Introducing prosody instruction into Japanese secondary school classroom: A classroom-based research Kazuhito Yamato (Kobe University) Takamichi Isoda (Ritsumeikan University) 1 The Applied Linguistics Conference (ALANZ/ALAA/ALTAANZ) @AUT 27/11/2017 WG803ɹ11:00ʙ11:30 

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

Outline of the study 3 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.The present study 2.1.Research questions 2.2.Practical Intervention 2.3.Data collection 2.4.Analysis 3.Results and discussion 4.Implications 

Outline of the study 4 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.The present study 2.1.Research questions 2.2.Practical Intervention 2.3.Data collection 2.4.Analysis 3.Results and discussion 4.Implications 

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 

1. Introduction 1.2 Previous studies • Research on Pronunciation Instruction • Derwing & Munro (2015): summary of instruction research (pp. 95-96) • Thomson & Derwing (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 

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 

1. Introduction 1.2 Previous studies • In Japanese context… • surveys reveal that reading aloud and pronunciation teaching are the major teaching practices • Ts: less confident and not enough training (Shibata et al., 2008;) • teaching items: segmental > suprasegmentals 8 

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; Matsusaka, 1986) 9 

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 the present study 10 

1. Introduction •Purpose of this research project: 1.to report on the effectiveness of a classroom-based explicit prosody instruction in a Japanese secondary school setting 2.to illustrate how learners’ awareness toward prosodic features changes over the course of time 11 

Outline of the study 12 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.The present study 2.1.Research questions 2.2.Practical Intervention 2.3.Data collection 2.4.Analysis 3.Results and discussion 4.Implications 

Outline of the study 13 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.The present study 2.1.Research questions 2.2.Practical Intervention 2.3.Data collection 2.4.Analysis 3.Results and discussion 4.Implications 

2. The present study 2.1 Research questions 2.2 Practical Intervention 2.3 Data collection 2.4 Analysis 14 

2. The present study 2.1 Research questions •efficacy of a classroom-based explicit prosody instruction in a Japanese secondary school setting •the effect of awareness toward prosodic features on learners’ performance over time 15 

2. The present study 2.2 Practical intervention •participants •1st year students at Kobe University Secondary School (aged 13 to 14) •3 classes 120 students (40 students/class) •recordings of 69 students as valid data •instructor •a teacher at the school •authors as advisors, observers and material developers 16 

2. The present study 2.2 Practical intervention •Procedures •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. strike a beat when there is a vowel [syllable structure] 2. when there are more than one beat, differentiate strong and weak beats [word stress/sentence stress/rhythm] 3. when there are more than one strong beat, make one of them more salient than the others [nucleus placement/intonation] 17 

2. The present study 2.2 Practical intervention •Procedures •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. strike a beat when there is a vowel [syllable structure] 2. when there are more than one beat, differentiate strong and weak beats [word stress/sentence stress/rhythm] 3. when there are more than one strong beat, make one of them more salient than the others [nucleus placement/intonation] 18 

2. The present study 2.2 Practical intervention •material/task development •tasks designed by authors based on the 3 principles •handouts developed by authors and the instructor 19 

2. The present study 2.2 Practical intervention •examples of the worksheets devised 20 make contrast in multi-syllable words and compare with Japanese equivalents listen and choose the word which has the same no. of humming 

2. The present study 2.3 Data collection •Recordings: •recitation task: Sep 2016 •read-aloud task: April 2017 •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) 21 

2. The present study 2.2 to 2.3 Data collection (Summary) 22 recording 1 2016.09 recording 2 2017.04 teaching intervention questionnaire 1 2016.10 questionnaire 2 2017.03 

2. The present study 2.4 Analysis •grouping students in accordance with responses to questionnaire on awareness towards prosody instruction (pre- and post-practical interventions; 5 point likert scale) 23 

2. The present study 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 24 post 3 or over under 3 pre 3 or over HIGH(n=47) DOWN(n=0) under 3 UP(n=13) LOW(n=9) 

2. The present study 2.4 Analysis •comparing comprehensibility scores of pre- and post-practical interventions (ANOVA) •acoustic/auditory analysis on selected items (Praat) 25 

Outline of the study 26 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.The present study 2.1.Research questions 2.2.Practical Intervention 2.3.Data collection 2.4.Analysis 3.Results and discussion 4.Implications 

Outline of the study 27 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.The present study 2.1.Research questions 2.2.Practical Intervention 2.3.Data collection 2.4.Analysis 3.Results and discussion 4.Implications 

4. Results an discussion •Comprehensibility rating •9 point Likert scale (Isaccs, Trofimovich, & Foote, 2017) •Listeners: 6 native speakers of English, teaching at junior, senior high schools and university in Japan •interrater reliability α=.88 28 

4. Results and discussion 29 

4. Results and discussion 30 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 

4. Results and discussion •what results tell us •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. 31 

4. Results and discussion •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. 32 

4. Results and discussion •UP group example “… happy, too” 33 •Pre (Sep, 2016) •geminates (2 syllables, but 3 moras) •equal intensity on both syllables •Post (Apr, 2017) •2 syllables •better stress pattern (S w) 

4. Results and discussion •UP group example ”… the newspaper stories” 34 •Pre (Sep, 2016) •vowel insertions •Post (Apr, 2017) •less vowel insertions •better word stress 

4. Results and discussion •UP group •1) syllable structure •happy: used geminate consonants in pre, two syllables in post •newspaper stories: used lengthened vowels in pre, •both: less vowel insertion •2) word stress •happy: placing equal strength to strong and weak •newspaper stories: [3 2] syllables 35 

Outline of the study 36 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.The present study 2.1.Research questions 2.2.Practical Intervention 2.3.Data collection 2.4.Analysis 3.Results and discussion 4.Implications 

Outline of the study 37 1.Introduction 1.1.Background 1.2.Previous studies 2.The present study 2.1.Research questions 2.2.Practical Intervention 2.3.Data collection 2.4.Analysis 3.Results and discussion 4.Implications 

5. Implications •findings 1.efficacy of a classroom-based explicit prosody instruction in a Japanese secondary school setting →yes •pre-, post-intervention illustrates the effectiveness of explicit prosody instruction •10 to 15 minutes of teaching can make a difference •non-native instructor teaches prosody to non- native learners 38 

5. Implications •findings 2.the effect of instruction on learners’ awareness toward prosodic features changes over the course of time → possibly yes. •UP group shows a slightly better improvements than other groups •improvements in awareness have some effect on performance 39 

40 Summary Yamato, K., & Isoda, T. (2017). Introducing prosody instruction into Japanese secondary school classroom: A classroom-based research. •“3 principles of prosody instruction” is introduced to Japanese secondary school students •approx. 6 months pre-, post- design intervention showed overall improvements on comprehensibility rating score •learners’ awareness changes overtime and it could influence on their performance (UP group has a key for further investigations) 

41 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. 

42 Reference • 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. • Thomson, I., & Derwing,T. M. (2014). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326-344. • দࡔώϩγ (1986) ʰӳޠԻ੠ֶೖ໳ʱ ౦ژ: ݚڀࣾ • ೆᑍ݈ॿ (2010) ʮԻ੠ֶɾԻӆ࿦ͱൃԻࢦಋʯ େֶӳޠڭҭֶձʢ؂ʣ Ԭా৳෉ɾೆग़߁ੈɾക࡙ರࢠʢฤʣ (2010) ʰӳޠڭҭֶେܥ ୈ8ר ӳޠݚڀͱӳޠڭҭ ʵ͜ͱ͹ͷݚڀΛڭҭʹ׆͔͢ʱ౦ژ: େमؗॻ ళ pp. 3-21. • ࡈ౻Ұ໻ (2017, June) ʮʰฉ͖औΓ΍͍͢ൃԻʱशಘΛ໨ࢦͯ͠ɿ༏ઌత ʹֶश͢΂͖߲໨ͱޮՌతͳڭत๏ʯ LETؔ੢2017೥౓य़قݚڀେ ձɾ2017೥౓ؔ੢ӳޠڭҭֶձୈ22ճݚڀେձʢڞ࠵ʣಛผγϯϙδ ΢Ϝ, ۙـେֶ 

43 Reference • ࡈ౻߂ࢠɾ্ాޭ (2011) ʮӳޠֶशऀʹΑΔΠϯτωʔγϣϯ֩ͷޡ഑ ஔʯ ʰԻ੠ݚڀʱ 15, 87-95. • ࣲా༤հɾԣࢁࢤอɾଟྑᯩ໵ (2008) ʮԻ੠ࢦಋʹؔ͢Δڭһͷ࣮ଶௐ ࠪʯ ʰلཁʱ(࢛ࠃӳޠڭҭֶձ) 28, 49-55. 

44 Appendix (Likert scale for comprehensibility) 

45 Appendix (awreness questionnaire pre-) 

46 Appendix (awreness questionnaire post-)