6. Introduction
The teaching of pronunciation still remains
scarce or even consigned to oblivion.
(Barrera Pardo, 2004; Brown, 1991;
Samuda, 1993; Walker, 1999)
6
7. Introduction
Reading aloud constitutes a staple of the
classroom diet.
(Gabrielatos, 2002: 1)
Several researchers have recently
enhanced the value of reading aloud for
the classroom.
(Birch, 2002; Gibson, 2008).
7
10. Literature Review
Research data showed that bad
pronunciation is usually the main reason
for communication breakdowns among
EFL students.
(Celce-Murcia et al., 1996)
10
11. Literature Review
Suprasegmental features
(intonation, rhythm and stress) are more
crucial to successful communication than
the segments.
(Anderson-Hsieh, 1992; Brazil, 1997;
Dalton & Seidlhofer, 1994; Moyer, 1999;
Munro & Derwing, 2001; Pennington, 1989)
11
12. Literature Review
The Role of Reading Aloud
and of Imitation
Reading aloud reinforces grapho-
phonemic correspondences.
Reading aloud aids the
acquisition of prosodic features.
Reading aloud also helps anxious
students to feel more able to
speak.
12
13. Literature Review
Research questions
Will the students improve their pronunciation
via reading aloud oral text s from film or TV?
If the students improve their pronunciation
when reading, will they be able to transfer the
improvements to their free speech?
Will the students find the reading aloud
activity useful as a tool to improve their
pronunciation?
13
15. Method
Participants
Number • Total: 15
• 20-year-old Spanish native
speakers
• Students of Teacher Training
Profile
Programme for EFL Primary
School Teachers at a Spanish
University
• 13 females, 2 males
• B2 level following the Common
Background European Framework of
Reference for Languages (2001)
15
16. Method
Course Description
• 14-week Phonology Course
Period
• 3 hours for each week
• Recordings of English oral
Material texts from videos or TV
• One hour per week for
English Phonology
Teaching • Two hours per week for a
activities practical workshop, reading
the texts aloud imitating the
pronunciation of the original
recordings
16
17. Method
Data Collection
Training
Pre-test Post-test
Course
Re-read R1 R2
Record one
Speak freely about a
extract from a
film or TV series
topic of their choice
for one minute
FS
in English
(approx. 1
minute) Fill in a questionnaire
with their own QR
R1 impressions
17
18. Method
Rating Procedure
S1 S2 S15
Pretest R1
R2
Posttest
FS
The pronunciation quality of each
utterance is scored by 4 20-year-old
native English speakers, on a 1-10
18
19. Method
Questionnaires
1-4 scale
1: not useful
2: a bit useful
3: quite useful
4: very useful
19
21. Results
1. Will the students improve their
pronunciation when reading?
Figure 1: Group results: R1 vs. R2 (1-10 scale)
21
22. Results
1. Will the students improve their
pronunciation when reading?
?
?
?
Figure 2: Individual results: R1 vs. R2 (1-10 scale)
22
23. Results
2. If the students’ pronunciation when
reading improves, will they be able to
transfer the improvements to their FS?
Figure 3: Individual results: FS vs. R2 (1-10 scale)
23
24. Results
3. Will the students find the reading aloud
activity useful as a tool to improve their
pronunciation?
Figure 4: Individual results: Usefulness survey (1-4 scale).
24
26. Conclusions
The students’ scores showed only
moderate improvement in their
pronunciation.
The free speeches were more intelligible
but did not seem to have more English-
like suprasegmental features.
The students’ opinions showed that all
students felt very satisfied with the
imitation practice.
26
28. Reflection
Weakness of this paper can be found:
The sample size is not sufficient.
Lack of control group makes it difficult to
draw a firm conclusion.
The materials for pre- and post- tests differ
from student to student.
The raters’ reliability was not shown.
28