Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

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

Kazuhito Yamato

November 26, 2019
Tweet

More Decks by Kazuhito Yamato

Other Decks in Education

Transcript

  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

    View full-size slide

  2. Acknowledgment
    2
    •This study is supported by
    JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K047778.
    •This slide (pdf) is available at:
    https://speakerdeck.com/otamayuzak/

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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)

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  25. 2. Yamato & Isoda (2017)
    25

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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.

    View full-size slide

  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.

    View full-size slide

  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.

    View full-size slide