide insight into how equipped teachers may be to create an optimal learning environment for pronunciation development in the classroom Based on the data collected, the classification system was then adapted to better represent the pronunciation-specific focus of the research, resulting in robust codes that enabled discrete analysis of each type of activity used by the five instructors To check the reliability of the coded observational data, a second coder examined 10% of the data, and we reached an inter-rater agreement level of 95% The second coder was provided with a table consisting of excerpts from the observation transcripts, which I preselected to ensure that the 10% contained a full range of activity types The activities ranged from as little as seconds in duration (e.g., repetition drill activity) to minutes or longer (e.g., games) The coder was asked to assign only one code per excerpt In addition to the qualitative analysis of the data, the observations and components of the interview and questionnaire data were also analyzed quantitatively Using the coded data, calculations of the number of techniques employed by the teachers were made based on both the reported and observed practices 144 TESOL QUARTERLY RESULTS Knowledge of Techniques for Teaching Pronunciation in Their OC Courses The first part of this section examines the breadth of the teachers’ knowledge base of pronunciation-oriented techniques used in their respective OC courses Table presents a description of all the techniques used by the teachers throughout the semester Overall, controlled techniques (15 of 25 in total) comprised the majority of the techniques used by the five teachers; the remaining 10 techniques were either guided (6) or free techniques (4) Table illustrates the range of techniques used by each teacher, as indicated by the combined results from the teacher’s self-reports, classroom observations, and the student questionnaires Altogether, Tanya, Laura, and Abby used 19 pronunciation-oriented techniques in their classes, whereas Ginger and Vala used 12 techniques Controlled techniques dominated across all the classes: Tanya (13), Laura (13), Abby (13), Ginger (9), and Vala (8) In comparison, guided techniques were used less frequently: Tanya (4), Laura (4), Abby (3), Ginger (1), and Vala (2) Finally, only free techniques were employed by each teacher, except for Abby, who used Looking across the two tables, the data gathered through the teachers’ self-reports and the classroom observations generally differed For example, for Tanya, the observations revealed nine additional activities that were not mentioned in the interviews, and the interviews revealed two activities that were not observed in the four lessons The data collected from the student questionnaires did not generate a great deal of new information Appendix reports on the data collected from the student questionnaires as well as the teacher interviews and observations The data reveal that, in almost every case, the student questionnaires provide the same results as either the observations or the teacher interviews Only for Laura and Abby did the student data provide additional insight into the teachers’ knowledge about pronunciation techniques, in this case the addition of listening text presentation techniques for Laura and games for both Laura and Abby That said, the students were only asked to identify activities they found to be the most useful in learning English pronunciation, as opposed to listing every activity used by the teachers throughout the semester Nevertheless, the student data remain useful as a tool for confirming the information gathered through the interviews or classroom observations TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 145 communication With this distinction in mind, the teachers in the present study all used visual identification activities in their classes; however, only three teachers—Abby, Ginger, and Vala—seemed to use audio identification activities, the more authentic and cognitively demanding of the two types In Tanya’s and Laura’s classes, this activity did not appear to be used, even though the focus of their respective courses (as the teachers reported in the interviews) was on perception to a greater degree than on production Nevertheless, they both used audio recognition activities as well as visual recognition activities, in which students may respond using gestures or in written form Unlike the controlled techniques that the teachers used, the variety of guided techniques is considerably more limited Although all five teachers used guided activities, only Ginger appeared to use preparation techniques (e.g., preparatory work for presentations) Aside from the preparation techniques that were used by all teachers and the referential questions (question-answer referential activity) that appeared to be used by Tanya, most of the guided techniques were forms of information gap activities Furthermore, only Abby appeared to use an information gap activity that required a mutual exchange of information (mutual information exchange) to complete a task Finally, all five teachers employed free techniques to varying extents in their classes At the lower levels, and even in Abby’s class, games appeared to have a role At the higher levels, presentations and discussions were integral components of the course curriculum; thus, Abby’s, Ginger’s, and Vala’s classes included both types of activities Finally, as final projects, the learners in Tanya’s class presented a memorized poem and the students in Laura’s class performed mini-dramas Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practice The remainder of the Results section examines three sets of beliefs that emerged from the data These beliefs, however, were not necessarily expressed by all of the teachers, because the interview schedule was not designed to elicit information on predetermined beliefs Rather, these themes emerged as part of the discussion of and rationale for the techniques the teachers used in their classes As a result, each theme in this section is linked to sets of teachers who either taught similar levels of students or used similar teaching methods Finally, it is important to note that, although not discussed in detail here, all five teachers expressed the belief that comprehensible speech—speech that is relatively easy for listeners to understand (Derwing & Munro, TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 149 1997), as opposed to native-like speech—was a fundamental goal in their classes Belief #1: Listening perception is essential for producing comprehensible speech In the case of Tanya and Laura, the use of listening discrimination techniques with lower level learners was considered an essential component of developing comprehensible speech The two teachers believed that, for language learners, the ability to hear a feature of English pronunciation must be acquired before the ability to produce that same feature Tanya explained that the reason for this focus on listening comprehension was directly related to the learning outcomes developed for Levels (high beginning) and (low intermediate) of the OC curriculum: We decided that for the lower levels, there would be more of a focus on being able to discriminate between sounds through listening versus actually delivering them, so for the quizzes in these classes, they’re listening quizzes, so it’s basically like, “How many syllables you hear when I say this word? Do you think these words are the same or different?” Just seeing if they’re able to hear it That’s based on the idea that before somebody can produce the sound, they have to make the distinction by listening (SSI #1) Laura echoed Tanya’s comments, emphasizing that they “focus on hearing the sounds And then there is a focus on really controlled pronunciation, actual pronunciation of the sounds, just because if [the students] can’t hear it, they can’t say it” (SSI #2) To accomplish this goal, Laura used two listening discrimination activities as either a whole-class (audio recognition) or pair work activity (production— audio recognition): I would read the [s] sounds and the [z] sounds, and there were similar words sip and zip And then I asked them to hear what I was saying Was I saying sip or zip? And they would hold up fingers to indicate So that’s kind of like whole-class listening to me and then doing it in pairs I think I probably follow that format most of the time (SSI #2) These quotes, coupled with observations of practice and statements made by students in the questionnaires, indicate a strong connection between the stated beliefs of the two teachers and their actual classroom practices According to the questionnaires, students believed lab activities to be beneficial for pronunciation development, and according to the teachers, these activities typically consisted of listening discrimination exercises Thus, the combined data demonstrate that Tanya’s and Laura’s beliefs were reflected in their practices: that 150 TESOL QUARTERLY controlled activities such as listening discrimination activities are crucial to the development of comprehensible English Belief #2: Kinesthetic/tactile practice is integral to phonological improvement In the case of Ginger and Abby, another belief that emerged from the data was that kinesthetic/tactile practice is beneficial to the development of learner comprehensibility Both teachers promoted the usefulness of kinesthetic/tactile techniques Abby explained: I think the students need to get up and move because just repeating doesn’t work Just seeing it on the paper explained also is not going to stick There’s gotta be some kind of interaction Some kind of analyzing Some kind of taking apart, putting together You it Do it in a different fashion, so that it helps, helps to stick (SSI #2) Ginger associated kinesthetic/tactile learning with “creativity” and “fun,” highlighting the necessity of getting students to relax, particularly with a skill area strongly connected to a learner’s identity Ginger considered kinesthetic/tactile techniques as particularly helpful when learning word stress In this activity, students stretch a rubber band on each syllable in the word, with the rubber band stretched even wider on the stressed syllable(s) in the word Ginger commented: Whatever we with pronunciation is usually the most fun especially when the rubber band breaks I try to make them accountable, so if you just sit there with your own rubber band and the thing, then they’ll be like CON STI TU TION [spoken in a monotone] like whatever But if they work with a partner, they both have to pull it at the same time A little bit of fun can kind of break down that [notion that] there is something big [in a negative way] about pronunciation And I think people think they’re on the line If you can kind of make it fun, that’s what I (SSI #1) As illustrated in this quote, Ginger focused on increasing the enjoyment value of pronunciation in the hope of decreasing the inhibitions that students might feel toward a feature of the English language that frequently is considered especially threatening by students She used kinesthetic/tactile learning as one of the ways of reducing student anxiety Throughout the semester, Ginger stressed the importance of ensuring that students feel safe in her classes, stating, “I try to make nonthreatening situations [for students] In general, I try to be really sensitive to their feelings” (SSI #1) Overall, the observations and interviews mirrored the two teachers’ belief in the benefits of using these types of techniques Throughout the data collected, several variations of kinesthetic/tactile techniques TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 151 were in evidence, including clapping, standing/sitting, gestures, and using lollipops and kazoos Thus, as with Laura and Tanya, Ginger’s and Abby’s beliefs were reflected in their classroom practice Belief #3: Pronunciation instruction can be boring One primary concern raised by Tanya and Vala was their perception that the pronunciation components of their courses may be “boring.” This concern may have resulted from the textbook-driven nature of their respective courses In the case of Tanya, who had one of the largest repertoires of pronunciation techniques, she attached a high degree of value to the textbook she used: “The book is very good, and has a lot of good explanations and activities,” “[It] guides the way I teach” (SSI #1) At the same time, however, she believed that the course may be too “textbook-driven”: We’ll go over the pronunciation and I’ll just say “You guys practice in pairs.” So yesterday, for example, [the textbook] says, “Listen to the teacher or speaker on the audio say each pair of words Are the number of syllables the same?” So a lot of times what I’ll is “Now I want you to try to hear the difference in the number of syllables, so I’m going to say these words and you circle if they were different,” and then we’ll go over the answers It’s kind of very book-centered, and sometimes it may seem boring, but I think that’s the best way I can think to teach this stuff (SSI #1) To help alleviate this sense of boredom, Tanya searched the Internet and other resources to bring poetry, dictionary information, and other nontextbook materials into pronunciation lessons She commented, “That was kind of [my] goal behind bringing the poems or going outside of the book a little, just because it can be a little bit boring to go from exercise to exercise” (SRI #2) Similar to Tanya, Vala’s repertoire of techniques derived mainly from those presented in the textbook, most of which she judged as “boring.” Vala acknowledged that she “[knows] it can be really boring, just the drilling work It always feels like drilling, no matter if it’s a true drill activity or not” (SSI #2) She further explained that she sometimes found pronunciation instruction “exhausting and tedious and boring” and that “because they have so many other bits, very rarely [they] spend an entire class on pronunciation” (SSI #2) In classifying pronunciation techniques in general, she reemphasized this: They’re boring That’s description one ’Cause I don’t feel it’s my strong suit of teaching We a lot of: I’ll model; I’ll have them repeat it; and I’ll try to get them to model to one another and repeat it, with words and sentences When they presentation peer reviews, 152 TESOL QUARTERLY I always designate one of the peer reviewers as a pronunciation person [and say,] “You have to listen to syllables, syllable stress and the endings.” I don’t know how successful that goes, ’cause they’re not comfortable critiquing one another But I put it in there There’s an opportunity (SSI #2) With respect to Vala’s class, her belief that the pronunciation work in the course curriculum was boring may be interpreted in light of her acknowledgment of her lack of knowledge of techniques for teaching pronunciation As noted earlier, Vala’s master’s degree coursework did not include any focus on phonology or pronunciation pedagogy DISCUSSION This study has examined the cognitions and practices of experienced ESL teachers, with a specific focus on the pronunciationoriented techniques used in their courses One of the main findings is that controlled techniques dominated the knowledge base of pronunciation teaching for all five teachers and that, in terms of pedagogy, of all the techniques used, guided techniques appear to have been used less frequently, even in comparison with free techniques From a historical perspective, these findings are not surprising For centuries, pronunciation pedagogy was considered synonymous with imitativeintuitive and analytic-linguistic approaches in which controlled techniques formed the foundational core of teaching Although the traditional approaches to pronunciation teaching are criticized in today’s communicative era, many of these controlled techniques continue to be valued, as demonstrated by their use by experienced teachers in the present study In fact, the widespread use of controlled techniques in the five teachers’ classrooms is, to a certain degree, advantageous to learners Research has demonstrated that controlled techniques can have a positive impact on the development of learner intelligibility (e.g., Couper, 2003; Derwing et al., 1998) or on phonological improvement (e.g., Saito, 2007) The dominance of controlled techniques in the classroom might nevertheless raise some concerns The less frequent use of guided (semicontrolled) or free techniques may limit the potential development of comprehensible learner pronunciation in authentic conversations Research has shown that the use of communicative activities involving dyadic interaction has the potential for greater impact on learner uptake and automatic use of targeted features of pronunciation than focus-on-form instruction alone (Saito & Lyster, 2012) Furthermore, with grammar-oriented focus on form, recent research TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 153 suggests that the combined use of controlled activities with communicative activities can have a stronger positive impact on learner retention and automatization of grammatical structures than the use of mechanical activities or drills alone (Khatib & Nikouee, 2012) This research indicates that guided practice (such as information-gap activities involving a two-way exchange of information that provide the learner with opportunities to monitor their use of target features) is an important component in the development of comprehensible pronunciation In the present study, although all five teachers used guided techniques in addition to controlled techniques, the use of guided techniques was limited This suggests that even though four of the teachers received training in pronunciation pedagogy, their knowledge base of guided techniques and of how to integrate them effectively into lessons may have needed further development That said, future research still needs to determine the degree to which controlled techniques should be coupled with guided techniques to enhance learner comprehensibility for use in free activities or outside the classroom Shifting to the examination of teachers’ cognitions with their actual practices, the second half of the study focused more specifically on three beliefs that emerged from the data First, the two teachers of lower level students shared the belief that listening discrimination activities formed an important initial step to achieving successful phonological production This belief was reflected in their use of numerous listening discrimination activities in their OC classes, thereby demonstrating a strong connection between their beliefs and practice Their beliefs are furthermore supported by research that has demonstrated a positive connection between training in listening perception and enhanced phonetic production (Bradlow, Pisoni, Yamada, & Tohkura, 1997) and that has suggested that phonological improvement is maintained over long periods of time (Bradlow, AkahaneYamada, Pisoni, & Tohkura, 1999) The teachers’ beliefs and practices, grounded in empirical research, suggest that the two teachers appeared to be providing students with the initial building blocks required to improve the comprehensibility of their speech The second set of beliefs shared by the two teachers of intermediate-level learners emphasized the importance of kinesthetic/tactile teaching for improving learner pronunciation The beliefs and practices of both Ginger and Abby demonstrated that they placed considerable value on techniques involving physical movement in order to improve learner pronunciation These beliefs are shared by other specialists in the field who recommend the use of physical movement and/or gesture in pronunciation work (e.g., Acton, 1984, 2001; CelceMurcia et al., 2010; Gilbert, 1991; Graham, 1986; Murphy, 2004) 154 TESOL QUARTERLY Although empirical research has yet to be conducted on the impact of kinesthetic/tactile techniques on pronunciation learning, the use of these techniques has frequently been employed not only in ESL education (e.g., Asher, 2000), but in voice training as well (e.g., Hardison & Sonchaeng, 2005) Nevertheless, more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of using kinesthetic/tactile techniques to enhance learner comprehensibility The third belief—a concern that pronunciation instruction can be boring—was shared by the two teachers whose courses were more textbook driven than the others One reason for this belief may be the result of what Prabhu (1992) refers to as overroutinisation Because textbooks regularly use the same techniques from one unit to the next, the teachers’ concern over the potential tedium associated with the pronunciation components of their lessons may have derived from the overroutinisation of techniques in their courses In the case of Tanya, whose course was devoted almost entirely to pronunciation, the frequent use of similar techniques likely resulted in her perception that her lessons may be boring, despite the time and effort she spent devising additional activities to provide a certain zest to her lessons In the case of Vala, another potential reason for this concern with boredom could be her lack of training in pronunciation pedagogy As Vala noted, her lack of education frequently led to the use of the same few techniques in the limited amount of time that she allotted to pronunciation instruction Finally, one of the study’s major findings relates not so much to the specific area of pronunciation pedagogy as to the study of teachers’ cognitions in general The process of investigation confirmed that teachers’ self-reports of their beliefs, knowledge, and practices are limited in providing a sufficiently accurate and elaborated picture of teachers’ cognitions, especially in representing their knowledge of pronunciation-oriented techniques For example, in representing their knowledge of pronunciation-oriented techniques, the interview and observation data frequently provided complementary information, with each source of data supplying information that the other did not Only through the combination of teachers’ self-reports and classroom observations, and further supported by student reports, can a sufficiently detailed picture be produced As advocated by Borg (2003), studies of teachers’ cognitions require an examination of teachers’ actual pedagogical practices Without the inclusion of observed practice, cognitions that are implicit remain hidden from view Likewise, classroom practices alone cannot reveal the rationale underlying teachers’ decision making in the classroom, especially in determining how various contextual factors might influence teachers’ cognitions (Burns, 1996) Ultimately, teachers’ cognitions and classroom practices are TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 155 mutually shaped and informed, but are also transformed and molded by additional contextual variables, such as curriculum and the learners themselves CONCLUSIONS As the first in-depth study to directly explore L2 teachers’ cognitions with respect to ESL pronunciation teaching, this study provides a thick description of the knowledge, beliefs, and practices of five experienced teachers as they relate to techniques for teaching English pronunciation The combined results from the interviews, classroom observations, and student questionnaires reveal that controlled techniques formed the foundation of the teachers’ knowledge base of techniques And of all the techniques used—whether controlled, guided, or free—the teachers’ knowledge and use of guided techniques (semicontrolled techniques) seemed most limited Guided techniques, especially those necessitating a two-way exchange of information, serve as strong communicative activities that require learners to simultaneously negotiate meaning with one or more learner(s) of English, work collaboratively to complete a task, address breakdowns in communication, and enable learners to act as linguistic models for their peers With their dual focus on meaning and comprehensible pronunciation, guided pronunciation-oriented techniques are one potential answer to the need to promote learner autonomy (Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012; Lynch, 2001), to encourage peer correction (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010), and to provide learners with successful nonnative-speaker models of English pronunciation (Walker, 2010) As research has shown (Khatib & Nikouee, 2012; Saito & Lyster, 2012), less controlled techniques have the potential to increase learner comprehensibility; thus, teachers who lack sufficient knowledge of a broad range of techniques that include both pronunciation-oriented guided and free techniques are disadvantaged in the overarching goal of ESL/EFL education to enable learners to achieve comprehensible English Another finding from the study was the connection between the larger knowledge base of pronunciation techniques and the teachers who took courses dedicated to pronunciation pedagogy This finding is important in that it provides some classroom-based evidence for the survey results of Murphy (1997) Murphy’s survey of MA TESOL instructors suggests that additional focus on pronunciation pedagogy in programs would likely benefit MA TESOL candidates The results of the current study support these findings, in that there appears to be a positive link between the wider repertoire of techniques used by the three teachers who graduated from an MA TESOL program and who 156 TESOL QUARTERLY also took a course devoted entirely to pronunciation pedagogy Although additional research is certainly needed to ascertain the tangible benefits of many of the individual pronunciation techniques (e.g., kinesthetic/tactile, listening discrimination, visual recognition/identification techniques) included in teachers’ knowledge base, the need to better equip teachers as pronunciation instructors has been highlighted for decades (Breitkreutz et al., 2001; Derwing, 2010; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Foote et al., 2011; Murphy, 1997; Saito & van Poeteren, 2012) If we hope to provide L2 learners with the skills needed to acquire comprehensible English, teachers need a solid understanding of not only how to provide clear explanations of English pronunciation, but also how to provide effective controlled and guided practice and how to give constructive feedback on learner pronunciation But fundamental to all of this is a valuing of L2 learners—their identity and the measures they are willing to take to acquire comprehensible English As a major source of motivation for many students, teachers— their knowledge of techniques, beliefs about instruction, attitudes toward learner accents and identity, coupled with their pedagogical practices—are integral to the learning process As aptly noted by Earl Stevick (1980), “the teacher is ‘central’ with regard to the cognitive content, the structuring of time, the articulation of goals, the setting of climate, and the final human validation of the whole undertaking” (p 21) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to John Murphy, Bill Acton, Steve Pickford, Meg Rosse, Barbara Comber, Judy Mullen, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article Finally, I am indebted to the teachers and students who volunteered to participate in the study Without them this research would not have been possible THE AUTHOR Amanda Baker is a lecturer in TESOL in the Faculty of Education at the University of Wollongong, in Australia Her research focuses on L2 pronunciation pedagogy, L2 oral communication, language teacher cognition, and teacher education REFERENCES Acton, W (1984) Changing fossilized pronunciation TESOL Quarterly, 18, 71–85 doi:10.2307/3586336 TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 157 Acton, W (2001) FocalSpeak: Integrating rhythm and stress in speech-pronunciation In J Murphy & P Byrd (Eds.), Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives on English language teaching (pp 197–217) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Andrews, S (2003) Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher Language Awareness, 12(2), 81–95 doi:10.1080/ 09658410308667068 Andrews, S., & McNeil, A (2005) Knowledge about language and the “good language teacher.” In N Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp 159–178) New York, NY: Springer Asher, J J (2000) Learning another language through actions (6th ed.) Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions Baker, A A (2011) Discourse prosody and teachers’ stated beliefs and practices TESOL Journal, 2, 263–292 doi:10.5054/tj.2011.259955 Baker, A A., & Murphy, J (2011) Knowledge base of pronunciation teaching: Staking out the territory TESL Canada Journal, 28(2), 29–50 Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R (2004) Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices Applied Linguistics, 25, 243– 272 doi:10.1093/applin/25.2.243 Borg, S (1998) Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study TESOL Quarterly, 32, 9–38 doi:10.2307/3587900 Borg, S (2003) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109 doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903 Borg, S (2006) Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice London, England: Continuum Borg, S., & Al-Busaidi, S (2012) Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding learner autonomy ELT Journal, 66, 283–292 doi:10.1093/elt/ccr065 Borg, S., & Burns, A (2008) Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms Applied Linguistics, 29, 456–482 doi:10.1093/applin/amn020 Bradlow, A., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D B., & Tohkura, Y (1999) Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 977–985 doi:10.3758/BF03206911 Bradlow, A., Pisoni, D B., Yamada, R A., & Tohkura, Y (1997) Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299– 2310 doi:10.1121/1.418276 Breitkreutz, J A., Derwing, T M., & Rossiter, M J (2001) Pronunciation teaching practices in Canada TESL Canada Journal, 19(1), 51–61 Brown, H D (2007) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.) White Plains, NY: Pearson Education Burns, A (1996) Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners In D Freeman & J C Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp 154–176) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Burns, A., & Knox, J (2005) Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the language classroom In N Bartels (Ed.), Researching applied linguistics in language teacher education (Vol 4, pp 235–260) New York, NY: Springer Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J (1976) Teachers’ and students’ preferences for the correction of classroom conversation errors In J Fanselow & R H Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 76 (pp 41–53) Washington, DC: TESOL 158 TESOL QUARTERLY Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D M., Goodwin, J M., & Griner, B (2010) Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages (2nd ed.) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Cohen, A., & Fass, L (2001) Oral language instruction: Teacher and learner beliefs and the reality in EFL classes at a Colombian university Ikala: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 6(11–12), 43–62 Collie Graden, E (1996) How language teachers’ beliefs about reading are mediated by their beliefs about students Foreign Language Annals, 29, 387–395 Couper, G (2003) The value of an explicit pronunciation syllabus in ESOL teaching Prospect, 18(3), 53–70 Couper, G (2006) The short and long-term effects of pronunciation instruction Prospect, 21(1), 46–66 Crookes, G., & Chaudron, C (2001) Guidelines for language classroom instruction In M Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp 29–42) Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Delk, C L (2006) College oral communication New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Derwing, T M (2010) Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching In J M Levis & K LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp 24–37) Ames: Iowa State University Derwing, T M., & Munro, M (1997) Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1–16 doi:10.1017/S0272263197001010 Derwing, T M., & Munro, M (2003) What ESL students say about their accents? Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 547–566 doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.4.547 Derwing, T M., & Munro, M J (2005) Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379–397 doi:10 2307/3588486 Derwing, T M., Munro, M J., & Wiebe, G (1997) Pronunciation instruction for “fossilized” learners: Can it help? Applied Language Learning, 8, 217–235 Derwing, T M., Munro, M J., & Wiebe, G (1998) Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction Language Learning, 48, 393–410 doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00047 Derwing, T M., & Rossiter, M J (2002) ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies System, 30, 155–166 doi:10.1016/S0346-251X (02)00012-X Farrell, T S C., & Lim, P C P (2005) Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1–13 Foote, J A., Holtby, A K., & Derwing, T M (2011) Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010 TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1–22 Fraser, H (2000) Coordinating improvements in pronunciation teaching for adult learners of English as a second language Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs Gatbonton, E (2008) Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behaviour: Novice and experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 161–182 doi:10.1177/1362168807086286 Gatbonton, E., Trofimovich, P., & Magid, M (2005) Learners’ ethnic group affiliation and L2 pronunciation accuracy: A sociolinguistic investigation TESOL Quarterly, 39, 489–512 doi:10.2307/3588491 Gilbert, J B (1987) Pronunciation and listening comprehension In J Morley (Ed.), Current perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory (pp 33–39) Washington, DC: TESOL TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 159 Gilbert, J B (1991) Gadgets: Non-verbal tools In A Brown (Ed.), Teaching English pronunciation: A book of readings (pp 308–322) New York, NY: Routledge (Reprinted from CATESOL Occasional Papers, 4, 1978, 68–78.) Graham, C (1986) Small talk: More jazz chants Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Grant, L (2007) Well said intro: Pronunciation for clear communication Boston, MA: Thompson Heinle Hardison, D M., & Sonchaeng, C (2005) Theatre voice training and technology in teaching oral skills: Integrating the components of a speech event System, 33, 593–608 doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.02.001 Hismanoglu, M., & Hismanoglu, S (2010) Language teachers’ preferences of pronunciation teaching techniques: Traditional or modern? Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, 983–989 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.138 Jenkins, J (2005) Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of teacher attitudes and identity TESOL Quarterly, 39, 535–543 doi:10.2307/3588493 Jenkins, J (2007) English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Johnson, K E (1992) The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 83–108 doi:10.1080/10862969209547763 Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K (2000) In search of the knowledge base of language teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 437–468 doi:10.3138/cmlr.56.3.437 Kang, O (2010) ESL learners’ attitudes toward pronunciation instruction In J M Levis & K LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp 105–118) Ames: Iowa State University Khatib, M., & Nikouee, M (2012) Planned focus on form: Automatization of procedural knowledge RELC Journal, 43(2), 187–201 doi:10.1177/0033688212450497 Kuzborska, I (2011) Links between teachers’ beliefs and practices and research on reading Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1), 102–128 Lee, I (2010) Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 143–157 doi:10.1016/ j.jslw.2010.05.001 Lynch, T (2001) Promoting EAP learner autonomy in a second language university context In J Flowerdew & M Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp 390–403) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Lyster, R., & Saito, K (2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302 doi:10.1017/S0272263109990520 Macdonald, D., Yule, G., & Powers, M (1994) Attempts to improve English L2 pronunciation: The variable effects of different types of instruction Language Learning, 44(1), 75–100 doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01095.x Macdonald, S (2002) Pronunciation views and practices of reluctant teachers Prospect, 17(3), 3–18 Murphy, J (1997) Phonology courses offered by MATESOL programs in the US TESOL Quarterly, 31, 741–764 Murphy, J (2004) Attending to word-stress while learning new vocabulary English for Specific Purposes, 23(1), 67–83 doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00019-X Norris, J M., & Ortega, L (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis Language Learning, 50, 417–528 doi:10 1111/0023-8333.00136 160 TESOL QUARTERLY Popko, J (2005) How MA-TESOL students use knowledge about language in teaching ESL classes In N Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp 387–404) New York, NY: Springer Prabhu, N S (1992) The dynamics of the language lesson TESOL Quarterly, 26, 225–242 doi:10.2307/3587004 Saito, K (2007) The influence of explicit phonetic instruction on pronunciation teaching in EFL settings: The case of English vowels and Japanese learners of English Linguistics Journal, 3(3), 16–40 Retrieved from http://www.linguisticsjournal.com/ Saito, K (2011) Identifying problematic segmental features to acquire comprehensible pronunciation in EFL settings: The case of Japanese learners of English RELC Journal, 42, 363–378 doi:10.1177/0033688211420275 Saito, K., & Lyster, R (2012) Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners of English Language Learning, 62, 595–683 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x Saito, K., & van Poeteren, K (2012) Pronunciation-specific adjustment strategies for intelligibility in L2 teacher talk: Results and implications of a questionnaire study Language Awareness, 21(4), 1–17 doi:10.1080/09658416.2011 643891 Scales, J., Wennerstrom, A., Richard, D., & Wu, S H (2006) Language learners’ perceptions of accent TESOL Quarterly, 40, 715–738 doi:10.2307/ 40264305 Shi, L., & Cumming, A (1995) Teachers’ conceptions of second language writing instruction: Five case studies Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 87–111 doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90002-0 Shulman, L (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14 Shulman, L (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22 doi:10.2307/1175860 Sifakis, N C., & Sougari, A.-M (2005) Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs TESOL Quarterly, 39, 467–488 doi:10.2307/3588490 Stevick, E W (1980) Teaching languages: A way and ways Rowley, MA: Newbury House Tanka, J., & Most, P (2006) Interactions 2: Listening and speaking (5th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Timmis, I (2002) Native-speaker norms and international English: A classroom view ELT Journal, 56, 240–249 doi:10.1093/elt/56.3.240 Walker, R (2010) Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C (2009) Transana (Version 2.41) [Computer software] Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison Retrieved from http://www.transana.org/ TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 161 APPENDIX Sample SSI Questions Do you typically teach pronunciation in your classes? Why? Why not? When you teach pronunciation, what you normally do? Which linguistic aspects you usually focus on (vowels, rhythm, intonation, etc.)? Up until this point in the semester, what features of English pronunciation have you focused on? What features you plan on addressing during the remainder of the semester? For each of those features you listed, what activity you use that is the most helpful for improving students’ pronunciation? How you normally assess students’ pronunciation? Sample SRI Questions What were you thinking at this moment? Can you tell me what you were thinking during this activity here? APPENDIX All Activities—Categorized by Data Source Tanya Activity TR Controlled activities Listening text presentation Explanation and examples Production practice Kinesthetic/ tactile practice Checking X Questionanswer display— knowledge verification O Laura SQ TR O X X X X X SQ TR X X X X X X X X Abby X X O Ginger SQ TR X X X X X X X X X X X X O SQ X X Vala TR O X X X SQ X X X X X X (Continued) 162 TESOL QUARTERLY APPENDIX (Continued) Tanya Activity Questionanswer display— knowledge exploration Repetition drill Visual identification Audio identification Repetition drill— audio identification Visual recognition Audio recognition Review Testing Guided activities Questionanswer referential Production— student feedback practice Production— audio identification Production— audio recognition Mutual exchange Preparation Free activities Game Drama Presentation Discussion Total TR O Laura SQ X X X X X X Abby TR O SQ TR X X X X X X X X X X O Ginger SQ TR X X X X SQ TR O X X X X X X X X SQ X X X X O Vala X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 12 12 X 13 11 X X X X X X 10 X X Note TR = teacher reports; O = observations; SQ = student questionnaires TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PRONUNCIATION TECHNIQUES 163