Long-term effects of prosody instruction and learners’ awareness in Japanese secondary school setting

Long-term effects of prosody instruction and learners’ awareness in Japanese secondary school setting

presented at ALAA 2019 conference

D8d28abf403d4ffd806e274a0e45b86f?s=128

Kazuhito Yamato

November 26, 2019
Tweet

Transcript

  1. 1.

    Long-term effects of prosody instruction and learners’ awareness in Japanese

    secondary school setting Kazuhito Yamato (Kobe University) Takamichi Isoda (Ritsumeikan University) 1 The Applied Linguistics Conference @Curtin University 26/11/2019 Room A1ɹ15:00ʙ15:25
  2. 2.

    Acknowledgment 2 •This study is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant

    Number 17K047778. •This slide (pdf) is available at: https://speakerdeck.com/otamayuzak/
  3. 3.

    Outline of the study 3 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.Yamato

    & Isoda (2017) 3.Present study (follow-up) 3.1.RQs 3.2.Procedure 3.3.Results and discussion 4.Implications
  4. 4.

    Outline of the study 4 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.Yamato

    & Isoda (2017) 3.Present study (follow-up) 3.1.RQs 3.2.Procedure 3.3.Results and discussion 4.Implications
  5. 5.

    1. Introduction 1.1 Background • Approaches to pronunciation instruction (Grant,

    et al., 2014) 5 Traditional Approaches Current Approaches learner goals Perfect, naive-like pronunciation Comfortable intelligibility Speech features All segmentals (consonant and vowel sounds) Selected segmental and suprasegmentals (stress, rhythm, and intonation) based on need and context Practice formats Decontextualized drills controlled aural-oral drills as well as semi-communicative practice formats Language background of teachers Native-speaking teachers Native-speaking and proficient non- native speaking teachers Speaking models Native-speaker models Variety of models and standards depending on the listener, context, and purpose Curriculum choices Stand-alone courses isolated from the rest of the curriculum Stand-alone courses or integrated into other content or skill areas, often listening and speaking
  6. 6.

    1. Introduction 1.2 Previous studies • Research on Pronunciation Instruction

    • Derwing & Munro (2015): summary of instruction research (pp. 95-96) • Thomson & Munro (2014): narrative review of 75 PI studies • Lee, Jang & Plonsky (2014): meta-analysis of 86 PI studies • needs more classroom-based research • interaction research(learner backgrounds) 6
  7. 7.

    1. Introduction 1.2 Previous studies • Teaching methods & practical

    ideas/tasks for teaching pronunciation/prosody • Prosody pyramid (Gilbert, 2014) • Pronunciation myth (Grant, 2014) • textbooks, materials (Grant, 2016; Marks & Bowen, 2014; Jones, 2016) • needs more empirical data 7
  8. 8.

    1. Introduction 1.2 Previous studies • In Japanese context… •

    although surveys reveal that reading aloud and teaching pronunciation are the major teaching practices, • Ts: less confident and not enough training (Shibata et al., 2008;) • teaching items: segmental > suprasegmentals 8
  9. 9.

    1. Introduction 1.2 Previous studies • Japanese EFL learners have

    problems on prosodic features: • sentence stress • intonation • nucleus placement (Nanjo, 2010; Saito & Ueda, 2011; Saito, 2017; Matsuzaka, 1986) 9
  10. 10.

    1. Introduction 1.2 Previous studies • issues to be addressed

    • classroom-based research on pronunciation instruction • prosody instruction to Japanese EFL learners • pre-, post-intervention design incorporating learner background • … lead to Yamato & Isoda (2017) 10
  11. 11.

    Outline of the study 11 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.Yamato

    & Isoda (2017) 3.Present study (follow-up) 3.1.RQs 3.2.Procedure 3.3.Results and discussion 4.Implications
  12. 12.

    Outline of the study 12 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.Yamato

    & Isoda (2017) 3.Present study (follow-up) 3.1.RQs 3.2.Procedure 3.3.Results and discussion 4.Implications
  13. 13.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) •Purpose 1.to develop an effective

    prosody instruction in a Japanese school setting and to conduct a classroom-based research 2.to illustrate how learners’ comprehensibility and their awareness toward prosodic features change over the course of time 13
  14. 14.

    2. The present study Outline of Yamato & Isoda (2017)

    14 r 3 2018.07 follow-up q 3 2018.07 Present Study • 1st year studentsɹ (n=69) • taught by this shcool’s teacher • 3 principles of prosody developed by authors Recording 1 2016.09 Recording 2 2017.04 teaching intervention Questionnaire 1 2016.10 Questionnaire 2 2017.03
  15. 15.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.2 Practical intervention •participants •1st

    year students at Kobe University Secondary School (aged 13 to 14) (at the beginning) •3 classes 120 students (40 students/class) •recordings of 69 students as valid data (44 students as valid in the follow-up) •instructor •a teacher at the school •authors as advisors, observers and material developers 15
  16. 16.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.2 Practical intervention •Instruction •10-15

    mins allotted in each English class/ twice a week •mid Oct, 2016 - early March, 2017 •teaching methodology (what & how) •simplify the complex phenomena of prosody into 3 principles •“3 principles of prosody instruction” (Isoda, Yamato) 1.placing beat where vowels are [syllable structure] 2.contrast the beats if there are multiple beats [word stress/ sentence stress/rhythm] 3.placing prominence [nucleus placement/intonation] 16
  17. 17.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.2 Practical intervention •teaching methodology

    (what & how) •simplify the complex phenomena of prosody into 3 principles •“3 principles of prosody instruction” (Isoda, Yamato) 1.placing beat where vowels are [syllable structure] 2.contrast the beats if there are multiple beats [word stress/sentence stress/rhythm] 3.placing prominence [nucleus placement/ intonation] 17
  18. 18.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.2 Practical intervention •material/task development

    •tasks designed by authors based on the 3 principles •handouts developed by authors and the instructor 18
  19. 19.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.2 Practical intervention •examples of

    the worksheets devised 19 make contrast in multi-syllable words and compare with Japanese equivalents listen and choose the word which has the same no. of humming
  20. 20.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.3 Data collection •Recordings: •recitation

    task: Sep 2016 •read-aloud task: April 2017 •read-aloud task: June 2018 (follow-up) •material: Marcel the White Star •questionnaire on awareness: 5 point Likert scale •comprehensibility ratings •rating task on the recordings •participants: 6 NS speakers (high school, secondary school, university teaching staff) •9 point Likert scale (Isacc, Trofimovich & Foote, 2017) 20
  21. 21.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.4 Analysis •grouping students in

    accordance with responses to questionnaire on awareness towards prosodic features (pre- and post-practical interventions and follow-up; 5 point likert scale) 21
  22. 22.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.4 Analysis •groups •HIGH: pre

    and post 3 or over high awareness throughout •DOWN: NA •UP: low in pre but awareness went up later •LOW: kept low awareness throughout 22 post 3 or over under 3 pre 3 or over HIGH(n=47) DOWN(n=0) under 3 UP(n=13) LOW(n=9)
  23. 23.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 2.4 Analysis •comparing comprehensibility scores

    of pre- and post-practical interventions (ANOVA) •acoustic/auditory analysis on selected items (Praat) 23
  24. 24.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) •Comprehensibility rating •9 point Likert

    scale (Isaccs, Trofimovich, & Foote, 2017) •Listeners: •pre- & post: 6 native speakers of English, teaching at junior, senior high schools and university in Japan (interrater reliability α=.88) • 24
  25. 26.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) 26 Descriptive Statistics Groups n

    Pre Post Mean SD Meas SD HIGH 47 5.85 0.89 6.52 0.71 UP 13 5.33 1.05 6.35 0.64 LOW 9 5.19 1.26 5.89 0.84 ALL 69 5.67 1.00 6.41 0.74 ANOVA(mixed design ANOVA) GROUP between-subjects F(2, 66)=3.65, p=.03, partial η2=.099 Pre-Post within-subjects F(1, 66)=33.23, p<.001, partial η2=.335 interaction F(2, 66)=0.75, p=.47, partial η2=. 022 Tukey's HSD Within Between pre HIGH < post HIGH pre UP < post HIGH pre UP < post UP pre LOW < post HIGH pre LOW < post UP
  26. 27.

    2. Yamato & Isoda (2017) •what results tell us: pre-

    & post comparison •Significant in within-subjects factor (pre-post) shows overall effectiveness of prosody instruction (F(1, 66)=33.23, p<.001, partial η2). •Smaller SD scores in post means overall improvement in every group. •UP group shows a little steeper improvements (though not significant in interaction), which is possibly the result of improvements in awareness toward prosody instruction. 27
  27. 28.

    Outline of the study 28 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.Yamato

    & Isoda (2017) 3.Present study (follow-up) 3.1.RQs 3.2.Procedure 3.3.Results and discussion 4.Implications
  28. 29.

    Outline of the study 29 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.Yamato

    & Isoda (2017) 3.Present study (follow-up) 3.1.RQs 3.2.Procedure 3.3.Results and discussion 4.Implications
  29. 30.

    2. The present study Outline of the present follow-up study

    30 Recording 1 2016.09 Recording 2 2017.04 teaching intervention Questionnaire 1 2016.10 Questionnaire 2 2017.03 r 3 2018.07 follow-up q 3 2018.07 Yamato & Isoda (2017) Present Study
  30. 31.

    2. The present study Outline of the present follow-up study

    31 teaching intervention Recording 3 2018.07 follow-up Questionnaire 3 2018.07 Yamato & Isoda (2017) Present Study Recording 1 2016.09 Recording 2 2017.04 Questionnaire 1 2016.10 Questionnaire 2 2017.03
  31. 32.

    2. The present study •RQs of this follow-up study: 1.

    What happens to the effect of a explicit prosody instruction in a Japanese secondary school setting in the long run? 2.Does learners’ awareness toward prosodic features influence the effect in the course of time? 32
  32. 33.

    2. The present study Procedure: •The same procedures as the

    pre-post period (questionnaires and recordings) •Raters: 6 native speakers of English (4 of 6 NSs overlapped with pre- & post- comparison (interrater reliability α=.88), therefore z-score comparison) •Questionnaires (awareness towards prosody) 33
  33. 34.

    2. The present study 34 Descriptive Statistics: Comprehensibility Score (post

    and follow-up) Groups Post Follow-up n Mean SD n Mean SD HIGH 47 0.156378 0.965162 33 0.162375 1.00595 UP 13 -0.08077 0.871492 7 -0.40014 1.003746 LOW 9 -0.69998 1.139701 4 -0.63935 0.561874 ALL 69 44 0.156378 0.162375 -0.080767 -0.400139 -0.69998 -0.639353 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Post follow-up comprehensibility score(z-score) HIGH UP LOW
  34. 35.

    2. The present study •Results and Discussion •Comprehensibility: •HIGH &

    LOW groups stays the same, which could mean that the effect of instruction remained constant between the two groups. •UP group shows a sharp decline, which is possibly due to deteriorations in awareness toward prosodic features. 35 0.156378 0.162375 -0.080767 -0.400139 -0.69998 -0.639353 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Post follow-up comprehensibility score(z-score) HIGH UP LOW
  35. 36.

    2. The present study 36 Descriptive Statistics: Awareness (mean) Groups

    Pre Post Follow-up n Mean Mean n Mean HIGH 47 3.808511 3.910334 33 3.333333 UP 13 2.527473 3.505495 7 2.918367 LOW 9 2 2.412698 4 1.910714 ALL 69 44 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 pre post followup awareness(mean) HIGH UP LOW
  36. 37.

    2. The present study •Results and Discussion •Awareness: •ALL groups

    showed declining trend in the follow-up period, which suggests their awareness towards prosodic features wears off overtime. •UP group shows their awareness was improved by instruction (pre-post period) but over the time, went down without instruction. 37 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 pre post followup awareness(mean) HIGH UP LOW
  37. 38.

    2. The present study •Focus on “UP group” •acoustic/auditory analysis

    showed improvements on 1) syllable structure, 2) word stress [script] Marcel is happy, too. Back on his boat, he reads the newspaper stories. 38
  38. 39.

    2. The present study •UP group •1) syllable structure •happy:

    used geminate consonants in pre, two syllables in post, and back to using geminate in follow-up •newspaper stories: used lengthened vowels in pre, back again in follow-up •both: less vowel insertion •2) word stress •happy: placing equal strength to strong and weak, and back in follow-up •newspaper stories: [3 2] syllables 39
  39. 40.

    Outline of the study 40 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.Yamato

    & Isoda (2017) 3.Present study (follow-up) 3.1.RQs 3.2.Procedure 3.3.Results and discussion 4.Implications
  40. 41.

    Outline of the study 41 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.Yamato

    & Isoda (2017) 3.Present study (follow-up) 3.1.RQs 3.2.Procedure 3.3.Results and discussion 4.Implications
  41. 42.

    4. Implications •findings & implications 1.What happens to the effect

    of a explicit prosody instruction in a Japanese secondary school setting in the long run? → long-term effect went off over the time •HIGH and LOW groups stay as they were after the instruction, but UP group showed sharp fall in comprehensibility score •the effect of explicit prosody instruction goes off over time if it is stopped 42
  42. 43.

    4. Implications •findings & implications 2.Does learners’ awareness toward prosodic

    features influence the effect in the course of time? → possibly yes, especially on UP group •UP group shows a steeper fall than other groups •UP group: prosodic knowledge not automatized yet? (cf. HIGH group kept high score both on compre and awareness score) •Explicit instruction can expect improvements both in performance and awareness, but require consistent instructions. 43
  43. 44.

    44 Take-home messages Yamato, K., & Isoda, T. (2019). Long-term

    effects of prosody instruction and learners’ awareness in Japanese secondary school setting. •Approx. 6 months pre-, post- design intervention showed overall improvements on comprehensibility rating score. •And learners’ awareness changes overtime and it could influence on their performance. •However, the follow-up illustrates the effects wear off gradually if not taught consistently. In particular, UP group (i.e. the group raised awareness through the instruction) experiencing ups and downs both in comprehensibility score and awareness overtime illustrates the need for constant (explicit) instruction.
  44. 45.

    45 Reference • Bradford, B. (1998). Intonation in context: Intonation

    practice for upper-intermediate and advanced learners of English. Cambridge University Press. • Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based prospectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. • Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36/3, 345-366. • Gilbert, J. B. (2008). Teaching pronunciation: Using the prosody pyramid. NY: Cambridge University Press. • Grant, L. (2017) Well said: Pronunciation for clear communication. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Engage Learning. • Grant, L. (Ed.). (2014). Pronunciation myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MH: University of Michigan Press. • Marks , J. & Bowen, T. (2012). The book of pronunciation: Proposals for a practical pedagogy. Surrey: DELTA Publishing. • Nicola, L., & Darcy, I. (2015). Integrating pronunciation into the language classroom. In Reed, M., & Levis, J. M. (eds.). The handbook of English pronunciation. (pp.471-487). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
  45. 46.

    46 Reference • Thomson, & Munro, J. J. (2014) •

    Yamato, K., & Isoda, T. (2017). Presented at ALAA 2017 • দࡔώϩγ (1986) ʰӳޠԻ੠ֶೖ໳ʱ ౦ژ: ݚڀࣾ • ೆᑍ݈ॿ (2010) ʮԻ੠ֶɾԻӆ࿦ͱൃԻࢦಋʯ େֶӳޠڭҭֶձʢ؂ʣ Ԭా৳ ෉ɾೆग़߁ੈɾക࡙ರࢠʢฤʣ (2010) ʰӳޠڭҭֶେܥ ୈ8ר ӳޠݚڀͱ ӳޠڭҭ ʵ͜ͱ͹ͷݚڀΛڭҭʹ׆͔͢ʱ౦ژ: େमؗॻళ pp. 3-21. • ࡈ౻Ұ໻ (2017, June) ʮʰฉ͖औΓ΍͍͢ൃԻʱशಘΛ໨ࢦͯ͠ɿ༏ઌతʹֶश ͢΂͖߲໨ͱޮՌతͳڭत๏ʯ LETؔ੢2017೥౓य़قݚڀେձɾ2017೥౓ ؔ੢ӳޠڭҭֶձୈ22ճݚڀେձʢڞ࠵ʣಛผγϯϙδ΢Ϝ, ۙـେֶ • ࡈ౻߂ࢠɾ্ాޭ (2011) ʮӳޠֶशऀʹΑΔΠϯτωʔγϣϯ֩ͷޡ഑ஔʯ ʰԻ੠ݚڀʱ 15, 87-95. • ࣲా༤հɾԣࢁࢤอɾଟྑᯩ໵ (2008) ʮԻ੠ࢦಋʹؔ͢Δڭһͷ࣮ଶௐࠪʯ ʰلཁʱ(࢛ࠃӳޠڭҭֶձ) 28, 49-55.