CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis of data and discusses the results of the analysis.
The results obtained from the analysis of the data include three parts: first, the participants’ performances on the word pronunciation tests before and after the intervention; second, the transcribed interviews of the thirty-four participants; third, the participants’ awareness of their attitudes towards memorizing vocabulary before and after the intervention; and finally, the participants’ responses toward phonics instruction. All the results are presented and discussed both quantitatively and
qualitatively to probe the effects of phonics instruction on these vocational senior high school EFL students from the above aspects.
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Comparison of Means of Participants’ Performance in the Pre-test and Post-test
In this section, a comparison of means of the participants’ performance in the pre-test and post-test was made in an attempt to explore the effects of phonics
instruction. Specifically, the performances on the word pronunciation tests for all the seventy participants and for three groups of different English proficiencies, i.e. High, Mid, and Low are analysed.
As shown in Table 4.1, the means of the pre-test and post-test scores for all subjects were 14.29 and 14.53 respectively, which represented a gain of 0.24 on the word pronunciation tests, and a t-test analysis indicated no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores performed by seventy participants in this study (t = -.364, p>.05).
No significant difference was also observed between the pre-test and post-test scores by the Mid group. As shown in Table 4.1, the means of the pre-test and post- test scores for the Mid group were 15.91 and 14.91 respectively, which indicate a loss of 1.00 on the word pronunciation tests. A t-test analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the two scores for this group (t=.925, p>.05). However, significant differences could be seen in Table 4.1 for the other two groups. After a closer look at the mean scores, it was found that the greatest gain went to the Low group, and the greatest loss to the High. Also, the t-values indicated that the Low group displayed the greatest difference between the two scores, and the Mid, the slightest.
Table 4.1
Comparison of Means of Participants’ Performance on Word Pronunciation Tests Before and After the Phonics Instruction Intervention
Pre-test Post-test T-value H Mean = 18.43 Mean = 16.30 2.903*
N=23 SD=4.88 SD=3.67
M Mean=15.91 Mean=14.91 .925
N=23 SD=5.60 SD=4.18
L Mean=8.75 Mean=12.46 -3.022*
N=24 SD=5.99 SD=4.62
All Mean=14.29 Mean=14.53 -.364
N=70 SD=6.84 SD=4.43
*p<.05
4.2.2 Analysis of Thirty-four Participants’ Interviews
In this section, the transcribed interviews of thirty-four participants with different levels of English proficiency were analysed for discussion in terms of frequencies and
percentages of categories of progress and regression. According to the performances on the pre-test and post-test, thirty-four of all the participants were interviewed due to 4 or more points of deviation between the two tests. With regard to the participants who made progress, 3 came from the Mid group and 11 the Low group. As for the participants who regressed, 9, 8, and 3 came from the High, Mid, and Low group respectively.
The comments made by the thirty-four participants about their progress or regression were categorized. A commentary that contained more than one possibility was multiply coded. Table 4.2 showed the frequencies and percentages of the
participants’ reasons of their progress or regression.
As shown in Table 4.2, the progress of the participants’ performances chiefly resulted from the practical application of phonics rules to sound out words (36.11%), concentrating in class (27.78%), reviewing phonics rules after school (11.11%), and asking unfamiliar phonics rules of classmates (11.11%). Other reasons were stated as follows:
“Phonics instruction recalls me of what has been learned before.” (2)
“I practice sounding out words learned in phonics class very often.” (2)
“I try to memorize phonics rules.” (1)
Surprisingly, two participants expressed that they depended on their intuition and impressions to sound out words in the pre-test because those words had been learned in junior high school. However, in the post-test, the novelty of words enforced them to apply phonics rules during reading.
Table 4.2 also presented why some participants regressed in the post-test. Over half of the participants who regressed (11) mentioned that novelty of words caused their anxiety or lack of confidence during reading. Nine participants commented that they seldom reviewed phonics rules after school. Six stated that their regression might
be due to lack of practice and application of rules. Another six pointed out that they were still unfamiliar with phonics rules after the instruction. Still six more stated that they forgot or got confused by phonics rules easily due to long interval phonics class for only once a week. Four participants said that sometimes they felt tired after just finishing Physical Education class. There are some other reasons like what follows:
“Sometimes I did not concentrate in class.” (3)
“Sometimes a sound pattern may have two or more possibilities of pronunciation.
Maybe I misused them.” (3)
“I have got used to old habits. It’s difficult to correct my pronunciation.” (3)
“I couldn’t sound out long words.” (3)
“I didn’t learn English well before, so it’s hard for me to learn the rules.” (2)
“I didn’t continue going to cram school, didn’t listen to music because I got used to memorize English words by following the rhythm of music, and I didn’t read Studio Classroom magazines, which enforced me to try to sound out new words.” (1)
“I don’t know why I was wrong. I’ve already pronounced the words based upon phonics rules.” (1)
“Sometimes I went to school band and skipped classes.” (1)
“I’ve given up learning English since the third year in junior high school.” (1)
Table 4.2
Frequencies and Percentages of Thirty-Four Participants’ Reasons of Progress or Regression in the Word Pronunciation Tests
Reasons of Progress (N=14)
Items Frequencies Percentages
1. Applying phonics rules to sound out words 13 36.11%
2. Concentrating in class 10 27.78%
3. Reviewing phonics rules after school and asking unfamiliar phonics rules of classmates
4 11.11%
4. Inspired by the teacher’s praises to study harder 4 11.11%
5. Others 5 13.89%
Total 36 100%
Reasons of Regression (N=20)
Items Frequencies Percentages
1. Anxiety or no confidence caused by novelty of words 11 18.33%
2. Seldom reviewing phonics rules after school 9 15%
3. Lack of practice and application 6 10%
4. Unfamiliar with phonics rules 6 10%
5. Forgetting or getting confused by phonics rules easily due to long interval phonics class (once a week)
6 10%
6. Feeling tired after Physical Education class 4 6.67%
7. Others 18 30%
Total 60 100%
4.2.3 Comparison of Correctness of Participants’ Performances in the Pre-test and Post-test and Analyses of Their Major Errors
In this section, a comparison of correctness of the participants’ performances in the pre-test and post-test was analyzed for discussion in terms of correctness and percentages of word items. Furthermore, the participants’ major pronunciation errors in the word pronunciation tests were also analyzed. The major pronunciation errors
made by the participants were divided into eight categories of sound patterns for further discussion: 1) single consonant letters, 2) consonant digraphs, 3) single vowel letters, 4) vowel digraphs, 5) diphthongs, 6) r-controlled vowels, 7) schwa, and 8) common cases. The purpose of analysing error types in the word pronunciation tests was to explore what speech sounds seemed to be difficult for these Chinese EFL vocational senior high school students to pronounce.
As shown in Table 4.3, among 25 words of the pre-test, the words that participants pronounced with higher percentages of accuracy were yellow, Sunday, game, house, Chinese, cool, new, sleep, and down, with the percentages of 88.57%, 88.57%, 87.14%, 85.71%, 84.29%, 80%, 74.29%, 70%, and 70% respectively. In addition, among 25 words of the post-test, the words that participants pronounced with higher percentages of accuracy were bow, hank, culture, layout, jade, dew, tight, and wood, with the percentages of 95.71%, 92.86%, 84.29%, 84.29%, 80%, 77.14%, 75.71%, and 72.86% respectively. The repeated spelling patterns that participants handled well were ow as in yellow, bow, and down; long vowel a as in game and jade;
short vowel u as in Sunday and culture; ay and ou as in Sunday, house, and layout; oo as in cool and wood; and ew as in new and dew. On the contrary, the words that participants pronounced with lower percentages of accuracy in the pre-test were exercise, thank, weather, weight, fresh, village, and stood, with the percentages of 15.71%, 17.14%, 27.14%, 32.86%, 32.86%, 34.29%, and 34.29% respectively.
Besides, the words that participants pronounced less accurately in the post-test were wagon, fume, yawn, clothe, shape, concrete, and pearl, with the percentages of 14.29%, 31.43%, 32.86%, 35.71%, 37.14%, 37.14%, and 38.57%. The spelling pattern that occurred in both tests with low accuracy was only th as in thank, weather, and clothe. However, it could be found that there was a rise in the percentages from thank (17.14%) and weather (27.14%) to clothe (35.71%) and toothbrush (52.86%).
As for other words with lower accuracy in the pre-test, it could also be seen that participants made some progress in the post-test with the same spelling patterns, for example, ex and soft g as in exercise (15.71%) and village (34.29%) vs. exchange (57.14%), silent gh as in weight (32.86%) vs. tight (75.71%), sh as in fresh (32.86%) vs. toothbrush (52.86%), and oo as in stood (34.29%) vs. wood (72.86%).
Nevertheless, some regression of participants’ performances could also be found in the post-test, such as short vowel a in national (54.29%) vs. wagon (14.29%), long vowel u in cute (68.57%) vs. fume (31.43%), aw in saw (50%) vs. yawn (32.86%), long vowel a in game (87.14%) vs. shape (37.14%), long vowel e in Chinese (84.29%) vs. concrete (37.14%), and ear in learn (52.86%) vs. pearl (38.57%).
However, it was surprisingly found that the number of participants in Low group who got correct pronunciation on the words freeze, bow, treadmill, shape, sulphur, jade, and culture was more than that in Mid group in the post-test. Such situation in the pre-test only happened on one case: weight. Another shocking finding was that more participants in Low group pronounced the words bow, treadmill, and culture in the post-test accurately not only than Mid group but also than High group. Such case never occurred in the pre-test. Moreover, Mid group performed better than or as good as High group on the words bow, vine, treadmill, toilet, allusion, fume, yawn, dew, layout, exchange, and clothe in the post-test, which occurred in the pre-test only on the words cool and fresh.
Table 4.3
Comparison of Correctness of Participants’ Performance on Word Pronunciation Tests Before and After the Phonics Instruction Intervention
Pre-test Post-test Correctness Correctness Item
H M L Sub- total
Percent- ages
Item
H M L Sub- total
Percent- ages 1. cool 20 20 16 56 80% 1. freeze 17 9 11 37 52.86%
2. weight 12 5 6 23 32.86% 2. bow 22 22 23 67 95.71%
3. sleep 21 17 11 49 70% 3. vine 13 14 8 35 50%
4. yellow 23 21 18 62 88.57% 4. treadmill 14 14 15 43 61.43%
5. thank 7 3 2 12 17.14% 5. shape 11 7 8 26 37.14%
6. village 12 11 1 24 34.29% 6.toothbrush 14 13 10 37 52.86%
7. doctor 18 15 8 41 58.57% 7. toilet 18 18 11 47 67.14%
8. game 22 21 18 61 87.14% 8. tight 19 17 17 53 75.71%
9. fresh 9 11 3 23 32.86% 9. sulphur 15 11 15 41 58.57%
10. Sunday 22 21 19 62 88.57% 10. hank 23 21 21 65 92.86%
11. national 16 15 7 38 54.29% 11.mention 17 15 12 44 62.86%
12. learn 19 15 3 37 52.86% 12. allusion 14 14 11 39 55.71%
13. new 21 19 12 52 74.29% 13. jade 21 16 19 56 80%
14. house 23 21 16 60 85.71% 14. fume 7 8 7 22 31.43%
15. picture 18 17 6 41 58.57% 15. culture 19 18 22 59 84.29%
16. stood 11 10 3 24 34.29% 16. yawn 8 9 6 23 32.86%
17.television 19 17 5 41 58.57% 17. wagon 6 3 1 10 14.29%
18. cute 20 17 11 48 68.57% 18. drowsy 13 11 7 31 44.29%
19. exercise 7 3 1 11 15.71% 19. dew 17 19 18 54 77.14%
20. down 21 20 8 49 70% 20. layout 20 20 19 59 84.29%
21. join 16 12 8 36 51.43% 21.concrete 12 9 5 26 37.14%
22. Chinese 23 21 15 59 84.29% 22. pearl 14 10 3 27 38.57%
23. phone 18 15 4 37 52.86% 23. wood 20 17 14 51 72.86%
24. saw 16 12 7 35 50% 24.exchange 13 18 9 40 57.14%
25. weather 10 7 2 19 27.14% 25. clothe 8 11 6 25 35.71%
Total
424 366 210 1000
57.14% Total
375 344 298 1017
58.11%
The following tables showed the major errors made by the participants towards eight types of sound patterns in the word pronunciation tests.
First, Table 4.4 showed the major errors towards single consonant letters.
Generally speaking, all the participants could pronounce the letters b, soft g, h, k, and p accurately except those who skipped the words. The major errors chiefly happened
on the final consonant. It was found that the participants omitted /d/ or added a schwa /D/ when pronouncing the words stood, jade, and wood. Similarly, the participants tended to delete the final consonant of words or to attach a vowel sound to the final consonant, such as /o/ to /l/; /D/, /Q/, /0/ to /t/; and /0/ to /z/. Some final consonants were either omitted or distorted. For example, /l/ was replaced by /r/, /m/ by /n/, /n/ by /r/, and /z/ by /s/. As for the semi-vowel y in the word drowsy, it was just deleted.
Consequently, the wrong strategies that the participants dealt with the final consonants were 1) deleting it, 2) adding a vowel to it, and 3) mispronouncing it.
Another difficulty occurred on the consonant cluster. When pronouncing fresh, freeze, treadmill, toothbrush, and drowsy, participants were inclined to directly skip the /r/
sound except that three cases read freeze as fareeze. As to the word concrete, they often added a schwa and read the word as concarete. The conclusion seemed that the participants tended to either delete the /r/ sound or add a schwa before it in blending the consonant cluster including /r/. With respect to a consonant at the beginning of words or in the middle, the sound was replaced by other sounds, such as j /dI/ by /z/ or /dz/; s /s/ by /N/; s /z/ by /s/; v /v/ by /f/, /b/, /m/, /w/; and w /w/ by /b/. Other cases included deletion of /w/ in wood, deletion of /c/ in doctor and picture, and addition of a schwa to /d/ in treadmill. As a result, the participants substituted others sounds for the consonants appearing at the beginning of words or in the middle and, in a small case, deleted the consonants or added a schwa to them.
Table 4.4
Major Errors in the Pre-test and Post-test Towards Single Consonant Letters
Phonics Rule Test Word(s) with Error(s) Corresponding Sound Major Errors hard c doctor, picture, concrete /k/ delete, /kD/
d stood, jade, wood, treadmill /d/ delete, /dD/
f freeze /f/ /fD/
hard g wagon /g/ /d/, /dI/
j jade /dI/ /z/, /dz/
l cool, pearl /l/ delete, /r/,/lo/
m game, fume /m/ delete, /n/
n learn, down, join, phone, vine, yawn
/n/ delete, /r/
r fresh, toothbrush, treadmill, freeze, drowsy
/r/ delete
s sulphur; drowsy /s/; /z/ /N/; /s/
t weight, cute, toilet, tight, layout, concrete
/t/ delete, /tD/,
/tQ/, /t0/
v village, vine /v/ /f/, /b/, /m/,
/w/
w wood /w/ delete, /b/
y drowsy /0/ delete
z freeze /z/ delete,
/s/,/z0/
Regarding Table 4.5, it was found that the participants made no errors in dealing with the ch sound and silent gh in the word pronunciation tests towards consonant digraphs. However, errors were still commonly found in the ph, sh, and th sounds; especially, the th sounds were replaced by several different sounds, such as /L/ by /s/, /f/, /t/, /d/, and /M/ by /t/, /d/, /l/, and /z/.
Table 4.5
Major Errors in the Pre-test and Post-test Towards Consonant Digraphs
Phonics Rule Test Words with Error(s) Corresponding Sound Major Errors
ph phone, sulphur /f/ /p/
sh fresh, shape, toothbrush /N/ /s/, /tN/
th thank, toothbrush; weather, clothe
/L/; /M/ /s/, /f/, /t/,/d/;
/t/, /d/,/l/,/z/
Table 4.6 demonstrated the major errors that the participants made in the word pronunciation tests towards single vowel letters. The good pronunciation fell on long o and short o. Others, long/short a, e, i, and u, were often mispronounced. Particularly, the participants seemed to be very unfamiliar with the long u sound and mispronounce it with several different sounds like /$/, /i/, /o/, and /u/.
Table 4.6
Major Errors in the Pre-test and Post-test Towards Single Vowel Letters
Phonics Rule Test Word(s) with Errors Corresponding Sound Major Errors
long a game, jade, shape /e/ /G/, /$/, /A/
short a thank, hank, wagon /$/ /0/, /G/, /e/
long e concrete /i/ /G/, /e/, /a0/
short e fresh, mention /G/ /0/, /e/, /$/
long i vine /a0/ /0/, /o/, /e/
short i picture, treadmill /0/ /G/, /i/
long u cute, fume /ju/ /$/, /i/, /o/, /u/
short u culture, sulphur /K/ /a?/, /A/
Table 4.7 presented the major errors made by the participants in the word pronunciation tests towards vowel digraphs. It was found that a majority of vowel digraphs were mispronounced. Among all the cases, the participants seemed to be most unfamiliar with the oo sounds by reading it as /o/, /i/, /G/, and /A/.
Table 4.7
Major Errors in the Pre-test and Post-test Towards Vowel Digraphs
Phonics Rule Test Word(s) with Errors Corresponding Sound Major Errors
aw saw, yawn /C/ /e/, /o/, /K/
ay layout /e/ /a0/, /G/, /o/
ea weather, treadmill /G/ /e/, /0/, /i/
ee sleep, freeze /i/ /G/, /ju/
ew new, dew /ju/ /a?/, /u/, /C/
oo cool, toothbrush; stood; wood /u/; /?/ /o/, /i/, /G/;
/u/, /A/, /o/, /i/
Regarding diphthongs, the major errors produced in the word pronunciation tests by the participants were analyzed in Table 4.8. According to the analysis, the participants seemed to have no clear pictures about the sounds oi and ow. The sounds were mispronounced as /C/, /e/, /ju/, /u/ and /A/, /o/, /K/, /C/, /a0/ respectively. The letter-sound correspondence relationships seemed to become a mess to the
participants towards diphthongs. None the less, for those who sounded out the ou sound, they could produce it accurately without difficulties.
Table 4.8
Major Errors in the Pre-test and Post-test Towards Diphthongs
Phonics Rule Test Word(s) with Error(s) Corresponding Sound Major Errors
oi join, toilet /C0/ /C/, /e/, /ju/,
/u/
ow bow; down, drowsy /o/ or /a?/; /a?/ /A/; /o/, /K/, /C/, /a0/
Table 4.9 showed the major errors made by the participants in the word pronunciation tests towards r-controlled vowels. In a stressed syllable, some
participants failed to distinguish the ear sound. They pronounced it as /Gr/, /0r/, or /or/
or, in some cases, even deleted the r sound rather than the corresponding sound /"/. As for the unstressed r-controlled vowels, they were either deleted or read as /Gr/, /Ar/, or /Cr/.
Table 4.9
Major Errors in the Pre-test and Post-test Towards R-Controlled Vowels
Phonics Rule Test Word(s) with Errors Corresponding Sound Major Errors
ear pearl /"/ /e/, /Gr/, /0r/,
/i/, /u/, /or/
er, ur exercise, sulphur /Q/ delete, /Gr/,
/Ar/, /Cr/
As shown in Table 4.10, the participants tended to have a good ability of controlling the schwa sound in the word pronunciation tests except for the word allusion. Instead of /D/ for the letter a, /o/ or /C/ was utilized to combine the sound.
Table 4.10
Major Error in the Pre-test and Post-test Towards Schwa
Phonics Rule Test Word with Errors Corresponding Sound Major Errors
a allusion /D/ /o/, /C/
Finally, the major errors that the participants made in the word pronunciation tests towards common cases such as sion, tion, ture, and ex were listed in Table 4.11.
The sounds /dIDn/ and /IDn/ were substituted for /IDn/ and /NDn/; the letters ture were regarded as –try; and for the sounds ex, either /s/ or /k/ was often found to be omitted.
Table 4.11
Major Errors in the Pre-test and Post-test Towards Common Cases
Phonics Rule Test Word(s) with Error(s) Corresponding Sound Major Errors
sion television, allusion /IDn/ /dIDn/
tion mention /NDn/ /IDn/
ture culture /tNQ/ /tr0/
ex exercise, exchange /Gks/, /0ks/ /Gk/, /Gs/,
/0s/
In addition to the eight categories of error types mentioned above, one major pronunciation phenomenon, which mostly occurred in the pre-test, was further addressed. During the process of evaluating pronunciation, it was found that the participants were inclined to replace one word with another word that was visually similar to it. For instance, in the pre-test, weight was replaced by what or white, thank by think or thanks, doctor by daughter, fresh by fish, Sunday by Saturday, new by now or news, house by home, exercise by excuse, join by joy or June, saw by say, and weather by winter or waiter. In spite of a very small percentage in the post-test, a similar situation could still be found as the word shape was pronounced as ship or shop. Another case was that some verbs in the pre-test were even pronounced in their present participle forms, such as sleep in sleeping and learn in learning.
To recapitulate, under the analysis of major errors of word pronunciation, it was found that when dealing with consonant sounds, the participants tended to delete them, to attach vowel sounds to them, or to mispronounce them; while vowel sounds were mispronounced. Another possibility was that sounds of whole words were replaced by those of other words similar to their spellings.
4.2.4 Comparison of Participants’ Awareness in Memorizing Vocabulary Prior to and After the Phonics Instruction Intervention
This section presented the participants’ responses towards the phonics instruction intervention. First, the participants’ perception to the strategies of and attitudes
towards memorizing vocabulary was investigated. Second, the methods in the
participants’ opinions to help improve their vocabulary memorization in the pre- intervention questionnaire and the effects of the phonics instruction in the post-
intervention questionnaire were explored. Third, in the pre-intervention questionnaire, whether and how their previous English teachers in junior high school taught K.K.
phonetic symbols or phonics were also provided as background information.
As the questionnaires prior to and after the phonics instruction intervention included two types of questions—five-point scale statements and open-ended
questions, two approaches for analysis of the data were employed. For the same five- point scale statements in the pre- and post-intervention questionnaires, the means and the SDs were computed for discussion to see if there was any change caused by the intervention. As for the second part, different open-ended questions in the pre- and post-intervention questionnaires, the responses were collected and coded for analysis.
A response that contained more than one proposition was multiply coded.
First of all, the same statements which appeared in both questionnaires
(Statements 1 to 11) were to tap the participants’ awareness of their strategies of and attitudes towards memorizing vocabulary. Table 4.12 showed the statistical results of the participants’ responses towards memorizing vocabulary prior to and after the intervention.
By comparing the results of the two questionnaires, it was clearly seen that there arose a change. First, a significant difference was found for nine items between the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaires. These nine items are Statement 1 “I memorize a new word by repeating its letters with/out pronouncing its sound.”
(t=2.216, p<.05), Statement 2 “I memorize new words by associating them with Chinese sounds or Chinese phonetic symbols, for example, door →豆兒 and e-mail→
伊沒有.” (t=2.350, p<.05), Statement 3 “I remember the pronunciation of vowels and consonants and can figure out the word spelling according to the sound.” (t=-2.628,
p<.05), Statement 4 “I know the possible sound of every letter and sound pattern and can directly sound out words” (t=-2.795, p<.05), Statement 6 “I pay attention to compound words. For example, ‘housework’ is the combination of ‘house’ and
‘work,’ but not h-o-u-s-e-w-o-r-k” (t=-2.006, p<.05), Statement 7 “I tend to pass over new words” (t=2.786, p<.05), Statement 8 “I try to read new words according to phonic rules” (t=-2.998, p<.05), Statement 10 “I am satisfied with my own situation of memorizing words” (t=-3.315, p<.05), and Statement 11 “I can sound out words fluently” (t=-2.441, p<.05). Second, a gain in the mean scores but not significantly different was found in Statement 5 “I pay attention to stresses and parts of speech of words” (t=-1.344, p>.05). Third, a loss in the mean scores was found in Statement 9
“I memorize new words by recalling their phonetic symbols and repeating their sounds.” (-.01). Fourth, as shown in Table 4.2, the most positive attitudes the
participants kept after the intervention were Statement 6 “I pay attention to compound words. For example, ‘housework’ is the combination of ‘house’ and ‘work,’ but not h- o-u-s-e-w-o-r-k” (M=3.86) and Statement 8 “I try to read new words according to phonic rules” (M=3.77), both of which happened to be the same attitudes kept most positively by the participants before the intervention. In addition, the least positive attitudes the participants kept after the intervention were Statement 11 “I can sound out words fluently” (M=2.56), Statement 5 “I pay attention to stresses and parts of speech of words” (M=2.73), and Statement 9 “I memorize new words by recalling their phonetic symbols and repeating their sounds.” (M=2.73), in which Statement 11 and Statement 5 happened to be the same attitudes kept least positively by the
participants before the intervention. However, as mentioned above, a significant difference was found for Statement 11 in comparing the results prior to and after the intervention.
Table 4.12
Comparison of Means of Participants’ Awareness of the Strategies of and Attitudes towards Memorizing Vocabulary Before and After the Phonics Instruction
Intervention
Items Pre-intervention Post-intervention T-value
1. I memorize a new word by repeating its letters with/out pronouncing its sound.
Mean: 3.11 2.83 2.216*
SD: 1.17 1.22
2. I memorize new words by associating them with Chinese sounds or Chinese phonetic symbols, for example, door →豆兒 and e-mail→ 伊沒有.
Mean: 2.99 2.69 2.350*
SD: 1.15 .93
3. I remember the pronunciation of vowels and consonants and can figure out the word spelling according to the sound.
Mean: 3.17 3.49 -2.628*
SD: 1.05 .90
4. I know the possible sound of every letter and sound pattern and can directly sound out words.
Mean: 3.11 3.43 -2.795*
SD: 1.07 .96
5. I pay attention to stresses and parts of speech of words.
Mean: 2.59 2.73 -1.344
SD: .91 .76
6. I pay attention to compound words. For example, “housework” is the combination of “house” and “work”, but not h-o-u-s-e-w-o-r-k.
Mean: 3.60 3.86 -2.006*
SD: 1.13 .95
7. I tend to pass over new words.
Mean: 3.46 3.07 2.786*
SD: .83 1.07 (continued)
8. I try to read new words according to phonic rules.
Mean: 3.46 3.77 -2.998*
SD: 1.03 .84
9. I memorize new words by recalling their phonetic symbols and repeating their sounds.
Mean: 2.74 2.73 .132
SD: 1.16 .96
10. I am satisfied with my own situation of memorizing words.
Mean: 2.63 2.96 -3.315*
SD: 1.04 1.06
11. I can sound out words fluently.
Mean: 2.33 2.56 -2.441*
SD: .93 .83
N=70 *p<.05
As for the open-ended questions in the awareness questionnaires, the question before the intervention was to tap what ways in the participants’ opinions could foster their vocabulary memorization, and the questions after the intervention were to tap the effects of phonics instruction on the participants.
Table 4.13 showed the participants’ opinions on the methods to help memorize words. It presented the frequencies and percentages in terms of eight categories: (A) Knowing the sounds and associating them with spellings (30.14%), (B) Listening, reading, and writing very often (26.03%), (C) No idea (15.07%), (D) Learning phonetic symbols well (10.96%), (E) Listening to tapes or broadcast, reading English magazines, newspapers, and novels (6.85%), (F) Memorizing words every day (4.11%), (G) Memorizing sounds with Mandarin phonetic symbols or letter by letter (2.74%), and (H) Others (4.11%). Category (H) “Others” included responses like what follows.
“Memorizing new words with learned words which have similar spellings.”
“Imitating the pronunciation produced by English electronic dictionaries.”
“Associating new words with imagery or objects in daily lives.”
Table 4.13
Questionnaire Results of Participants’ Opinions on Ways to Help Memorize Words (N=70)
Item Frequencies Percentages
(A) Knowing the sounds and associating them with spellings
22 30.14%
(B) Listening, reading, and writing very often 19 26.03%
(C) No idea 11 15.07%
(D) Learning phonetic symbols well 8 10.96%
(E) Listening to tapes or broadcast, reading English magazines, newspapers, and novels
5 6.85%
(F) Memorizing words every day 3 4.11%
(G) Memorizing sounds with Mandarin phonetic symbols or letter-by-letter
2 2.74%
(H) Others 3 4.11%
Total 73 100%
Table 4.14 showed the participants’ feedback on phonics instruction. Sixteen cases (21.33%) indicated that phonics instruction helped them memorize words within shorter time. Fifteen cases (20%) commented that they could sound out words more effortlessly. Still, another nine cases (12%) mentioned that they were more willing to try to sound out new words though they were not sure if their pronunciation was correct. Besides, six cases (8%) said they benefited from phonics instruction in correcting their pronunciation. Also six cases (8%) thought they got more knowledge about phonics. And four cases (5.33%) responded “Good” without further explanation.
However, nineteen cases held negative feedback towards phonics instruction.
First, nine of them (12%) indicated that it was difficult to memorize so many rules.
Five (6.67%) mentioned that they were still unable to apply the phonics rules to sound out words. Two (2.67%) commented that they were apt to forget and to get confused about the phonics rules without learning for a long time. Another two (2.67%)
expressed no feelings about phonics instruction because they had learned phonics in junior high school. One case (1.33%) specifically pointed out that K.K. phonetic symbols still had to be taught in order that students could have solid foundation to memorize words, exactly like the situation that they started to learn Chinese words with Mandarin phonetic symbols.
Table 4.14
Questionnaire Results of Participants’ Responses on Phonics Instruction (N=70)
Item Frequencies Percentages
Memorizing words within shorter time 16 21.33%
Sounding out words more easily 15 20%
More willing to try to sound out new words 9 12%
Hard to memorize so many rules 9 12%
Correcting the pronunciation 6 8%
Knowing more about phonics 6 8%
Still unable to apply the phonics rules 5 6.67%
Good 4 5.33%
Apt to forget and to get confused about the
phonic rules without learning for a long time 2 2.67%
No feelings due to having learned it before 2 2.67%
Lack of K.K. phonetic symbols 1 1.33%
Total 75 100%
With regard to ways to restart memorizing words, Table 4.15 presented the participants’ responses. In spite of eight participants (11.11%) who still had no ideas about how to do it, twenty-five (34.72%) cases indicated that they hoped to learn phonics well and to associate it with spellings, fifteen of which especially pointed out that they didn’t need to memorize another phonetic transcription system, i.e., K.K.
phonetic symbols, to spell words or to sound them out. Seventeen cases (23.61%) mentioned that they hoped to learn K.K. phonetic symbols well to facilitate their word memorization and pronunciation. Without expressing using which method to know the pronunciation, seven cases (9.72%) commented that they would get to know the pronunciation of words first and then memorize them. Four cases (5.56%) stated that
they would use the procedure, listening→sounding out→writing, to deepen their impressions on words and further memorize them. Other responses (15.28%) were expressed as follows.
“I will memorize words syllable by syllable.” (3)
“I will still memorize words letter by letter.” (2)
“I will still use Mandarin phonetic symbols or sounds to memorize words.” (2)
“I will memorize words after I catch their meanings.” (1)
“I will memorize words every day.” (1)
“I will listen to tapes or English electronic dictionaries to grasp the sounds.” (1)
“I will associate words with visual imagery in the daily life.” (1) Table 4.15
Questionnaire Results of Participants’ Opinions on Ways to Restart Memorizing Words (N=70)
Category Frequencies Percentages
Learning phonics and associating it with spellings
25 34.72%
Learning K.K. phonetic symbols 17 23.61%
No idea 8 11.11%
Knowing the pronunciation first and then
memorizing words 7 9.72%
Listening→sounding out→writing→
memorizing
4 5.56%
Others 11 15.28%
Total 72 100%
Concerning the effects of phonics instruction, forty-seven (67.14%) of the participants were positive that phonics instruction was useful or did help them with spellings of words or pronunciation. Others (32.86%) expressed negative comments on phonics instruction. Table 4.16 summarized the participants’ responses to the effects of phonics instruction.
As Table 4.16 showed, twenty-six responses (35.62%) stated that phonics instruction helped them memorize spellings of words more effortlessly, one of which especially mentioned that a very useful way to memorize vocabulary was taking advantage of syllables such as con-, -tion, -ful, and so on; ten cases (13.70%) indicated that they got some pronunciation corrected during phonics learning; eight instances (10.96%) indicated that phonics instruction helped them sound out words more effortlessly according to the letter-sound correspondence relationships. Besides, four cases (5.48%) gave positive responses like “It’s useful.” and “I make some progress.”
Nevertheless, twenty-three participants (32.86%) kept negative attitudes towards phonics instruction. Five cases (6.85%) expressed their lack of understanding of the letter-sound correspondence relationships after phonics instruction. Another five cases (6.85%) thought the phonics instruction intervention was ineffective owing to their own learning attitudes. They didn’t concentrate on phonics learning in class. Four instances (5.48%) had got used to old habits to memorize words. They felt unsafe to employ the new method. Another four (5.48%) were still unable to apply phonics to word production, spelling, and memorization. Three cases (4.11%) stated that even though they knew how to pronounce words based on phonics, they still couldn’t memorize their meanings and hence couldn’t understand texts. Another three (4.11%) didn’t approve the effectiveness of phonics instruction due to their previous phonics learning experiences. It was redundant to learn it again because they had known it. At last, still one case asserted that phonics couldn’t favour word pronunciation because it provided no phonetic symbols.
Table 4.16
Questionnaire Results of Participants’ Views on Effects of Phonics Instruction on Word Pronunciation and Memorization (N=70)
Effects Reason Frequencies Percentages
Memorizing spellings of words more easily
26 35.62%
Correcting the pronunciation 10 13.70%
Sounding out words more easily 8 10.96%
Positive (N=47)
Useful, progressive 4 5.48%
Lack of understanding the letter-sound correspondence relationships
5 6.85%
Lack of concentration on learning phonics
5 6.85%
Having got used to old habits 4 5.48%
Unable to apply phonics rules 4 5.48%
Still failing to know meanings of words
3 4.11%
Having learned it before 3 4.11%
Negative (N=23)
Unable to depend on phonetic symbols
to sound out words 1 1.37%
Total
(N=70) 73 100%
The final part of this section was to provide the participants’ previous
pronunciation learning experiences in junior high school as background information.
In the pre-intervention questionnaire, whether and how their previous teachers taught K.K. phonetic symbols or phonics were probed to examine their strategies of
sounding out words (see Table 4.17). Among all the statements, half of the participants (over 50%) responded positively on Statement 2 “They analysed the relationships between letters and sounds in details.” (52.86%), Statement 3 “They directly pronounced words for students to follow.” (62.86%), and Statement 5
“Besides phonics practice in textbooks, they provided extra materials to teach pronunciation.” (58.57%). Of all the statements but two, less than 20% were on the
negative side. The two exceptions came from Statement 4 “They directly played tapes for students to follow sounds,” for which as many as 21 (30%) of them expressed negative comments, and Statement 6 “They made particular pronunciation
assessments,” for which 25 (35.71%) also held negative attitudes. Interestingly, the latter one was also the only statement that got less than 20% votes of affirmation.
Table 4.17
Questionnaire Results of Participants’ Opinions on Previous English Teachers’
Pronunciation Teaching (N=70)
Statement Mean SD
1. They taught K.K. phonetic symbols in details. 3.31 .97 2. They analysed the relationships between letters 3.47 .99
and sounds in details.
3. They directly pronounced words for students to follow. 3.6 .89 4. They directly played tapes for students to follow sounds. 3.1 1.02 5. Besides phonics practice in textbooks, they provided 3.54 1.07 extra materials to teach pronunciation.
6. They made particular pronunciation assessments. 2.74 0.79
Statement Frequencies (Percentages)
Positive Neutral Negative 1. 30 (42.86%) 27 (38.57%) 13 (18.57%) 2. 37 (52.86%) 23 (32.86%) 10 (14.29%) 3. 44 (62.86%) 19 (27.14%) 7 (10%) 4. 25 (35.71%) 24 (34.29%) 21 (30%) 5. 41 (58.57%) 17 (24.29%) 12 (17.14%) 6. 12 (17.14%) 33 (47.14%) 25 (35.71%)
4.3 Discussion
4.3.1 Discussion of Participants’ General Performances on the Pre-test and Post- test
The fact that there is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test word production test scores for all the seventy participants in this study shows that the phonics instruction intervention, which consisted of letter-sound correspondence relationships, is not effective in enhancing Taiwanese vocational senior high school students’ performance on the word production tests. The result seems to contradict with the previous researches (Kuo, 2000; Lin, 2001; Shih, 2002) that phonics instruction shows significant effects to subjects in their studies.
In Kuo’s (2000) study, she employed 137 elementary school pre-service English teachers and 30 English junior and senior majors in a normal university in the first phase and only the latter in the second phase to participate in her study. Basically speaking, these participants’ instrumental motivation and ambition of learning
phonics are much stronger than those of vocational senior high school students and so is their sensitivity about English speech sounds. The ambitious learning attitudes are surely able to cause better effectiveness on the instruction. Another difference from the present study is related to the testing items. The pre-test and post-test in Kuo’s (2000) study consist of the same words. Similarly, Lin’s (2001) study adopted the same strategy of testing same words in the pre-test and post-test. Unlike these two, the author in the present study devises the words that the participants have learned in junior high school to be tested in the pre-test and the words that they haven’t learned in vocational senior high school in the post-test. It is not sure whether such difference of testing items would matter in the result. As for Shih’s (2002) study, the researcher claimed that different words with the same difficulty of level were used in the pre-test and post-test. However, after closer examination, it is found that the pre-test only tested 10 vowels, 1 diphthong and 18 consonants whereas the post-test only tested 8 vowels, 1 diphthong, and 20 consonants. The lacked vowels in the post-test, compared to the pre-test, were /u/ and schwa /D/; the lacked consonant was /b/, but the letters p,
m, and w were added to test. In addition, neither could long vowels e, o, and common sound patterns such as aw, ay, ee, ew, oi, ou, ow, sion, ture be found in both tests.
That is to say, the tests were conducted in a limited scope and unable to predict whether phonics instruction was still effective to the sound patterns that were not tested. As to the present study, it expects the participants to apply all phonics generalizations (listed in Appendix D), which contain 41 vowels and consonants, to the word pronunciation tests except /b/ sound in the pre-test. Further research is required to decide if it is the more phonics rules that influences participants’
performances on the word pronunciation tests.
Similar to the present study, “Suter (1976), for example, found no significant difference in the accuracy of pronunciation among L2 learners who received formal instruction for different lengths of time.” (cited in Wang, 1998:825). Wang (1998) points out that the correction and improvement of pronunciation proceed continually and slowly, not necessarily with immediately observable effect. Besides, individual difference also matters. There is no one-to-one relationship between teaching and learning. (Pennington & Richards, 1986; cited in Wang, 1998:827). Different types of teaching methods, different periods of instruction time, and different learning attitudes may result in different learning effects.
In short, this study has found that vocational senior high school students’
performance on the word pronunciation tests is not enhanced by the treatment of phonics instruction.
4.3.2 Discussion of Thirty-four Participants’ Interviews
Though this study shows no significant difference on the participants’ whole performance before and after the phonics instruction intervention, it reveals a weird phenomenon that the High group significantly regressed while the Low group won the greatest gain. Unlike Lin’s (2001) study, in which the Higher Proficiency Group
performed significantly better than the Lower Proficiency Group, the phenomenon existing in this study is worthy of exploration.
In order to explore the reasons of such different phenomenon, the author
interviewed thirty-four participants to get in-depth understanding about their progress or regression.
Regarding the participants with progress, a majority of which belonged to the Low group, they tried to apply phonics rules that they learned in phonics instruction to sound out words, concentrated in class, reviewed the lessons, and asked their classmates about the rules or pronunciation which they were still unfamiliar with.
Such active learning attitudes brought them the greatest benefit from the phonics instruction. In addition, the instructor’s immediate praises to their performance during the instruction inspired them to study harder. This final result verifies Wang’s (1998) claims: “positive reinforcement by giving immediate and encouraging comments when correct production takes place always assures better learning results” (p.829) and
Although individual differences in achievements do exist in learning pronunciation as well as in learning other language skills, no evidence has been reported/recorded that “talent” is a factor, or a factor strong enough to exclude the effect of instruction in the learning of pronunciation (p.826).
With regard to the participants with regression, a majority of which pertained to the High and Mid groups, the novelty of words in the post-test played a very
significant role in their regression. This finding echoes Kuo’s (2000) and Weisberg et al.’s (1989, cited in Kuo, 2000) researches. The result of the former showed that the rate of the subjects’ correctness to the test of familiar words was 86%; however, that to the test of unfamiliar words lowered to 70%. And the finding of the latter presented that in the test of oral blending of dictated sounds into CVC words, the subjects
performed significantly better towards blending of familiar words than towards that of unfamiliar words. Thus, the novelty of words did arouse the participants’ anxiety and nervousness and reduce their confidence in sounding out words.
Besides the novelty of words, different learning attitudes from what was mentioned above were also attributed to their regression. As what they revealed, they seldom reviewed phonics rules after school, they seldom practiced or applied the rules, and they were still unfamiliar with them after the instruction. Furthermore, an interval of one week for phonics instruction was too long for them to remember what was taught last time; hence, they tended to get confused by the rules. One even suggested that students should have intensive courses for phonics instruction and review the rules every day. What is more, the remedial classes for phonics instruction were fixed in the 7th and 8th periods of Wednesday. For one class, they just finished Physical Education classes in the 5th and 6th periods. The physical fatigue distracted their attention and lessened their learning effects. From this point of view, English classes should not be arranged to follow the classes like Physical Education and Horticultural Practice, which exhaust students’ energy and result in distraction in class.
Other possibilities include inaccurate pronunciation hard to correct, inability of sounding out long words, and rejection of learning English. Regarding solving the first two problems, explicit analysis of articulation methods and syllables should be instructed and put into more practice. As to the last case, the underlying reasons should be realized and taken right remedial steps to re-motivate students’ interests in learning English.
In short, there involve a lot of variables to influence students’ learning effects, such as learning attitudes, affective factors, or psychological factors. Teachers should vivify phonics classes, be concerned about students, and encourage them very often in order to reinforce their learning effects.
4.3.3 Discussion of Participants’ Correct Word Pronunciation and Their Major Errors in the Pre-test and Post-test
Based on the previous results in Section 4.2.3, several phenomena are observed.
First, towards the eight categories of sound patterns in the word pronunciation tests, the participants handled the sounds b, f, soft g, h, k, p in single consonant letters, silent gh and ch in consonant digraphs, long/short o in single vowel letters, and ou in diphthongs well. These letters didn’t seem to be problems to them.
Second, it is taken for granted that if participants handled the words well in the pre-test, they were apt to distinguish the words with the same sound patterns well in the post-test. Namely, they had internalised these sounds and could pronounce them accurately in most cases. Therefore, when the participants had good performances on the words yellow, down, game, Sunday, house, and new in the pre-test, they got a high percentage of correctness in the post-test, too, on the words bow, jade, culture, layout, and dew.
However, it is also interestingly found that the same sound patterns in different word positions or different word clusters did not necessarily get the same
pronunciation from the participants. For example, participants got a percentage of 87.14 on the word game and 80 on jade, but only 37.14 on shape. Similar results were found in the word pairs Chinese (84.29%)/concrete (37.14%), cute (68.57%)/fume (31.43%), thank (17.14%)/hank (92.86%), exercise (15.71%)/exchange (57.14%), and stood (34.29%)/wood (72.86%). Consequently, every feature of a word contributes to the success of its pronunciation. That is, whether the sound of a word can be correctly pronounced or not depends on its phonological environment. This supports Li’s (1998:646) viewpoint that “as for the factor of sound environment, the problem for the Chinese learners to pronounce a consonant may be not only simply related to its different word positions but what the other sounds it is grouped with.”
Fourth, the participants’ major errors in word pronunciation tests towards eight types of sound patterns echoed the previous studies (Chang, 1994; Ing, 1997; Chu, 1997; Li, 1998; Lin, 2001). As Li (1998:639) points out, Chinese EFL learners have deletion, insertion, and substitution problems towards pronouncing consonants. These problems derive from lack of Mandarin Chinese corresponding sounds to English sounds and L1 language interference (Chang, 1994). For example, Mandarin Chinese doesn’t have consonant clusters as commonly seen in English; therefore, participants either deleted certain consonants or inserted certain vowels like /D/ when they
produce words. It was common that doctor was read as dotor or docator, fresh as fesh, picture as piture or picature, toothbrush as toothbush, freeze as feeze or fareeze, drowsy as dowsy, and concrete as concarete. Moreover, because Chinese syllables usually do not end with consonants except /n/, /H/, or /r/, some participants were inclined to delete English final consonants or to add a vowel to them. Hence, cool was mispronounced as coo, weight as weighter, stood as stoo, cute as cue, jade as jada, tight as tigh or tighter, pearl as pearlo, and wood as woo. As for consonant digraphs, ph, sh, and th, similarity, confusion, and substitution problems were found. As previous studies claimed, the error of the th sound appears due to the absence of its corresponding sound in participants’ mother tongue (Chang, 1994; Ing, 1997; Chu, 1997; Li, 1998). Since there are no /L/ and /M/ sounds in Mandarin Chinese, a
majority of the participants were found to substitute /s/ for /L/ and /l/, /d/, or /z/ for /M/.
Thus, thank becomes sank, weather becomes weler or weder, toothbrush becomes toosbrush, and clothe becomes close. With regard to the ph and sh sounds, owing to the similarity between the written letters and the phonetic symbols, some participants didn’t distinguish that they are consonant digraphs that represent sounds different from their component letters p or s, and sounded out the word phone as pone, sulphur as sulpur, fresh as fres, and toothbrush as toothbrus. As to mistaking shape as chape
