Dip summative task

Summative task

Overview

You should now have completed all the course modules and achieved an overall grade of over 75% on the multiple choice tests. Your final task is outlined below.

This task will not adjust your final average for the multiple choice tests, however its satisfactory completion is required to receive a Pass grade for the Diploma.

You are asked to pose a research question (which should become the title of your essay) based on any aspect of the course material you have studied, from module 2 through to module 11 We would suggest choosing your topic based upon an area of the course you have found particularly interesting or just wish to know more about. Your essay should therefore be current, and not adapted from material you have previously written.

The final essay should be between 2,000 to 2,500 words in length. While your own ideas from experience are acceptable if backed up with evidence, the majority of your essay should be from cited research sources. You may cite your references in any standard style.

Before you start, think carefully about the topic and remember you are researching and answering a question, not just copying different sources about a question and combining them to form an answer You should also read this excellent description of the way you should approach what you are being asked to do:

http://libguides.bc.edu/edpaper/topic (Boston College Libraries)

Plagiarism will not be accepted.

All of the following are considered plagiarism (taken from ):www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism

n turning in someone else's work as your own

n copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit

n failing to put a quotation in quotation marks

n giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation

n changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit

n copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of work

On completion of the task please send it to us via email as an attachment to diploma@tefl.ac

A sample essay is given on the following pages which shows a typical structure (i.e. abstract, main body and conclusion) and referencing examples.

Summative task

Sample summative task

Our thanks to Daniel Madden for the sample summative task below Daniel completed the course in May 2011

This essay has been adapted to meet the word count required of the task.

Are language teachers irresponsibly neglecting learners’ pronunciation needs?

By Daniel J Madden

ITTT Dip. TESOL – Research Assignment

19 May 2011

Abstract

Because pronunciation tends to be accorded relatively little time and attention in language classrooms, is it justified and therefore an appropriate description of the problem, to attribute blame for the situation to language teachers? If so, perhaps language teachers ought to be simply rounded-up and told to pull their heads-in, then we might begin to see some changes in curricula and in the classroom. This paper challenges the notion that teachers who ignore learners' pronunciation needs, which ultimately is the same as not paying adequate time and attention to pronunciation in the classroom, are abrogating their professional responsibility An assertion like this must live or die on the facts. In evaluating this assertion evidence is considered in relation to the two main assumptions upon which it appears to be based. The aim of this paper is to gain a better appreciation of what, based on the evidence, the main causes of the neglect of pronunciation in the language classroom really are. Such findings may be of use to focus on appropriate ways to ameliorate the situation.

Introduction

Acceptable pronunciation is one of the most essential skills second language learners need to acquire in the course of their studies (cf. Brown, 2008, Kawai, 2008). While the question just how much skill in pronunciation language learners require remains a live issue, and even more so what part pronunciation plays in a language and students' learning of a language, the notion that there exists 'a threshold level of pronunciation', below which the speaker 'will have oral communication problems no matter how excellent or extensive their control of grammar and vocabulary might be', seems undeniable (Celce-Murcia, Brinton & Goodwin, 1996: 7). The importance to the learner of developing the skill of pronunciation then is emphasized by the fact that intelligibility in oral communication, up to a point, depends upon it.

Summative task

And yet, pronunciation is a skill often purported to be neglected by teachers in second language classrooms. It has been referred to as the 'Cinderella area' (Kelly 1969, in Celce-Murcia, et al, 1996: 2), or 'poor relation' of language pedagogy due to the relative lack of attention, if any, it receives when compared, for example, to the teaching of grammar and vocabulary (Brown, 1991: 1; Carey, 2009). Pronunciation has also been described as the 'orphan' (Derwing & Munro, 2005, in Derwing, 2010: 24; Gilbert, 2010), both from a research and a pedagogical perspective, signaling that it has somehow become estranged or isolated from the mainstream in both domains. Although of late there are those who have observed a 'renewed interest in pronunciation as an important skill', and speculate that it is 'unlikely to remain on the margins of language teaching in the 21st century as it did for much of the final part of the twentieth' (Jenkins, 2004: 120; Levis, 2005; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Morely, 1991), it is nevertheless clear, from nearly all of what is being said in the field, that the job is still a long way from being done before teaching and learning pronunciation actually becomes an integral feature of most second language classrooms.

Even so, does it actually follow from the apparent lack of time and attention which pronunciation tends to receive in language classrooms that language teachers are irresponsibly neglecting their students' pronunciation needs? This paper evaluates Joan Morley's assertion that 'ignoring students' pronunciation needs is an abrogation of professional responsibility' (1991: 489). While it is recognized that such peremptory language is probably meant to enjoin teachers to pay greater attention to pronunciation, it is argued that for as long as pronunciation continues to be viewed as 'a separate aspect of language learning' (Brown, 2008: 203), rather than essential to it, the appeal to teachers seems likely to fall on deaf ears. That is not to say this is not a point well-recognized by Morely, as well as others in the field. It is widely acknowledged, not only that pronunciation needs to become more integrated with other elements of the language curriculum, but also that there is a need for an 'expanded concept of what constitutes the domain of pronunciation' (Morely, 1991: 493), otherwise pronunciation may continue, in Adam Brown's words, to be 'swept under the carpet' (1991: 1). To those, including myself, who would like to see pronunciation receive greater time and attention than it tends to receive in language classrooms, it is critical for us to evaluate the belief that language teachers are irresponsibly neglecting their students pronunciation needs, because how and what we perceive the problem to be can affect our judgment concerning what ought to be done to ameliorate the situation.

Some underlying assumptions

Certainly, it can appear that students' expectations are not being met by language programs. A study by R.D. Shaw, for example, showed of a sample group of 825 language learners that between 47% and 62% of participants (depending on their linguistic background, Thai, Indian or Singaporean) 'ranked speaking as their worst English language skill', and yet between 71% and 88% of participants 'rated speaking as the one skill which they wanted to be their best' (1981, in Brown 1991: 1-2). 'If statistics are a true reflection of reality', Shaw infers, 'there is a great difference between what the students want and what they are getting from their English classes' (1981: 116, in Brown, 2008, 1991: 2). The fact that pronunciation receives relatively little time and attention in the language classroom, seems to suggest that one of the reasons language learners are frustrated with the level of their speaking skills is that their pronunciation needs are being neglected. But are statistically based inferences like these an adequate basis for asserting that language teachers are thus irresponsibly neglecting their students' pronunciation needs?

Summative task

Shaw's interpretation of the stats is by no means the only interpretation that can be put upon them. Why, for instance, should we expect students to rank lower than speaking as their worst skill, either or all of the other skills traditionally thought to comprise language proficiency, listening, reading and/or writing? What is Shaw suggesting to be the link between, a student's best skill and what a student wants to be her best skill? Presumably, what Shaw is suggesting is that if a student wants her best skill to be speaking, then speaking should logically be given the lion's share of time and attention in the language classroom. If it really did receive the lion's share of time and attention in the classroom, then on the contrary we would expect to see students rank speaking as their best rather than as their worst skill. We might also see reading and writing ranked as skills students' haven't acquired at all, given they are not, predominantly, the language skills students purportedly want to acquire anyway. That the statistics seem to show that speaking isn't prioritized in the classroom, seems to provide evidence that language teachers are irresponsibly neglecting, amongst other things, their students' pronunciation needs by ignoring the evidence of what students want. But quite apart from whether language teachers are even aware of student appraisals like these to be able to ignore them, or whether they even regard Shaw's study as being representative, therefore compelling, perhaps there exists a strong propensity for speaking to be students' worst skill anyway Shaw's survey, after all, was focused on students learning English as a foreign language, that is, in countries where the opportunities to practice speaking English day-to-day can be hard to come by Speaking is also arguably the skill about which, for obvious reasons, students are most self-conscious. Unlike listening, for example, as Caleb Gattegno eloquently explains, which fundamentally only 'requires the cooperation of the self', that is, 'what they hear is what other people put into the air':

'To speak on the contrary, requires the descent of the will into the voluntary speech organs and a clear grasp by one's linguistic self of what there is to do to produce definite sounds in definite ways. Only the self of the utterer can intervene to make objective what it holds in itself' (1976: 7).

Accordingly, speaking may well be the most confronting and challenging skill language learners can aim to acquire. Not only that but there is a real sense in which the onus is on the learner to find it in themselves to become proficient at speaking, as ultimately nobody can do it for them.

But rather than continuing in this way, let us, at this point, begin to think about Morley's assertion in a more analytical way Morley's assertion (“ignoring students pronunciation needs is an abrogation of professional responsibility”) appears to be based on the premise that because language teachers are able to perceive the importance of pronunciation to effective oral communication, they cannot fail to also perceive, and/or agree on, the importance of teaching pronunciation to their students. Therefore, language teachers who ignore pronunciation, which is presumably the same as not paying adequate time and attention to it in the classroom, must be interpreted as willfully doing so, thereby amounting to an “abrogation of professional responsibility”. In other words, language teachers understand pronunciation is an important contributing factor in second language acquisition. They accordingly understand that it is an important part of their job to address it by instructing learners in pronunciation. They aren't addressing it (cf. Derwing & Rossiter, 2002, in Gilbert, 2010). Therefore, quite of their own volition, language teachers are neglecting learners' needs; throwing away a fundamental responsibility that goes with doing the job. This analysis brings to light three key assumptions, two of which are able to be the focus of our evaluation.

Summative task

The first assumption is that language teaching is appropriately conceived as a profession. The “professional”, as M.S. Larson argues, induces 'an image which consciously inspires collective or individual efforts', but is also 'a mystification which unconsciously obscures real social structures and relations' (1977: xviii, in Runte, 1995). Leaving to one side then, the issue whether language teaching should be regarded as a profession (or, e.g., an occupation), on both grounds, that is, on the supposition that Morely has invoked the category, as stated above, merely to enjoin teachers to do more about pronunciation, and also on the ground of needing to avoid getting mired in complicated issues which are clearly outside the scope of this paper, we can limit ourselves instead to examining the other two assumptions.

1. That language teachers perceive, and/or agree on, the importance of pronunciation as a contributing factor to language acquisition; and

2. That language teachers perceive, and/or agree on, the importance of instructing their students in pronunciation.

How pronunciation is perceived by language teachers

It cannot really be said for certain how pronunciation is perceived by language teachers. Language teachers are, after all, a highly heterogeneous grouping among whom proportionately there are no fewer ways of looking at things than there are in society at large. This itself is an indication that the assumption, that language teachers perceive, and/or agree on, the importance of pronunciation as a contributing factor to language acquisition, is a questionable one. The notion that something is important inevitably contains a subjective element, such that there will always some degree of inconsistency between how important I perceive pronunciation – or grammar, or vocabulary – to be and how important, or not, you perceive it to be.

Summative task

It may be argued, nonetheless, that to say that language teachers perceive, or agree on, the importance of pronunciation doesn't really require a high-degree of similarity in views, or congruency of opinions, to be considered as true. This is certainly a reasonable point to make. The issue, however, is whether the assumption is a reasonable one, and so it is also reasonable to expect that if it is, then it will, on the whole, check out with the facts. Therefore, what evidence is there that language teachers perceive, or agree on, the importance of pronunciation as a contributing factor to language acquisition?

As suggested in the introduction to this paper, it seems likely that most language teachers would agree that there is a “threshold level of pronunciation”, which it is necessary for learners of a second language to rise above if they are to become intelligible speakers. This recognition, doubtless, is the main origin of the idea that pronunciation is an important contributing factor to language acquisition. How could anyone argue that acceptable pronunciation isn't an important contributing factor in effective oral communication? What would oral communication be like without it? Well, consider implications of the following point of view:

'No one, anywhere, has walked into a restaurant, mispronounced /r/ and gotten a bowl of lice' (Helgesen, 1996 [internet], in Carey, 2009).

Who can deny, this doesn't make sense? As Michael Carey (2009) opines even phonetic researchers, who know better than what Helgesen seems to be implying, have to concede that 'redundancy in language is a well known factor (Grimson, 1980) and intelligibility will be assisted by an immediate linguistic and situational context in actual communicative situations'. In other words, it seems true that the speakers' pronunciation of the word “rice” was not so important in this suggested instance. The subjective element is here demonstrated, when we consider that Helgesen seems to be implying that pronunciation isn't such an important factor in second language acquisition, notwithstanding that it seems highly likely, as we argued above, that she would not deny the notion of a necessary “threshold level of pronunciation”. Apparently, Helgesen just believes the threshold level that learners need to pass over simply isn't that high or demanding.

How teaching pronunciation is perceived by language teachers

How important teaching pronunciation is perceived by language teachers to be is a rather uncertain and complicated issue. There seems to be more than one way of interpreting, for example, teacher trainees self-reports of feeling underprepared to teach pronunciation to their students. On the one hand, such self-awareness may be interpreted as a sign that language teachers tend to view their own perceived lack of expertise to teach pronunciation as a matter which causes them concern. Pica, for example, lists the issue of how to go about teaching pronunciation as one of the ten most frequently asked questions language teachers tend to want help answering from researchers of L2 learning (1994: 51). On the other hand, the fact that pronunciation tends to receive little time and attention in language classrooms seems to suggest that the concerns teachers have about their ability to teach pronunciation are not so pressing upon them that they are willing to give different approaches to teaching pronunciation a try.

Summative task

Apart, for the moment, from what we have already discussed, that it doesn't seem justified to assume language teachers perceive, and/or agree on, the importance of pronunciation to language acquisition, what can we say, might account for why teaching pronunciation tends to be neglected in language classrooms. Morely, for one, cites G. Yule (1990), who suggests that 'when it comes to classroom practice' there appears to be a view among some language teachers 'that the only choice available is one between teaching pronunciation as articulatory phonetics or not teaching pronunciation at all' (1991: 481). If this is so, then it does seem understandable that language teachers tend to steer clear of teaching pronunciation, because as Carey (2009) explains:

'Many learners are unable to produce segmentals acceptably or with any permanency after exposure to traditional methods of minimal pairs drills, simplified articulatory explanations and aural discrimination exercises. Instead, learners tend to revert to their fossilized production of L2 segmentals once the model, which has been extensively drilled by their teacher, begins to slip from memory'.

Gattegno is also critical of traditional methods of teaching pronunciation like these, on the grounds that 'hearing something said several times does not guarantee retention, still less understanding, of it' (1976: vii). Pronunciation must be 'consciously' learned, and teachers using methods like these 'fall into the trap of using drill and repetition as a way of bringing the new language to their students' (Gattegno, 1976: 5). It may be that the widespread failure of traditional methods of teaching pronunciation has been an important cause of pronunciation's neglect. Discouraged by their experience attempting to teach it using traditional methods, there may be many teachers who have decided that teaching pronunciation is probably not worth the effort.

Perhaps we should also consider this as part of the reason why language teachers purportedly display attitudes to pronunciation like those identified by Marks earlier In particular the notion that teaching pronunciation is “too difficult”. Brown suggests language teachers can also, as a result, be 'intimidated' by the prospect of teaching pronunciation and gives us an insiders account of what he expects language teachers go through when attempting to teach pronunciation for the first time.

'As soon as the English language teacher begins to teach English, the learners are “thrown in the deep-end” as far as pronunciation is concerned, whereas in terms of grammar and vocabulary they can be gradually immersed. Thus a teacher can begin by teaching the present tense and everyday vocabulary, because they are easy and useful, avoiding conditional tenses and technical or more abstract vocabulary until later However, he cannot avoid using the sounds /θ/ or /ɜ/, for example, postponing them till later on the grounds that they are difficult for his class of learners or not very useful' (1991: 3)

Summative task

From the beginning sounds like these are an integral feature in English oral communication. They cannot be avoided without substantially cutting the learner off from the language she is attempting to learn. But as my own experience teaching English to Japanese students informs me, nor are they likely to become part of the functioning of the learner before a good deal of time, patience and effort is expended on the individual. Before that happens a given language teacher, often faced with managing the complex pronunciation needs of a class of multiple individuals, may feel inclined just to hope the right sounds will emerge without intervention and with the passage of time. Which reminds us again of the earlier mentioned teacher appraisals of teacher training programs undertaken, which were criticized, amongst other things, for the lack of attention they allegedly gave to pedagogical considerations.

'But could this limited choice of options', asks Morely, 'be more apparent than real?' (1991: 481) There can be little doubt that this is true. Clearly, as Morely points out 'some creative and principled contributions to alternatives have come on the scene in recent years, with a small but steady movement toward some “new looks” in pronunciation teaching' (1991: 481). Not only now but much earlier, if one considers the innovations in pronunciation pedagogy introduced by the Silent Way, or the possibilities in teaching pronunciation which were opened up by the invention of the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet). Morely, however, is referring, in particular, to research proposals, in circulation, for making pronunciation a more integral part of the language curriculum, by which she means, that pronunciation is not limited, as it tends to be, to an 'isolated drills-and-exercises component set aside from the mainstream' curriculum, but rather contextualized and meaningfully worked into lessons (1991: 493-495). As well, she is referring to an expanded focus of what constitutes the domain of pronunciation, which began with a push to remove the apparently common idea that teaching pronunciation is all about teaching segmentals (phonemes), to raising awareness of the need to teach suprasegmentals (rhythm, intonation, pitch), as well as their 'forms and functions in interactive discourse' (1991: 511; cf. Jenkins, 2004: 111, who discusses the kinds of ascriptions involved in newer models of pronunciation).

All the same, and as we have been seeing, even if the notion that there is a limited choice of options is more “apparent” than “real”, the cognizance that language teachers appear to have that these options exist and how to bring them into their classrooms, also may be more “apparent” than “real”. The evidence we have reviewed suggests that what researchers know does not appear to be transmitting effectively to language teachers. The presence of research on pronunciation in journals continues to be underrepresented, and perhaps, as a related phenomenon, surveys of language teachers own assessments of teacher training programs they have engaged in, indicate programs are failing to adequately prepare them to teach pronunciation (or else not preparing them at all). It seems all very well to say, as Brown does, that 'Wise teachers will exploit connections, and seek ways to integrate pronunciation work into other language work' (2008: 203), but for the average language teacher, who is not yet wise, trying to figure the ins and outs of his or her job, and also, as it seems, not really perceiving the importance of pronunciation to a language and to students learning of a language, aren't we expecting and assuming too much? Ultimately, because there appears to be little reason to assume that language teachers perceive and/or agree on the importance of pronunciation to language acquisition, we are not in a strong position to assume that language teachers perceive and/or agree on the importance of teaching pronunciation either Although, as we have seen, the latter issue is complicated in the sense that there are other reasons apparent as well for why pronunciation tends to be neglected in language classrooms.

Summative task

Conclusion

If we take another look at the two assumptions analyzed in this paper, there are strong reasons to evaluate the notion that language teachers are irresponsibly neglecting students' pronunciation needs, negatively It does seem clear, however, that learners pronunciation needs are, generally speaking, being neglected in the classroom, but it is both heavy-handed and misleading to reduce the cause of the neglect to language teachers abrogating their professional responsibility to students by allegedly ignoring their students' pronunciation needs, as Morely has done. The main causes of the neglect appear to be otherwise. Moreover, researchers should perhaps not consider themselves as out of the woods as far as allocating responsibility for the situation is concerned. But rather than apportioning blame, recalling that the aim of this paper was only to evaluate the belief that language teachers are irresponsibly neglecting their students pronunciation needs, because how and what we perceive the problem to be can affect our judgment concerning what ought to be done to ameliorate the situation, I will conclude by proposing the following as being, at present and in the past, the main antecedents to the neglect of pronunciation in language classrooms.

1. Language teachers sometimes faulty, subjectively determined, but not necessarily unjustified, attitudes and beliefs about the importance of pronunciation to language acquisition;

2. The continuing struggle in the research domain for pronunciation to gain greater recognition vis-à-vis grammar and vocabulary, and the limited extent to which pronunciation research appears to be successfully filtering down to language teachers through, most importantly, teacher training programs; and

3. The inadequate skilling, both theoretically and practically, of teachers by such programs.

These factors appear to have contributed to an ongoing perception among language teachers generally: that pronunciation is somehow a separate aspect of language teaching; and that the resources available for teaching pronunciation are limited to ineffective traditional methods of going about it.

References

Brown, A. (2008), Pronunciation and Good Language Learners, in C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from Good Language Learners, Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 20-01-11, from http://books.google.com (1991), Teaching English Pronunciation, Routlege. Retrieved on 20-04-11, from http://books.google.com

Carey, M. (2009), Pronunciation Pedagogy: Historical Development and Traditional Classroom Practice. Retrieved on 20-04-11, from http://clas.mq.edu.au/phonetics/phonology/interlanguage/pronpedagogy.html Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., Goodwin, J.M. (1996), Teaching Pronunciation: A Reference Guide for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 20-04-11, from http://books.google.com.

Summative task

Cherry, D.E. (2002), Experimenting with the Sound/Color Chart for Pronunciation, Bulletin of Hokuriku University, Vol.26. Retrieved on 18-04-11, from http://www.hokurikuu.ac.jp/jimu/kiyo/kiyo26/gai12.pdf

Deng, J. et al (2009), English Pronunciation Research: The Neglected Orphan of Second Language Acquisition Studies?, PMC Working Paper Series. Retrieved on 20-04-11, from http://pcerii.metropolis.net/WorkingPapers/Working%20papers%20from%20June,%202009/WP0509,%20final.pdf

Derwing, T.M. & Munro, M.J. (2005), Second Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: A Research-Based Approach, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.39, No.3. Retrieved on 25-04-11, from http://resourcesforteflteachers.pbworks.com/f/Second+Language+Accent+and+Pronunciation+Training.pdf#page =8

Derwing, T.M. (2009), Utopian Goals for Pronunciation Teaching, in J. Levis & K. LeVelle (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, Iowa State University, Ames, IA Retrieved on 25-04-11, from .http://apling.public.iastate.edu/PSLLT/2009/derwing.pdf

Gattegno, C. (1976), The Common Sense of Teaching Foreign Languages, Educational Solutions. Jenkins, J. (2004), Research in Teaching Pronunciation and Intonation, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24. Retrieved on 20-04-11, from http://arts.ucalgary.ca/lrc/sites/ucalgary.ca.lrc/files/Jenkins.pdf

Kawai, Y. (2008), Speaking and Good Language Learners, in C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from Good Language Learners, Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 20-01-11, from http://books.google.com

Levis, J.M. (2005), Changing Contexts and Shifting Paradigms in Pronunciation Teaching, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.39, No.3. Retrieved on 25-04-11, from http://resourcesforteflteachers.pbworks.com/f/Second+Language+Accent+and+Pronunciation+Training.pdf#page =8

Morely, J. (1991), The Pronunciation Component in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.25, No.3. Retrieved on 18-04-11, from http://fileserver.aua.am/Public/_Aua_departments/DEP/TEFL/TQD_2000/TQD_2000/Tq_d2000/Vol_25_3.pdf# page=114.

Otlowski, M. (1998), Pronunciation: What are the Expectations, The Internet TESL Journal, Vol.IV, No.1. Retrieved on 18-04-11, from Pronunciation. http://iteslj.org/Articles/OtlowskiPennington, M.C. & Richards, J.C. (1986), Pronunciation Revisited, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.20, No.2. Retrieved on 2504-11, from .http://www.saudicaves.com/silentway/origin Pica, T. (1994), Questions from the Language Classroom: Research Perspectives, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.28, No.1. Retrieved on 18-04-11, from http://203.72.145.166/TESOL/TQD_2008/VOL_28_1.pdf#page=8 Runte, R. (1995), Is Teaching a Profession?, in T. Gerald & R. Runte (eds.), Thinking About Teaching: An Introduction, Harcourt Brace, Toronto. Retrieved on 28-04-11, from http://www.uleth.ca/edu/runte/professional/teaprof.htm

Summative task

Table 1

(Brown 1991: 2)

(Deng, et al, 2009: 2)

Table

Summative task

Table 3

(Deng, et al, 2009: 3)