Metacognitive and Articulatory Phonetic Curriculum: Improving ESOL Learners' Pronunciation by Travis Michael Landers

Using Metacognitive and Articulatory Phonetic Curriculum to Improve Intermediate ESOL Learners’ Pronunciation

Research Proposal

Travis M. Landers Graduate Student Fort Hays State University

Running head: USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC 2 CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Using Metacognitive and Articulatory Phonetic Curriculum to Improve Intermediate ESOL Learners’ Pronunciation Travis M. Landers Fort Hays State University

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Abstract

This mixed research study will examine what effects curriculum focused on metacognition and articulatory phonetics has on intermediate ESOL learners. In particular, the study aims to examine effects on pronunciation and confidence. A metacognitive articulatory phonetic curriculum called Cued Articulation will be used on one group while more traditional methods will be used with the control group. Quantitative data from computer software and opinions of speech pathologists will be gathered to help determine the effects on pronunciation. In addition, qualitative evidence will be collected from participants to determine how instruction affects confidence and other affective variables. Keywords: articulation, phonetics, pronunciation, ESL, ESOL, metacognitive, segmental features, communicative approach, intelligible, confidence, metalinguistic

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………... Methodology………………………………………………………………………………….. References…………………………………………………………………………………….. Appendix A: Literature Map……………………………………………………………. Appendix A: Informed Consent Letter………………………..…………………….

5 7 25 36 40 41

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION INTRODUCTION

Many intermediate ESOL learners seem to struggle with pronunciation. They struggle for many reasons. Perhaps they are not able to hear the subtle differences because they are filtering things through their L1. There could be problems with confidence or their learning environment. For whatever reasons, they seem to be stuck and seldom improve pronunciation. The purpose of this study is to examine this issue from another angle. Traditional methods rely on verbal repetition and lots of listening practice. However, these methods don’t seem to work with many. A different and less documented approach is to teach students how to make sounds. By showing students where to place parts of their mouth and how to make sounds, speech pathologists have helped those with speech disorders. Our research aims to see what impact this kind of explicit sound instruction might have on intermediate ESOL learners. Articulatory phonetics attempts to explain how sounds are made using physiological structures like our tongue, lips, and teeth. Explicit instruction in this area has seen success but the primary participants in the past have been those with speech disorders trying to improve skills in their L1. One promising method, called Cued Articulation, was developed by speech pathologist Jane Passy in 1987. Passy spent several years in India teaching students in two large boarding schools. Her students came from all over Asia with differing phonological systems. She found that not only were the students with disorders helped but also other students as well. The

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 6 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION method continues to gain popularity but up until this time there has been no formal research into the effectiveness of Cued Articulation with ESOL learners. This study aims to determine what effects Cued Articulation could have on the pronunciation of intermediate ESOL learners. It is our prediction that the use of Cued Articulation can improve confidence by giving students a concrete plan to attack pronunciation. The aim is to give students a plan to work with when trying to improve making sounds they would otherwise not understand how to make correctly. An important part of proposing this method hinges on understanding the history of ESOL pronunciation instruction and the situation many intermediate ESOL learners face.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION LITERATURE REVIEW

Research Questions •

What is the history surrounding explicit instruction in the area of pronunciation? What areas of pronunciation should be explored to give struggling intermediate ESOL learners the best chance at producing intelligent native-‐like speech?

•

What obstacles do ESOL learners face while learning pronunciation? Why do some intermediate level ESOL learner’s struggle more than their peers?

•

How could teaching metacognitive skills and making learners more aware of the process of speaking help them improve their pronunciation?

•

What teaching methods are available for pronunciation today? Which one would be most suitable to conduct a study with?

Scope of this Document It is outside the scope of this document to fully examine all the different facets of pronunciation or the rich history of endeavors in ESOL. Also, this document is not intended to propose a grand plan to perfect pronunciation of all ESOL learners. Because of the myriad of factors that go into producing intelligent speech, it would be silly to think that one could successfully correct pronunciation using only one technique. Rather the purpose here is to take into account the thoughts of the past and present while selecting and researching a reasonable tool to improve struggling

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 8 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION intermediate ESOL learners’ pronunciation. The specific portion of pronunciation the study is aimed at is the work with segmental features or phonemes. Therefore, this proposal suggests the research of only one of many potential tools, which should be harnessed to help learners. Although some of the other surrounding factors and options are examined, to keep this document focused, many important features of pronunciation are only briefly mentioned. What is the history surrounding explicit instruction in the area of pronunciation? What areas of pronunciation should be explored to give struggling intermediate ESOL learners the best chance at producing intelligent native-like speech? The term pronunciation is a blanket word for several underlying components and features. Possibly because of this fact, “pronunciation error” has no clear definition (Witt, 2014). This in itself should be a warning sign hinting at the complexity of the problem at hand. History of Pronunciation and ESOL Instruction Pronunciation has always been an important aspect of communication but there has been much debate about how it should be taught and approached in a classroom setting. Learning models seem to have shifted through history from grammatical/teacher-‐centered emphasis to a focus on realistic authentic student-‐ centered experiences and finally the last transition has involved more cognitive learning strategies.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Grammatical / Teacher-‐centered Learning

For several thousands of years, the grammatical approach was used to learn foreign languages. During World War II, the audio-‐lingual method was developed to give U.S. military troops a quick way to learn languages. One of the primary focuses of this method was accurate pronunciation (Morley, 1991). The audio-‐lingual method hinges on the grammatical approach to learning. It is a rote learning style that is teacher-‐ centered, meaning the teacher focuses on rules and structure while students repeat. This method uses highly sequential drills and dialogues to get the ideas into learners’ heads (Soccorro & Murry, 2011). The idea being that language acquisition is the memorization of patterns. Students learn proper pronunciation through repeated correction from the instructor. Versions of the audio-‐lingual method are still used today but around the 1980s a newer model started to really become more popular. Realistic / Authentic / Student-‐centered Learning Although it was first introduced in the 1960s, the communicative approach took some time to build momentum. While the audio-‐lingual method continued to receive support it began to decline in popularity. Some skepticism began to surface about the importance of explicit instruction for pronunciation because of its close ties to the audio-‐lingual and teacher-‐centered approaches. Through the 1960s up until around the 1980s, research and focus on pronunciation instruction

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION dramatically decreased. These were “The Dark Ages” for pronunciation in the

classroom. There were questions about the importance of pronunciation as an instructional focus, questions about whether or not it could be taught directly at all, questions about the assumption it could be learned at all under direct instruction (Morley, 1991). As the quote above suggests, there was a lot of uncertainty surrounding whether or not pronunciation could be taught. More than that though, the uprise of the communicative approach and its philosophies seemed to implicitly suggest instruction was not needed. Advocates of modern comprehension-‐based or communicatively oriented language curricula generally take the view that pronunciation should not be taught explicitly but should rather be allowed to develop naturally as a by-‐ product of attempts by students to communicate (Pennington, 1989). These beliefs lead to specific pronunciation lessons being ignored. In the end, students suffered and eventually their true needs became too loud to ignore. From this neglect, the role of pronunciation instruction was rethought. A reverse trend began to happen where pronunciation again became a vital focus point for instruction (Morley, 1991).

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Cognitive / Cooperative Learning Strategies

Part of the reverse trend might have began, in part, because of a focus on teaching skills or metacognitive strategies. Metacognition is often referred to as “knowing about knowing”. Taking on many forms, metacognition includes knowledge about when and how to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving (Metcalfe & Shimamura 1994). In 1979, John H. Flavell published his thoughts and what would become widely regarded as the foundations for cognitive research. He introduced three areas of metacognition: (1) metacognitive knowledge, (2) metacognitive experiences, and (3) metacognitive strategies (Flavell 1979). The strategies are used with the intention of facilitating cognitive success. Sometimes a learner will succeed and sometimes they will fail creating experiences. These experiences translate into knowledge about how to learn. Metacognitive processes make it possible for learners to control their thought processes, use them deliberately and systematically, adapt strategies to tasks and activate them in an efficient and controlled manner (Kaniel, Licht, & Peled 2000). This has become the basis for what ESOL and pronunciation instruction are going towards today. The roles of the teacher and student have changed. Teachers are

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 12 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION expected to act as “pronunciation coaches” while learners are encouraged to take more control over their learning (Fraser, 2000). Also, the methods for acquiring language and improving pronunciation have changed. Research in second language education has shifted towards skills-‐based metacognitive systems when dealing with pronunciation. In a future section, I will go into more detail about metacognition and its implications for this study. Closing Thoughts About the History of Pronunciation Instruction The effectiveness of past approaches, described in this history section, is still open to debate. However, there have already been documented accounts and studies of audio-‐lingual and communicative based pronunciation learning. Therefore, it makes sense to research with the more recent cognitive approach in mind. Following the natural progression of history, this study proposes to examine the latest learning approach, the cognitive learning approach. In particular, this study would test a unique blend of metacognitive and psychological theories but ultimately the delivery of the information would be through cued articulatory phonetics. To my knowledge this particular combination taken in the context of pronunciation, has never been tried with intermediate ESOL learners before.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION What is Pronunciation?

As hinted at in the introduction to this section, pronunciation has many concepts and facets surrounding it in such a way that the idea of perfect pronunciation is very hard to define. It was also stated earlier in the disclosure section of this document but it is important to remember, that the intent of this proposal is not to cover every aspect of pronunciation. Rather, our discussion is aimed at giving the reader just enough information to discern what specific section of pronunciation will be studied in this research project and whether this selection is justified. Pronunciation can be broken down into two main categories: (1) Segmental Features and (2) Suprasegmental Features[SS] (Gilakjani & Ahmadi 2011). There has been a lot of debate as to which features are more important.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION In former ESL approaches, segmental features were the major focus for

pronunciation teaching(for example, minimal pairs such as ship/sheep). While these features are important, more recent research has shown that when teaching focuses on suprasegmental features, learners’ intelligibility is greatly enhanced. It is important, therefore, to provide activities at both levels (Burns 2003). Therefore, currently SS features are getting a lot of buzz due to neglect in the past. Many are finding that practicing intonation, stress, and rhythm seem to help make speakers sound more intelligent (Anderson-‐Hsieh, Johnson, & Koehler, 1992; Loon, 2002; Pennington, 1989; Raux & Kawahara 2002). This would especially make sense with tonal languages like Chinese, which do not experience the SS concepts like intonation in their own L1. Despite not having the same recent popularity in the academic community, our project is aimed more at the segmental features. Though they were the first to be researched, there has never been an investigation on segmental features using these same theories and cued articulation. It seems segmental features may not be the hot topic at this time because SS features were neglected for so long. However, they are still important and many ESOL intermediate learners struggle in this area. Educators need to remember that it is not one tool but many which allow us to help our students who have varied

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 15 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION backgrounds, styles, families, and other traits. Although the intention of this paper is not to argue for a particular style of teaching, the complex nature of an ESOL learner’s situation must be conveyed. When teaching pronunciation, the focus should be on both segmental and SS features of pronunciation. Also, we need to present the material in multiple ways. As Acton (1997) explains, The implication for pronunciation work is that we do not have to be overly concerned that we “give” everybody their favorite modality, because we should be using a multi-‐modality approach in the first place. In other words, every sound process should be experienced as a totality: visual + auditory + kinesthetic + tactile (although not necessarily in that order, of course). In that way learners have the opportunity to strengthen their “lesser” modalities. Thus, it might seem a bit dated to choose segmental features for a focus to some, but the importance of these features endures. Segmental features are a vital piece of the pronunciation puzzle and they are the focus of this study. What obstacles do ESOL learners face while learning pronunciation? Why do some intermediate level ESOL learner’s struggle more than their peers? All learning but particularly learning a foreign language, relies heavily on motivation. Going hand in hand with this is confidence. For the intended focus group of this study, intermediate adult ESOL learners, these factors are vital.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 16 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Because it is so apparent that ESOL learners have a variety of affective variables influencing them, this proposal suggests a mixed research study aimed at understanding some of those variables along with quantifying the results of instruction. The idea of an Affective Filter was first proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977). Krashen (1982) expanded their idea and noted this about affective variables: Most of those(affective variables) studied can be placed into one of these three categories: (1) Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do better in second language acquisition (usually, but not always, "integrative" (2) Self-‐confidence. Performers with self-‐confidence and a good self-‐ image tend to do better in second language acquisition. (3) Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety. Struggling intermediate ESOL learners who feel behind their peers in pronunciation will no doubt have affective variables affecting their performance.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Just acknowledging this and collecting qualitative data about it is not enough

though. The instructor will need to take certain precautions to ensure these needs are met or it could compromise the integrity of the study. This will be discussed in more depth later in the methods section. However, it hinges on a somewhat newer concept of what pronunciation should be for ESOL learners. Often ESOL learners and others expect near native pronunciation when learning English. In the past, this was always true but now a case is being made for intelligible and comprehensible pronunciation over native pronunciation (Morley, 1991). Derwing and Munro (2005) claimed that “it may do more harm than good for teachers to lead learners to believe that they will eventually achieve native pronunciation or to encourage them to expend time and energy working toward a goal that they are unlikely to achieve”. (p. 384) Murphy (2014) extends the idea of intelligible pronunciation over perfection even further by establishing criteria for selecting non-‐native English speakers(NNES) for use in ESOL listening exercises. He proposes that it is perfectly fine to have NNES learners listen to NNES speakers for practice, given the right selection criteria for the speakers. By giving ESOL learners different role models for speech, his concept allows the learners to see that perfection is not the most important goal in pronunciation. This new line of thinking means goals can be set that are more reasonable and applicable to the students’ needs.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 18 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION The movement towards intelligent understandable speech instead of the idea of perfection, no doubt helps ease some of the affective variables making ESOL learners uneasy but the instructor needs to set this idea up. In this study, the aim will be to introduce the concept of intelligible and comprehensible pronunciation for part of a qualitative review and to hopefully improve the results of the training by doing so. How could teaching metacognitive skills and making learners more aware of the process of speaking help them improve their pronunciation? Remember from the last part of the history section before, metacognition is essentially “knowing about knowing” or learning about learning (Metcalfe & Shimamura 1994). According to (Kaniel et al., 2000) metacognitive training allows learners to construct “an effective problem-‐solving strategy (positive transfer) and implement it in the appropriate time and place, while demonstrating the ability to justify their choices and control the process at all stages from planning to implementation.” (p. 46) Metacognitive strategies have been shown to be beneficial when learning to read (Belmont, Butterfield & Ferretti, 1982; Brown & Campione, 1982; Brown & Palinscar, 1987, Dominowski, 1990; Fatal & Kaniel, 1992; Kurtz & Borkowski, 1987). The growing popularity of these kinds of skills-‐based instruction has also been seen in other subjects.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 19 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Therefore, it is not really surprising that language learning experts also see benefits in using metacognitive strategies and are pushing for more widespread use or them in the classroom (Anderson, 2002, in press; Chamot, 2001; Chamot, 1999; Grenfell & Harris, 1999; Harris, 2004; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Rubin, 2001; Thompson & Rubin, 1996; Vandergrift, 2002; Wenden, 2002). This study seeks to use metalinguistic strategies or metalinguistic awareness to determine what effects they can have on pronunciation. The application of metacognitive strategies, with regards to improving pronunciation, is less extensive than with other subjects according the preliminary investigation of this proposal. However, the potential for pronunciation improvement using metacognitive strategies seems very feasible given the success and support for them in the other related areas mentioned above. What teaching methods are available for pronunciation today? Which one would be most suitable to conduct a study with? Where to start? Because of the resurgence of the explicit instruction of pronunciation in the classroom and possibly riding the popularity of the push for improved literacy, there have been a number of commercial products made available for phonetic instruction. Most of these have been aimed at young native learners in their attempts to read.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION The excitement for reading has created a very competitive environment and a

lucrative opportunity for producers of phonetic learning curriculum. However, little is known about which program is best, only that explicit instruction seems to offer more benefits than no instruction at all (Campbell, S., Torr, J., Cologon, K., 2011). Given that the selected focus group of this study is intermediate ESOL learners, it doesn’t seem like a program based on phonics like those becoming popular with young learners would be the best choice. Generally these kinds of programs do not explicitly instruct students on how to use their articulatory organs(tongue, lips, teeth, etc.) and more so focus on repetitive practice with phonemes. Our focus group needs a different kind of intervention given that they have most likely already had this sort of pronunciation practice in the past and still struggle. For these reasons, our study will not pursue this kind of program. However, there still seems to be merit in examining what practices have been done with native speakers to improve pronunciation and then later adapting those practices to fit the needs of ESOL learners. If an instructional program works with natives, then it could work with ESOL learners. Only the proper adjustments to take their unique stance into consideration would be needed.(i.e.-‐the past discussion about confidence) The widely available commercial phonics programs are just not the right example to emulate. The problem needs to be viewed from a different angle.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Better Connections to the Situation

The situation surrounding natives with speech problems seems a better starting point for leads on improving ESOL learner pronunciation. In spite the striking similarities between these two groups, there does not seem to be much research on the topic at this time. Both groups struggle with pronunciation compared to their peers and face similar pressures. Therefore, a more promising solution for tackling pronunciation with ESOL learners might be learned from the practices of speech pathologists who have dealt with pronunciation issues with native speakers. SLP’s [Speech Language Pathologists] knowledge of language and clinical expertise allows them to play an important role in the development and implementation of phonological awareness programs…The primary responsibility of the SLP will be to provide specific information about the sound structure of speech and work with teachers to choose the most appropriate goals/activities for the children in their classrooms (Catts, 1991). Jane Passy Cued articulation was developed by Jane Passy based on her teaching experiences in boarding schools in India and her studies as a speech pathologist. In these schools children from all over Asia attended, all with differing phonological systems. Passy

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 22 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION came up with her approach to address the needs of this diverse population (Passy, 2000). It is a set of hand cues for teaching the individual sounds in a word. The hand movements are logical – each hand movement represents one sound and the cue gives clues as to how and where the sound is produced (Botham, n.d.). This metacognitive approach touches on a few areas that particularly make it promising as a solution for improving ESOL intermediate learners’ pronunciation. Areas of interest are: •

Increased Articulatory and Phonological Awareness

•

Connections to Total Physical Response

Increased Articulatory and Phonological Awareness Most of the research in this area has involved how metalinguistic awareness can help with reading. Many seem to have come to the conclusion that “awareness of articulatory gestures facilitates the activation of graphophonemic connections that helps children identify written words and secure them in memory.”(Castiglioni-‐ Spalten & Ehri, 2003, p. 25)

This is encouraging but it becomes more applicable to our discussion about pronunciation based upon what more and more researchers are beginning to

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION acknowledge, the interconnectedness of reading, writing, and speech (Rubin,

Beranek, & Hansen 1984; Shanahan 1988). Before these subjects were seen as isolated entities but today that has changed. It is the belief of this study that the same benefits reading has seen can also be applied to pronunciation. Cued Articulation is a means for making students more aware of what their articulatory appendages(tongue, lips, etc) are doing and therefore could give them better control over producing phonemic sounds. This is a metacognitive thought process where students will visually and internally monitor what their articulatory parts are doing in order to improve. Connections to Total Physical Response An interesting side benefit to this study is its connection to Dr. James J. Asher’s theory called Total Physical Response(TPR). It is Asher’s belief that instruction through actions and low stress yields better retention and learning. He argues that the right hemisphere of the brain, although not traditional associated with language learning, plays a key role in language acquisition. Using actions associated with learning allows knowledge to pass more easily to the right side of the brain. Many experiences with TPR have demonstrated “that experience, often in only one exposure, results in long-‐term retention while translation after many exposures is most often limited to short-‐term retention.”(Asher, 2009, p. 1)

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 24 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Since Cued Articulation uses actions, it could also benefit from Asher’s hypothesis. Asher’s work was primarily focused on language learning as a whole but the basic concept of his theory still applies to our study. His research suggests that the actions in Cued Articulation could lead to better long-‐term retention and learning in the area of pronunciation. Conclusion Given what we know about metacognitive strategies and their effectiveness in learning, it seems an investigation into their effectiveness for pronunciation needs to be addressed. Intermediate ESOL learners who struggle to produce the same sounds as their peers need corrective measures that allow them to better realize their mistakes and systematically make changes. Learners need a method that promotes high retention and high transfer rates. Cued Articulation seems to be a good fit for this problem and is therefore proposed as the main instructional vehicle for this study. The question remains how we will specifically do this. In the next section we will go into the methodology and procedures we will use to carry out the study.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION METHODOLOGY

Reflexivity Statement ESOL teaching has comprised the majority of my professional career. I have worked for 8 years teaching ESOL in South Korea and I am in the process of earning my graduate degree in education with a focus in this area. I have also been in a relationship with a South Korean woman for the past 5 years. She is an intermediate ESOL learner who struggles with pronunciation. There is no doubt I would like to help her and other learners in her situation. These experiences will help me in understanding the responses from participants. Also, they will give me insights into the best approach for using the Cued Articulation curriculum.

Purpose Statement The purpose of this study is to explore an alternate curriculum and tactics to aid intermediate ESOL learners with the pronunciation of words and to increase their confidence. It might be possible that teaching and focusing on where to place parts of the mouth and how to breathe during speaking, will affect the speech of specific learners. A better grasp on pronunciation might then, in turn, have an impact on their overall confidence while learning English. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following question:

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 26 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION “How much does curriculum focused on metacognition and articulatory phonetics improve intermediate ESOL learners’ pronunciation and confidence?”

Research Design The study will employ a mixed methods research design to better understand if Cued Articulation, the chosen curriculum, could help students improve pronunciation more than traditional approaches. Also, the study seeks to understand how this affects their confidence. Quantitative data will be gathered to measure participants’ improvement with pronunciation. Qualitative perceptions will be gathered from students to note the affects of this study on their confidence.

DATA COLLECTION Participants Participants will be chosen using a snowballing technique. Participants will be chosen by distributing recruitment materials to the heads of the ESL departments, instructors, and students at the chosen institutions. The goal will be to recruit exchange students at one or several universities with large heterogeneous ESOL student populations. It is quite likely that neighboring universities could be chosen to both increase the effectiveness of recruiting and soften the impact of distance for the research team. Participants from a wide range of countries and backgrounds

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 27 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION would be deliberately chosen in order to maximize generalization and application of the findings for future studies. Intermediate ESL Learners The study will focus on intermediate ESOL learners but what does intermediate mean? To establish these criteria, our study will prescreen participants using the TOEFL iBT test to find the best candidates. TOEFL defines the following as intermediate scores: •

Reading Intermediate Score = 15-‐21

•

Listening Intermediate Score = 15-‐21

(“For Test Takers,” 2014) If this criteria limits our sample size too much then those scoring in the intermediate range or below will be considered for our study and we will drop the intermediate criterion from the study. In this case we would then focus on beginners up to intermediate ESOL learners.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Collection

Data will be collected using a test-‐retest procedure. Thus each instrument would be administered once at the beginning and once at the end of the study. In total there will be four instruments used. 1. Quantitative instrument to measure level of understanding with Cued Articulation 2. Qualitative instrument to measure confidence 3. 2 Quantitative instruments to measure pronunciation The first quantitative instrument will measure how much participants know about Cued Articulation. Cued Articulation is a tool or skill that must be learned. After it is learned, participants can use this tool to change their pronunciation. Therefore, it is logical to first measure whether or not the participants have learned the tool effectively. This test will be an interview style test where participants are asked to demonstrate the motions and sounds of certain words. The participants in the control group will take a test suited to their style of instruction so that they do not feel neglected. The second instrument will be a survey to measure the participants’ perceptions as they pertain to confidence, speaking, and pronunciation. Because of the subjective nature of pronunciation, the final 2 instruments will be used to measure the results in this area. One technique will use language

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 29 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION recognition software. The second technique will use the expert opinion of speech pathologists. These two instruments will give a very clear view of how pronunciation improved or did not improve. Surveys, judgments from speech pathologists, and any other data on paper would be stored in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s office for one year after the completion of the study. Data gathered from the language recognition software would be stored on a solid-‐state hard drive in the same cabinet. More on Language Recognition Software Technology is advancing at an incredible rate and because of this there are many options available in this area. Because of this an expert in the field would need to be consulted in order to choose the best solution for the study. Researchers at the University of Lorraine in France have really made an impact in this area. They have used technology to not only judge pronunciation, using software, but also have done a range of experiments that include determining the perceptions of speakers and how speakers use parts of their mouth to make sounds. For these reasons, this study will seek out their advice for the best choice of language recognition software given our circumstances. Currently, we are in communication with Dr. Slim Ouni and we are narrowing down the choices. (“Slim Ouni,” 2014)

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION DATA ANALYSIS

Because we will work with both quantitative and qualitative data, our study needs two sets of steps for handling this data. In both instances a codebook will be developed so that we can score data effectively and efficiently. Quantitative Data: Steps for Analysis 1. Create a Codebook 2. Score Data – Use summed scores 3. Input Data into a Statistical Program (JMP) 4. Account for Errors or Missing Data 5. Choose Appropriate Statistics Tests 6. Describe the Central Tendencies and Variations 7. Conduct Inferential Analysis 8. Interpret the Results

Hypothesis testing, the confidence interval approach, and the effect size would be examined to determine if our sample scores are a good estimate of the larger population.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Qualitative Data: Steps for Analysis

1. Prepare and Organize the Data 2. Code the Data 3. Use the Codes to Develop a General Picture of the Data(Descriptions and Themes) 4. Represent the Findings (Narratives and Visuals) 5. Describe the Trends and Observations 6. Make Interpretations on the Meaning of the Results 7. Conduct Strategies to Validate Accuracy Reading and re-‐reading the open-‐ended responses of participants would develop themes. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY Reliability To determine the reliability of our instruments, all tests would follow a test-‐retest procedure. All instruments would be administered once at the beginning of the study and once at the end.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Validity

Internal One potential internal threat to validity will be the compensatory equalization and resentful demoralization of the control group. In order to minimize any feelings of neglect the control group may have, action will need to be taken. After the study has concluded extra instruction will be offered to both groups in the areas they did not experience during the study. Thus, the control group will get a chance to experience Cued Articulation and the experimental group will get a chance to experience the more traditional form of pronunciation instruction. We have attempted to minimize other internal threats related to selection by searching for participants from varied countries and backgrounds across multiple locations. External In order to extend the findings of this study to as broad an application as possible, we have tried to focus on a multi-‐cultural group of participants with varied backgrounds. It is our hope that by doing this, the results of this study can be viewed as applicable to ESOL learners in general.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 33 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION It is impossible to include all the different ESOL learners in the world in one study. ESOL learning is happening in almost every country. However, we feel by focusing on exchange students attending a cluster of universities in a large metropolitan area, a large sample size of participants from countries where ESOL learning is most popular can be attained. In this way, the results of the study will offer the best chances of contributing to future research. Testing Finally, the validity of instruments would need to be accessed by experts in the field. Outside expertise would be obtained to ensure the instruments used would best represent the situations they are used in and the questions are valid. As previously stated, we would seek advice from researchers at the University of Lorraine in France about what language recognition instrument would be used. Consultation with a panel of speech pathologists and ESOL teachers in the field would help clarify the necessary questions for our confidence survey. Lastly, the criteria used by speech pathologists to rate our participants pronunciation would also be scrutinized by a panel of experts.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION ETHICAL CONCERNS

Once the study is introduced to the ESOL teaching staff and higher authority figures of each university, consent forms would be handed out following a brief information session. The consent form can be viewed at the end of this document in Appendix A. It is our belief that this document and the brief information session we plan to use to introduce the study, will promote open and transparent participation. Participants will be allowed to dropout of the study at any time for any reason. Also, an incentive would be given for participation because although participants should not receive compensation, they should feel their time is appreciated. In addition, a short informational video detailing the study would be produced to again allow full disclosure and to help promote the snowballing of recruitment. This would further ensure the transparency of the study. In every document given to participants, their rights as subjects in the study would be acknowledged and they would be given contact information for the Institutional Review Board should they have questions. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY At this time one clear limitation, as discussed before, is the fact that there is no feasible way to include all variations of participants because almost all countries are

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION participating in ESOL learning at this time. This is an unavoidable part of the

research problem. It is our hope that the measures taken in selecting our participants will help ensure a large sample size is represented, though we can not expect to properly represent everyone. Another limitation lies in the subjective nature of interpreting “proper” pronunciation. ESOL learners should not be expected to attain native pronunciation yet there needs to be a standard to judge them from. Comparing the two is a very arduous task. Even with a panel of expert speech pathologists and ESOL teachers judging, this is a limitation. The use of software also is a step in the right direction but offers no “human bending”. Certainly the goal in communication is to be understood and if this study reveals a new technique for helping that cause it is a win. However, it is our hypothesis that the software will be very rigid in its results while the human interpretations will be somewhat more lenient in determining what is acceptable. By using these two forms we will compare and find a middle ground.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 36 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION References Acton, W. (1997, February). Seven suggestions of highly successful pronunciation teaching. Language Teacher Online, 21(2). Retrieved October 26, 2014 from: http://jalt-‐publications.org/old_tlt/files/97/feb/seven.html Anderson, N. J. (in press). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderson-‐Hsieh, J., & Venkatagiri, H. (1994). Syllable duration and pausing in the speech of Chinese ESL speakers. TESOL Quarterly 28, 807-‐812. Asher, James J. (2009). The Total Physical Response (TPR): Review of the evidence [Online Paper]. Retrieved from http://www.tpr-‐ world.com/review_evidence.pdf Belmont, J.M., Butterfield, E.C., & Ferretti, R.P., (1982). To secure transfer of training instruct self-‐ management skills. In D.K. Detterman, & R.J. Sternberg, (Eds.). How and how much can intelli-‐ gence be increased? (pp. 147-‐154). Norwood, N.J.: Albex. Botham, H. (n.d.). www.soundsforliteracy.com.au. Retrieved October 15, 2014. Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1982). Modifying intelligence or modifying cognitive skills: more than a semantic quibble? In D.K. Detterman & R.J. Sternberg. (Eds.). How and how much can intelli-‐ gence be increased? (pp. 215-‐230). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Brown, A.L., & Palinscar, A.S. (1987). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. In J.D. Day & J.G. Borkowski, (Eds), Intelligence and exceptionality, (pp. 81-‐132). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Burns, A. (2003). Clearly speaking: pronunciation in action for teachers. National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquaire Universaity, Sydney NSW 2109. Campbell, S., Torr, J., & Cologon, K. (2011). Ants, apples and the ABCs: The use of commercial phonics programmes in prior-‐to-‐school children's services. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 367-‐388.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 37 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Castiglioni-‐Spalten, M. & Ehri L. C. (2003). Phonemic Awareness Instruction: Contribution of Articulatory Segmentation to Novice Beginners' Reading and Spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7:1, p.25. Catts, H. (1991). Facilitating Phonological Awareness: Role of Speech-‐ Language Pathologists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. (22), p.200. Chamot, A.U. (1999). How children in language immersion programs use learning strategies. In M.A. Kassen (Ed.), Language learners of tomorrow: Process and Promise! (pp. 29-‐59). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Chamot, A.U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M.P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 25-‐43). Harlow, England: Longman. Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Derwing T, Munro M (2005) Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: a research-‐ based approach. TESOL Quarterly 39(3): 379-‐97. Dominowski, R.L. (1990). Problem solving and metacognition. In K.J Gilhooly, M.T.G. Keane, R.H. Logie and G. Erdos (Eds.) Lines of Thinking Vol. 2, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1977) Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt, H. Dulay and M. Finnochiaro(Eds.) Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. New York: Regents. pp. 95-‐126. Fatal, S. and Kaniel, S. (1992). The influence of metamemory on acquisition, transfer and mainte-‐ nance of memory tasks. Individual Differences, 4, 91 -‐102. Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition And Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area Of Cognitive-‐developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-‐911. For Test Takers. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2014, from https://www.ets.org/toefl

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 38 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION Fraser, H. (2000). Coordinating improvements in pronunciation teaching for adult learners English as a second language, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. Gilakjani, A., & Ahmadi, M. (2011). A Study of Factors Affecting EFL Learners' English Listening Comprehension and the Strategies for Improvement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 120-‐123. Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. London: Routledge. Harris, V. (2004). Cross-‐linguistic transfer of language learning strategies: Preliminary findings. Unpublished manuscript. Herrera, S., & Murry, K. (2011). Mastering ESL and bilingual methods: Differentiated instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students (pp. 194-‐199). Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Kaniel, S., Licht, P., & Peled, B. (2000). The Influence of Metacognitive Instruction of Reading and Writing Strategies on Positive Transfer. Gifted Education International, 45-‐63. Krashen, S. (1982). The Affective Filter hypothesis. In Principles and practice in second language acquisition (p. 30). Oxford: Pergamon. Kurtz, B.E. & Borkovsky, J.G. (1987). Development of strategic skills in impulsive and reflective children: A longitudinal study of metacognition. journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 129-‐148. Loon, J. (2002). Improving Pronunciation of Adult ESL Students John van Loon. TESOL Canada Journal, 20(1), 83-‐88. Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Morley, J. (1991). The Pronunciation Component in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481-‐520. Murphy, J. (2014). Intelligible, comprehensible, non-‐native models in ESL/EFL pronunciation teaching. System, 42, 258-‐269.

USING METACOGNITIVE AND ARTICULATORY PHONETIC CURRICULUM TO 39 IMPROVE INTERMEDIATE ESOL LEARNERS’ PRONUNCIATION O' Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Pennington, M. (1989). Teaching Proununciation from the Top Down. RELC Journal, 20(1), 20-‐38. Passy, J. (2000). www.cuedarticulation.com. Retrieved October 28, 2014. Raux, A. and Kawahara T. (2002). Automatic intelligibility assessmentand diagnosis of critical pronunciation errors for computer-‐ assisted pronunciation learning. ICSLP, Denver, USA. Rubin, A., Beranek, B., Inc, N., & Hansen, J. (1984). Reading and Writing: How are the first two "R's" related? Reading Education Report, 51. Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-‐management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(1), 25-‐37. Shanahan, Timothy. 1988. The Reading-‐writing Relationship: Seven Instructional Principles. The Reading Teacher, 41, 7, 636-‐647. Slim Ouni. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2014, from http://www.loria.fr/~slim/ Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 331-‐342. Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 555-‐575. Wenden, A.L. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 32-‐55. Witt, S. (2014). Automatic Error Detection in Pronunciation Training : Where we are and where we need to go. Conference: International Symposium on Automatic Detection on Errors in Pronunciation Training, 1. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250306074_Automatic_Error_De tection_in_Pronunciation_Training_Where_we_are_and_where_we_need_to_g o

Appendix A

How much does curriculum focused on metacognition and articulatory phonetics improve intermediate ESOL learners’ pronunciation and con<idence?

Pronunciation Instructional History

(Witt, 2014) (Morley, 1991) (Soccorro & Murry, 2011) (Pennington, 1989) (Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994) (Flavell, 1979) (Kaniel, Licht, & Peled, 2000) (Fraser, 2000)

Pronunciation Focus Area

(Gilakjani & Ahmadi, 2011) (Burns, 2003) (Anderson-‐Hsieh, Johnson, & Koehler, 1992) (Loon, 2002) (Pennington, 1989) (Raux & Kawahara, 2002) (Acton, 1997)

Obstacles for ESOL Learners and Intermediate Learners

Metacognitive Skills and Awareness

(Dulay and Burt, 1977) (Krashen, 1982) (Morley, 1991) (Derwing and Munro, 2005) (Murphy, 2014)

(Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994) (Kaniel, Licht, & Peled, 2000) (Belmont, ButterYield & Ferretti, 1982) (Brown & Campione, 1982) (Brown & Palinscar, 1987) (Dominowski, 1990) (Fatal & Kaniel, 1992) (Kurtz & Borkowski, 1987) (Anderson, 2002, in press) (Chamot, 2001) (Chamot, 1999) (Grenfell & Harris, 1999) (Harris, 2004) (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) (Rubin, 2001) (Thompson & Rubin, 1996) (Vandergrift, 2002) (Wenden, 2002)

Available Phonetic Teaching Methods

(Campbell, S., Torr, J., Cologon, K., 2011) (Catts, 1991) (Passy, 2000) (Botham, n.d.) (Castiglioni-‐Spalten & Ehri, 2003) (Rubin, Beranek, & Hansen 1984) (Shanahan 1988) (Asher, 2009)

Appendix B

Dear Student, We are writing to ask for your consent in a research study of how ESL students learn and improve pronunciation. We are asking you to carefully read over this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to take part in the study. We hope you will be willing to further research in this area. What the study is about: The purpose of this study is to see if explicit instruction on where to place parts of your mouth, tongue, and teeth will help with pronunciation. Specifically we are focusing on ESL students so that we may improve the quality of this training in the future. What we will ask students to do: Students who consent will be in one of two groups. One group will receive “traditional” lessons aimed at improving pronunciation. The other group will receive explicit instruction on how to place parts of your mouth to pronounce certain letter combinations. Thus, the second group will be “relearning” pronunciation. Those in the study will be interviewed by their ESL teacher before and after the instruction is given. With your permission, we would also like to tape-‐record the interview so that we can analyze it further. Risks and Benefits: Some may be worried because it appears that one group is getting more attention and instruction than the other. In fact, after the study has concluded, the group that did not initially receive instruction will be allowed to do so. Therefore, they will have “make-‐up” classes so everyone receives the same attention. There are no benefits to you. However, we hope you will see the benefits this could have for the future of teaching and take pride in furthering education. Compensation: Students who decide to participate may choose a $5 gift card to be used at the following locations. (Amazon.com, Pizza Hut, Walmart) Also, this is basically a free course. All identities will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private and no personal information like names or addresses will be connected to our final report. Only the researchers will have any access to any video recordings we make for the specific use of evaluating progress of students. Taking part is voluntary: Participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you choose not to participate, it will not affect your current or future relationship with the school. If you decided to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time.

Appendix B

If you have any questions: The researchers conducting this study are Travis M. Landers and Prof. Mindy Salmans. Feel free to contact one of them with any questions you might have. Travis M. Landers [ travlanders@yahoo.com | 212-‐321-‐1234 ] Prof. Mindy Salmans [ msalmans@univ.com | 321-‐555-‐6543 ] You may also report your concerns or complaints anonymously to the Dean of your university. Tom Robertson [ trobertson@fake-‐university.edu | 212-‐321-‐7654 ] In addition, if you have any questions regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 785-628-4349 or email them at IRB@fhsu.edu. You will be given a copy of this form for your records. Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study.

Participant’s Name________________________________________ Participant’s Signature

Date

_________________________

_____________________

In addition to agreeing to participate, I also consent to having the pre and post instruction interview tape-recorded. Participant’s Name________________________________________ Participant’s Signature

Date

_________________________

_____________________

Person’s Name Obtaining Consent (printed)__________________________