字母拼讀與音標在英語教學之探討

全文

(1)國立屏東大學英語學系碩士班碩士論文 . 指導教授：張理宏博士 A Comparison of Phonics and Phonetic Symbols in ELT 字母拼讀與音標在英語教學之探討研究生：朱敏華撰. . 中華民國一○六年五月 .

(2)

(3)

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without support and help of many people. Immeasurable appreciation is extended to every individual who in one way or another has assisted me in the past three years. Foremost, I would like to express my gratitude toward my advisor, Dr. Li-Hung Chang, for his guidance and patience as well as imparting his knowledge and expertise in this study. In addition, I profusely thank my committee members, Dr. Tzung-Hung Tsai and Dr. Wei-Yao Li, for their valuable suggestions to this thesis and the approval of my work. I am also highly indebted to my classmates, schoolmates, friends and colleagues for their help and encouragement throughout the process of the research period, and likewise all my students at Renwu Elementary School, Kaohsiung, who have participated and become a big part of this study. Last but not least, I am grateful to my family who have constantly encouraged me to pursue my own goals in life and made this thesis a reality. Without their support, I would not have come this far.. i .

(5) 摘要字母拼讀法已經在台灣國小實施多年，然而在英語學習上，大多數台灣學生仍無法有效運用所學之拼讀規則。本實驗為一真實驗設計之量化研究，旨在探討 KK 音標和字母拼讀法對台灣三年級學生音韻覺識發展、單字發音效益及發音焦慮的影響。研究對象為高雄市一所公立小學三年級學生，八個班級共 206 人，隨機將其中四個班級學生列為實驗組，接受 KK 音標教學，另外四個班級學生為控制組，施以字母拼讀法，進行為期二十週實驗教學，並以音韻覺識、單字發音前後測及英語發音學習焦慮量表評量學生，其結果由敘述性統計、成對樣本 T 檢定及單因子多變量變異數分析三種統計方式，來進行資料分析。分析結果顯示，KK 音標教學對於學生整體單字發音較有成效；KK 音標教學法及字母拼讀法在學生音韻覺識上皆有助益，並無優劣之分；至於在發音焦慮方面，由資料分析結果可知，不同發音教學法並不必然造成學生發音焦慮，其他造成學生發音焦慮的因子，仍有待進一步檢視。由此研究結果，研究者提出對台灣國小三年級學生發音教學的建議，期盼對國小三年級英語教師有所助益，且冀盼更合適、更有效益的發音教學方式，能被 EFL 教師廣泛運用於課堂上。. 關鍵字：KK 音標教學法、字母拼讀法、音韻覺識、單字發音、發音焦慮 ii .

(6) ABSTRACT This study employed a quantitative approach which primarily relies on the design of a true experiment to explore which teaching method, phonics or K.K phonetic symbols, is more effective in developing Taiwanese EFL third graders’ phonological awareness, achieving accuracy of word pronunciation as well as reducing the students’ pronunciation anxiety. Eight classes of 206 third graders at a municipal elementary school in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, participated in this study. The experimental group, receiving instructions of the K.K. phonetic symbols, consisted of 103 students, while the control group, the remaining 103 students, accepted the phonics instruction for 20 weeks. The use of pretests, posttests, and an English pronunciation learning anxiety scale examined the participants’ performance on phonological awareness, word pronunciation, and their anxiety of word pronunciation. Additionally, the application of descriptive statistics, paired-samples t-test, and one-way MANOVA computed the obtained data. The findings revealed that the instruction of the K.K. phonetic symbols effectively helped students to achieve accuracy of the overall word pronunciation. Both K.K. phonetic symbols and phonics improved the students’ phonological awareness to a certain degree, yet no absolute conclusion can be drawn on which method is superior to the other. The results also showed that the different teaching methods were not directly related to students’ pronunciation anxiety. Other factors that may cause this iii .

(7) anxiety need to be further investigated. Based on the findings of this study, I have proposed some pedagogical references for those who are already involved, or interested in teaching English pronunciation in elementary schools.. Key words: K.K. phonetic instruction, phonics instruction, phonological awareness, word pronunciation, pronunciation anxiety. iv .

(8) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ i CHINESE ABSTRACT .................................................................................................ii ENGLISH ABSTRACT ............................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1 Background and Motivation .................................................................................. 1 Purposes of the Study............................................................................................. 5 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 6 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 9 Importance of Phonological Awareness ................................................................. 9 Significance of Pronunciation .............................................................................. 15 Pronunciation Teaching in History ...................................................................... 18 Pronunciation Education in Taiwan ..................................................................... 20 Phonics and Phonics Instruction .......................................................................... 22 v .

(9) K.K. Phonetic Symbols and K.K. Phonetic Instruction ....................................... 26 Phonics Instruction vs. K.K. Phonetic Instruction ............................................... 29 Pronunciation Anxiety ......................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 35 Participants ........................................................................................................... 35 Instruments ........................................................................................................... 36 The Teaching Materials ............................................................................... 36 The Phonological Awareness Test ............................................................... 36 The Word Pronunciation Test ...................................................................... 37 The Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 38 Research Design and Procedure........................................................................... 39 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................. 43 Participants’ Previous English Learning Experience ........................................... 43 The Homogeneity of the Experimental and Control Groups ............................... 45 Results of Descriptive Statistical Analysis .......................................................... 46 Results of Paired-Samples t-Test ......................................................................... 48 Results of One-Way MANOVA Analysis ........................................................... 52 Between-group Comparison of Phonological Awareness Posttest, Word Pronunciation Posttest, and the English Pronunciation Anxiety Scale ........ 52 vi .

(10) Comparison on the Effectiveness of Phonics and K.K. Phonetic Symbols ......... 55 Phonological Awareness .............................................................................. 55 Accuracy of Word Pronunciation ................................................................ 57 English Pronunciation Learning Anxiety..................................................... 59 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION............................................................................... 65 Summary of the Findings ..................................................................................... 65 Pedagogical Implications ..................................................................................... 70 Suggestions for Further Research ........................................................................ 72 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 75 APPENDICES Appendix A The Most Common Spellings of the 44 Sounds of English............. 85 Appendix B The Utility of Clymer’s 45 Phonic Generalizations ........................ 87 Appendix C The Phonological Awareness Pretest ............................................... 89 Appendix D The Phonological Awareness Posttest ............................................. 93 Appendix E The Word Pronunciation Pretest ...................................................... 97 Appendix F The Word Pronunciation Posttest ..................................................... 98 Appendix G English Pronunciation Learning Anxiety Scale .............................. 99. vii .

(11) LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 The Content of Pronunciation Instruction in Junior High School .................. 21 Table 2 The Content of Pronunciation Instruction in Elementary School ................... 22 Table 3 K.K. Phonetic Symbols .................................................................................... 27 Table 4 Comparison of Phonics and K.K. Phonetic Instruction .................................. 30 Table 5 The Test Outlines ............................................................................................. 38 Table 6 Reliability of the English Pronunciation Anxiety Questionnaire .................... 39 Table 7 The Pretest-Posttest Two-Group True-Experimental Design of the Study ...... 42 Table 8 Paired-Samples t-Test Results for the Pretests of the Two Groups ................ 46 Table 9 Results of Descriptive Statistics for the Pretests of the Two Groups .............. 47 Table 10 Results of Descriptive Statistics for the Posttests of the Two Groups .......... 48 Table 11 Paired-Samples t-Test Results of the Pretests and Posttests for the Experimental Group............................................................................................. 50 Table 12 Paired-Samples t-Test Results of the Pretests and Posttests for the Control Group ................................................................................................................... 51 Table 13 One-Way MANOVA Results of Phonological Awareness Posttest, Word Pronunciation Posttest and the English Pronunciation Anxiety Scale between the Two Groups .......................................................................................................... 54 viii .

(12) Table 14 One-Way MANOVA Results of Phonological Awareness Posttest between the Two Groups .......................................................................................................... 56 Table 15 One-Way MANOVA Results of Word Pronunciation Posttest between the Two Groups .......................................................................................................... 58 Table 16 One-Way MANOVA Results of English Pronunciation Anxiety Scale between the Two Groups .................................................................................................... 60 Table 17 Frequency and Percentage of the English Pronunciation Learning Anxiety Scale for the Two Groups .................................................................................... 62. ix .

(13) LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 A continuum of phonological units (Chard & Dickson, 1999) ..................... 11 Figure 2 The design of a true experiment .................................................................... 40 Figure 3 The design of this study ................................................................................ 42 Figure 4 The percentage of the participants’ previous English learning experience ... 44 Figure 5A detailed description of the participants’ previous English learning experience............................................................................................................44. x .

(14) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background and Motivation When learning a foreign language, pronunciation is a vital skill one must obtain. Accurate pronunciation leads to efficient communication as well as the later development of the four language skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing (Hung, 1998). English is a morphophonemic language, in which the spelling system is based on both representations of sounds (phonemes) and units of meaning (morphemes) (Carlisle & Stone, 2005). Phonological awareness, the predictor of word-level reading accuracy and automaticity, then plays a very important role in learning English for beginners (Taibah & Haynes, 2011). EFL learners with high phonological awareness are able to pronounce and spell words accurately. In Taiwan, English curricula were initially implemented in high schools; then, in accordance with the Guideline of the Nine-Year Consecutive Curriculum drawn from the Ministry of Education, English was included in the national curricula from Grade 3 to Grade 6 at public elementary schools in 2005. As a result, learning English at a young age became the acceptable norm nationwide, and after-school English programs for EFL learners mushroomed across Taiwan.. 1 .

(15) Phonics is the most common material that English teachers use in classrooms, public and cram schools alike. Through mastering in phonics rules, EFL learners are expected to develop the awareness of letter-sound correspondences, the skills of decoding, the ability of word recognition, the accuracy of word pronunciation, and finally, to achieve oral reading fluency (Pikulskl and Chard, 2005). Liu (2014) identified the influence of phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge on EFL elementary school students’ pronunciation and oral reading ability. That evidenced the importance of constructing well-built alphabet knowledge through the proficiency of students’ phonological awareness. Lin (2014) investigated the effects of phonics instruction on the decoding, encoding abilities, and word pronunciation of the underachievers in elementary schools. The findings revealed that the participant’s overall abilities improved considerably after the remedial program.Students were able to detect, sound, blend phonemes and also achieve accuracy of word pronunciation. Hsu (2015) explored the effectiveness of phonics instruction on eighth graders’ word-reading and spelling abilities, and the results showed 70% of the participants’ test scores significantly increased. Students in the experimental group were capable of pronouncing monosyllabic, polysyllabic, and pseudo words. They were confident in word-reading and held a positive attitude toward phonics instruction, while K. K. 2 .

(16) phonetic symbols were commonly used in pronunciation lessons in junior high schools. Tu and Su (2011) further pointed out that most teachers highly praised the effects of phonics instruction, and their students participated exceptionally well in their English classes and showed an interest in learning phonics. As an elementary school English teacher in Taiwan, I find that most elementary students fail to apply the phonics rules while pronouncing and memorizing new vocabulary words. The old and inefficient way, learning by rote, is frequently used among students; however, this traditional learning method only works on a temporary basis. Lin’s (2014) collective action research found that the most English learning problems among elementary students were in the areas of pronunciation and spelling, with more pronunciation problems than those of spelling (67% vs. 33%). The study also indicated that pronunciation problems were mostly related to vowels. Helping students build solid pronunciation skills is a priority for all the instructors in EFL elementary classrooms. Instructions using K.K. phonetic symbols dominated the English curricula for high schools before 1988 and were more widely accepted than phonics (Chen, 1998), as it provided students with direct and specific symbols of sound patterns. The K.K. phonetic symbols helped Taiwanese EFL learners to check the correct pronunciation of any and all new English words they encountered (Hsu, 2000). 3 .

(17) Yule (2014) advocated the use of the phonetic alphabet, a separate alphabet with symbols that represent sounds, to solve the problem that the sound of spoken English does not match with the letters of a word written in English. Lin (2012) stated “Learning K.K. phonetic symbols can provide an additional benefit to the users as long as they associate the symbols with the letters. By contrasting or associating symbols with the letters of a word, they will improve their pronunciation and spelling” (p.68). According to my previous teaching experiences with children, teenagers, and adults, it is not difficult to find that EFL learners constantly worry about their grammatical mistakes and mispronunciation. Being unable to respond quickly made them feel anxious when speaking in English. Related studies about learners’ anxiety, especially in a foreign language classroom, were frequently discussed and affirmed. For instance, Young (2010) concluded, “Language anxiety manifests itself in students quite differently depending on ethnic background, prior language experience, learner personality, and classroom circumstances” (p. 434). Additionally, creating a low anxiety classroom atmosphere is a common denominator among current foreign language approaches. A highly anxious learner, who does not believe in their own abilities, may be discouraged from developing foreign language oral communication skills or making an effort in foreign language learning (Price, 1991). Paying more 4 .

(18) attention to students’ pronunciation, providing a friendly, encouraging learning environment, and building students’ confidence in their pronunciation skills are the teachers’ unavoidable responsibilities in an EFL classroom.. Purposes of the Study. Chen (2015) described the English learning phenomenon in Malaysia. Even though Malaysia was colonized by Britain, the English language is now just an academic course at schools due to the country being independent. At present, many Malaysian students cannot read new English words on their own in spite of the fact that phonics instruction had been adopted. As previously mentioned, I have been teaching English at elementary schools for 10 years, and there is no surprise to find many students suffer from the same problem. This situation reveals that phonics is not an efficient method for EFL learners to pronounce words accurately or independently. Not many studies related to instruction with K.K. phonetic symbols have been explored in English speaking countries or in ESL contexts. Instead, studies about the impact of phonetic instruction on EFL students’ learning performance were investigated in Taiwan. However, most study subjects were adults, high school students, and fifth or sixth graders. To examine which teaching method, phonics or K.K. phonetic symbols, best suits the needs of Taiwanese EFL learners, third graders who officially receive English lectures at school were recruited in this study. 5 .

(19) Additionally, the study was designed to find out which teaching method better facilitates the phonological awareness and to compare the effectiveness of the two different methods in teaching word pronunciation, including monosyllabic, polysyllabic, regular, and irregular words.. Research Questions. Based on the purposes of the study, the following questions were proposed: 1. Which teaching method, phonics or K.K. phonetic symbols, will help third graders perform better on their phonological awareness? 2. Which teaching method, phonics or K.K. phonetic symbols, is more effective on the accuracy of word pronunciation for third graders? 3. Which teaching method, phonics or K.K. phonetic symbols, tends to ease third graders’ anxiety of word pronunciation?. Significance of the Study. Phonics has been used in English curricula to teach Taiwanese EFL learners pronunciation at elementary schools for decades. The results of this study might reveal as to whether phonics is sufficient to assist in developing the phonological awareness and achieving word pronunciation. The findings could also indicate if K.K. phonetic symbols were able to help students accomplish greater word pronunciation 6 .

(20) accuracy. With a better understanding of the effectiveness of these two pronunciation teaching methods, the fossilization of mispronunciation and students’ anxiety of word pronunciation can be resolved. It is hoped that the outcome of the study will offer educators and practitioners a more effective method for teaching Taiwanese EFL learners pronunciation. Moreover, the appropriate pronunciation materials and contexts would also be selected for textbook editors and course designers.. 7 .

(21) 8 .

(22) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW To provide a comprehensive view of the relationship between two English pronunciation teaching methods, EFL students’ phonological awareness, their word pronunciation, the importance of phonological awareness, and the significance of pronunciation are first introduced in this section. Two teaching methods, phonics and K.K. phonetic symbols, are further discussed. Lastly, the related studies of the EFL leaners’ pronunciation anxiety are presented.. Importance of Phonological Awareness. Having good phonological awareness skills ensures that children manipulate sounds and words, as it eventually affects their reading ability. From the perspective of linguists, children were anticipated to quickly and accurately recognize vocabulary and to be proficient in a new language (Adams, 1990). There have been many factors that influence children’s language learning; therefore, to effectively assist them in their language acquisition, language development needs to be acknowledged. Liu (2008) briefly summarized the seven stages of the language learning process: (1) listening/speaking vocabulary, (2) phonological awareness, (3) knowledge of lettersound correspondences, (4) word decoding, (5) word recognition, (6) reading 9 .

(23) comprehension, and (7) writing. This revealed that phonological awareness was an important precursor in English education. It fosters children’s abilities not only to hear and blend sounds, but also to encode and decode word, whilst further developing the children’s ability to spell phonetically. Through those skills, children are able to read fluently and become automatic readers, which is the ultimate goal of learning English. Children with a good understanding of phonological awareness understood the underlying framework in place for reading (decoding), and writing (encoding) when letter–sound correspondences (phonics) were learned (Adams, 1990). Phonological awareness is a broad term, referring to an understanding of the sound structure of language, that is, language is made up of words, syllables, rhymes, and sounds (phonemes) (Adams, 1990). Chard and Dickson (1999) also defined phonological awareness as the understanding of different ways that oral language can be divided into smaller components, including sentences, words, syllables, onset-rime and phonemes (Figure 1).. 10 .

(24) sentences. words. syllables. onsetͲrime. phonemes. Figure 1A continuum of phonological units (Chard & Dickson, 1999) Konza (2011) stated, “Phonological awareness refers to the ability to focus on the sounds of speech as opposed to its meaning, and it has a number of different levels or components” (p.2). That means children actually demonstrated an awareness of the phonological element of rhyme when they repeat syllables. It can be concluded that phonological awareness refers to one’s ability to recognize, discriminate, and manipulate, the sounds in a language, regardless of the word unit size. For native English speakers, they do not have to know how to pronounce letters or their corresponding sounds to demonstrate phonological awareness; actually, phonological awareness occurs initially in their oral language. By the end of kindergarten, given suf¿cient instruction, practice, and exposure to many literacy activities, L1 learners should be able to acquire a limited amount of skills of phonological awareness (Adams, 1990): 11 .

(25) 1. Word level: to recognize how many words are in a sentence 2. Syllable level: to segment and blend words of at least three syllables 3. Rhyme level: to understand the concept of rhyming and then recognize and generate rhyming words 4. Sound level: to isolate the beginning or ending sounds of words, segment, and blend them into a word with three sounds, and then to make a new word in familiar games and songs English is still considered as a foreign language in Taiwan. According to the regulations of the Ministry of Education, children are required to start learning English from the age of nine. The acquisition of those phonological awareness skills differs from that of the native English speakers. Furthermore, many children start to obtain phonological awareness as preschoolers since bilingual kindergartens have become the trend. They begin to recognize the alphabet and its corresponding sounds. They also start to develop an awareness of individual sounds, and that enables them to use this in simple words. After entering elementary school, children are expected to read and write words on their own. To accomplish that, children must first listen, segment the sounds in a word, and ¿nally try to match the sounds with known letters. Phonological awareness is not only necessary, but also a critical skill in word recognition, and reading achievement, especially in alphabetic languages (Lin, 2015). 12 .

(26) Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, and Lacroix (1999) examined English-speaking children’s phonological awareness in both English as a first language, and French as a second language. To measure the students’ phonological awareness, the tests of syllabic and phonemic segmentation were implemented in the study. It was found that the phonological awareness in both languages significantly related to the students’ French decoding skill. The findings reinforced the transfer of phonological awareness skills across alphabetic language. Mandarin Chinese, a logographic language, differs from English, an alphabetic language, and these two languages vary in many dimensions of language structures. Phonics, English songs, chants, and rhymes are common ways used in Taiwan to strengthen children’s English phonological awareness. Lee (2010) investigated 60 second graders in one elementary school in Pingtung, and found the application of English songs and rhymes facilitated their phonological awareness. Based on an alphabetic system, children are expected to use letters and sounds as a source of information when they read and spell, as this evidences the importance of phonological awareness in an English education. Children who have difficulty in phonological awareness struggle with their reading fluency and comprehension. They will not be able to use sound knowledge effectively because they will not have the underlying ability to “listen inside a word” 13 .

(27) and “play with the sounds” they hear (Fitzpatrick, 1997). MacDonald and Cornwall (1995) reported the follow-up data from 24 teenagers (mean age = 17; 11 boys and 13 girls) who had participated in a longitudinal study of phonological analysis and reading and spelling abilities 11 years earlier, when they were enrolled in kindergarten. The result of the study indicated phonological awareness was an influential predictor for a later reading acquisition skill, including word recognition, even after this period of time. Kuo and Lin (2010) investigated the influences of Chinese EFL young learners’ decoding skills on their oral reading fluency. The results showed that the participants who performed poorly demonstrated significantly lower rates of oral reading fluency, indicating that their inability to read fluently resulted from their failure to decode. Lee (2006) conducted a research to examine as to whether Taiwanese junior high school students with a non-alphabetic knowledge would initially acquire a proficient level of phonological awareness naturally, and then to explore the role of phonological awareness in EFL reading acquisition and pronunciation accuracy. The results of Lee’s study showed that the students’ phonological awareness and letter-sound knowledge were closely related to their various reading performance and pronunciation accuracy; moreover, phonological awareness was the strongest concurrent predictor of the learners’ reading and 14 .

(28) pronunciation performance. The outcomes echoed that the continuous practice of phonological awareness skills provided children with the foundation they needed for language learning.. Significance of Pronunciation. Pronunciation is a term that is most commonly discussed while mentioning language learning. According to The Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary, pronunciation is defined as “the way in which a word or name is pronounced; a particular person’s way of pronouncing a word or the words of a language.” (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/pronunciation) The Collins English Dictionary defines pronunciation as “a phonetic transcription of a word; the act, instance, or manner of pronouncing sounds; the supposedly correct manner of pronouncing sounds in a given language.” (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pronunciation) Based on the aforementioned definitions, pronunciation undoubtedly means how we articulate words, and this is an important factor of success in learning language. Nonetheless, the definition of pronunciation is further explained in the perspective of language learning. Dalton and Seidlhofer (1994) claimed, “Pronunciation can be defined in general terms as the production of significant sounds in two senses. First, it. 15 .

(29) is used as part of a code of a particular language… We can talk about pronunciation as the production and reception of sounds of speech. Second, sound is significant because it is used to achieve meanings in contexts of use… So, we can talk about pronunciation with reference to acts of speaking.” (p.3). Liu (2009) restated that pronunciation was a means to negotiate in discourse, and correct word pronunciation enabled interlocutors to communicate efficiently. With unclear or inaccurate pronunciation, misunderstanding would undoubtedly occur in conversations. Correct pronunciation allows effective communication and encourages fluency and confidence (Wells, 2005). Simply stated, this reinforces the importance of word pronunciation. Pronunciation includes two aspects, segmentals, which focus on the particular sounds, and suprasegmentals, which contain extensive features beyond the level of individual sounds, such as stress and intonation (Goodwin, 2001). The precise articulation of sounds and words achieves the segmentals of pronunciation. Misunderstanding of communication might result from the failure of the learners’ correct pronunciation. Japanese people have difficulty in pronouncing the sounds ‘/l/’ and ‘/r/’ due to their mother tongue; consequently, they struggle to discriminate words like ‘lice’ and ‘rice’ (Nunan, 2000). The sentence “I need some rice” pronounced by a Japanese person might be misinterpreted by a native English speaker thereby leading 16 .

(30) to a break-down of communication. Features of suprasegmentals provide much more information of intelligibility for English native listeners (Jenkins, 1998). Incorrect rhyme patterns or inappropriate intonation contours cause frustration for native-speakers; furthermore, those who produce non-nativelike stress and rhyme patterns may not be fully understood (CelceMurcia, Brinton & Goodwin, 2010). A study of oral proficiency conducted by Kang, Rubin, and Pickering, in 2010, echoed the importance of the suprasegmentals. In the study, 26 speech samples of iBT TOEFL were adopted and introduced to 28 examinees. A total of 188 undergraduate native speakers judged the oral performances of the examinees. The results disclosed that the learners’ oral proficiency and comprehensibility could be impacted merely by the suprasegmental features. Wei (2006) pointed out that pronunciation is an integrated and integral part of language learning. It consists of elements much wider than the sounds of consonants and vowels, and includes the elements of rhythm and intonation, which support the communicative process. In this way, pronunciation is a necessary skill to gain for communicative competence. Since the 1990s, pronunciation has been emphasized in the field of English learning and teaching (Smit & Dalton, 2000). In addition, there was a shift from focusing primarily on segmentals to a greater emphasis on suprasegmentals in many pedagogical materials during the last two decades (Foote, 17 .

(31) Holtby & Derwing, 2011). Separate pronunciation classes were therefore recommended by the contemporary researchers to highlight the significance of pronunciation. Fraser (1999) pointed out that most ESL and EFL teachers have started to recognize that explicit pronunciation instruction is an essential part of language courses. Learners’ confidence with pronunciation allows them to interact with native speakers. Contrarily, their good language skills, deserved social, academic, and work advancement might well be underestimated due to poor pronunciation.. Pronunciation Teaching in History. Historically, various approaches were applied while teaching pronunciation; however, this experienced a downfall and a revival. Murphy and Baker (2015) presented that prior to the second half of the 19th century, pronunciation received little attention. Beginning in the 1850s, and continuing for the next 30 years, early innovators rejected and transitioned away from the classical pronunciation teaching approaches. This change resulted in the formation in Paris, 1886-1889, during the period of the International Phonetic Association. The attention to innovations on how to teach pronunciation was then drawn upon during the 1950s-1970s. From the mid1980s to the present, communicative styles of teaching pronunciation have been consolidated. 18 .

(32) The reform movement, influenced greatly by the phoneticians in the 1890s, was the start of advocating pronunciation education. The spoken form of a language and phonetic training were the emphasis of language courses. Continually, pronunciation played an important role in the Audiolingual and Oral Approach classrooms during the 1940s and 1950s. Mastering in pronunciation of the target language was the goal set for learners in order to achieve native-like oral production. With the rise of the Cognitive Approach in the 1960s, pronunciation was deemphasized. Instead, grammar and vocabulary were strongly promoted and became the main focus of the language programs. Pronunciation instruction received less attention, and the difficulties of acquiring native-like pronunciation were acknowledged. In the 1970s, some teaching methods, such as the Silent Way and the Community Language Learning, dealt with pronunciation differently. Teaching methods used during this period of time were to achieve the intelligible communication (CelceMurcia et al., 2010). Research revealed the equivalent importance of the sounds and structures of the target language. Non-native speakers’ competence of grammar and lexis was also determined by their basic level. Pronunciation instruction then regained its position in the language-teaching profession.. 19 .

(33) Pronunciation Education in Taiwan. The English language has been incorporated into compulsory education in Taiwan since 1945 (Huang, 2016). K.K. phonetic symbols were adopted for English instruction in junior high schools during the 1960s, and to help learners pronounce new words, they were also used in textbooks and English-Chinese dictionaries to represent English sounds. Based on Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines, English instruction for Grade 6 was officially implemented in 2000, and extended to Grade 3 in 2005, to establish the foundation for their English communication abilities. The K.K. phonetic symbols system has been adopted for junior high school English pronunciation instruction in Taiwan since 1968 (Xiao, 2012). Each week students have six English classes, and each class lasts for 45 minutes, and the K.K. phonetic instruction only takes up some of the class time. Materials such as menus, timetables, maps, and magazines are frequently used in classes to combine students’ English skills with their daily life. Being able to read and use at least 1,200 vocabulary words before entering senior high school is one of the goals set for junior high school students. The corresponding relationship between the alphabet and K.K. phonetic symbols, the syllable and stress of a word, and the intonation of a sentence are the three main domains of pronunciation instruction. The contents include: (1) the short vowels, long vowels, diphthongs, and all consonants for Grade seven, (2) the 20 .

(34) review of the short vowels, long vowels and consonants; the syllable and stress of a word; and the intonation of a sentence for Grade eight, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 The Content of Pronunciation Instruction in Junior High School Grade Content 1.The short vowels: [‫[ ]ܼ[ ]ܭ‬æ] [ԥ] [‫]ܧ[ ]ݜ[ ]ܤ[ ]ܬ[ ]ݞ‬ 2.The long vowels: [e] [i] [o] [u] [‫]ܯ‬ Seven 3.The diphthongs: [a‫[ ]ݜ‬aܼ] [‫]ܼܧ‬ 4.The all consonants: [p] [b] [t] [d] [k] [g] [f] [v][ș] [ð] [s] [z] [‫[ ]ݤ[ ]ݕ‬h] [t‫[ ]ݶ[ ]ݕ‬m] [n] [ƾ] [r] [l] [j] [w] Eight. 1. The review of the short vowels, long vowels and consonants 2. The syllable and stress of a word 3. The intonation of a sentence. Phonics, a teaching method for developing learners’ phonological awareness, is commonly used in English pronunciation classes at elementary schools, and with the exception of first and second graders, they have two 40-minute English classes per week. The application of flash cards, pictures, audio-visual aids, and physical motion are encouraged. Students are expected to use all the skills they acquire to read at least 300 words and practice them on a daily basis. The contents of textbooks are slightly different among publishers, but the same editing principles are followed: (1) 26 letter sounds and the short vowels for third grade, (2) the consonants for fourth grade, (3) the letter-sound patterns and the consonants clusters for fifth grade, (4) the long vowels, other vowels, and the diphthongs for sixth grade, as shown in Table 2.. 21 .

(35) Table 2 The Content of Pronunciation Instruction in Elementary School Grade. Content. Three. 1. 26 letter sounds 2. The short vowels: a--[ӽ], e--[Č], i--[ӿ], o--[ԁ] and u--[ԃ]. Four. The consonants: t, d, m, n, c, g, p, d, s, z, f, v, l, r, th--[ș] [ð], wh--[hw], w, sh, ch 1. The letter-sound patterns: a-e vs. a; e-e vs. e; i-e vs. i;. Five. Six. o-e vs. o; u-e vs. u 2. The consonants clusters: sm, sp, j, ch, gl, gr, pr, br, bl, pl 1. The long vowels: a-e, ai, ay--[e]; ee, ea--[i]; o-e, oa, ow--[o]; ue, oo--[u]; ir, ur--[‫]ܯ‬ 2. Other vowels: er, or--[‫]ܬ‬ 3. The diphthongs: i-e, ie, y--[aܼ]; oy, oi--[‫]ܼܧ‬, ow, ou--[a‫]ݜ‬. Phonics and Phonics Instruction. In the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Richards and Schmidt (2010) defined phonics as: A method of teaching children to read. It is commonly used in teaching reading in the mother tongue. Children are taught to recognize the relationship between letters and sounds. They are taught the sounds which the letters of the alphabet represent, and phonetic notation then try to build up the sound of a new or unfamiliar word by saying it one sound at a time (pp. 434-435). In other words, phonics demonstrates the relationship between letters and their corresponding sounds. Studies have shown that phonics is a part of learning how to. 22 .

(36) read for L1 learners, and its importance has also been noted at the beginning of the reading programs. There are 44 English phonemes in Phonics: 25 consonant and 19 vowel phonemes (see Appendix A). Of the 26 letters in the English alphabet, 21 are, by and large, considered as consonants, including b, c, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, p, q, r, s, t, v, w, x, y, and z (Chu, 2006). Different combinations of consonants represent various ways of pronunciation. For example, a consonant cluster means a group of consonants have no intervening vowel, and each remains its own sound, such as /gr/ and /sp/ in the word grasp. A diagraph in the orthography refers to a pair of consonants used together to stand for a single sound, such as “sh” in English and “ch” in church. The reliabilities and regularities of consonant phonemes are helpful for learners in pronouncing consonants (Groff, 1977; Henderson, 1967; Mazurkiewicz, 1976). Vowels are generally classified into three categories: (1) Short-vowel sounds include [æ], [‫]ܭ‬, [ܼ], [‫]ܤ‬, and [‫]ݞ‬. The single letters a, e, i, o, and u are usually used to represent short-vowel sounds. (2) Long- vowel sounds include [e], [i], [aܼ], [o], and [ju]. Vowel digraphs such as ai, ay, ea, ee, ie, igh, oa, and ow are often adopted to perform long-vowel sounds. (3) Other vowel sounds include diphthongs, variant vowels, schwa, and r-controlled vowels. They are represented by oi, oy, ou, ow, al, au, aw, oo, ir, ur, er, and ar (also see Appendix A). 23 .

(37) Phonics instruction is designed for beginners in primary schools and for children with difficulties when learning to read. It was originally employed to teach native English speakers to read and write. The U.S. National Reading Panel (2000) pointed out that systematic phonics instruction is an essential way of teaching reading that stresses the acquisition of letter-sound correspondences, and their usage to read and spell words. The result of the quantitative meta-analysis conducted by Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, and Willows (2001) proved that the effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction, and the implementation of phonics instruction in literacy programs for beginners was strongly recommended. Y. C. Lin (2003) concluded that by applying phonics generalizations helped readers to seek the regularity of the alphabet code, and equipped them with the independent ability to decode new words. In Taiwan, phonics is regarded as a method to teach pronunciation for elementary school students. It is applied to help students describe pronunciation of an English word through a set of letter-sound correspondence and correctly spell an English word. Lai (2003) examined the effects of phonics instruction with phonemic awareness activities on the spelling skills of eighth graders. The result showed that phonics instruction was useful for spelling skills, especially for underachievers. Hsu (2010) explored the EFL remedial program delivered via Web-Based phonics instruction on four sixth graders whose English were below the acceptable level. The 24 .

(38) research evidenced that the phonics instruction program offered support for instructors and helped underachieving students improve their English ability. Phonics instruction has had a positive effect to a certain degree on the development of EFL learners’ English ability, although it plays a different role from its initial function for L1 learners. An influential investigation conducted by Clymer, listed 121 phonics generalizations, and 45 such generalizations were commonly used by elementary teachers to teach L1 students to read, and found that only 18 were accurate for more than 75% of the time. The utility of Clymer’s 45 phonics generalizations is displayed in Appendix B. However, the generalizations used in textbooks in Taiwan are simplified, and fewer phonics generalizations are introduced. In this way, it is no surprise to spot the incontinuity and insufficiency of phonics generalizations taught in Taiwan. Moreover, the Taiwanese EFL students cannot acquire word meaning as the L1 learners do in the letter-sounds-meaning process due to the lack of their oral vocabulary (Hung, 1998; Hsu, 2000; Chu, 2002). Tsao (2005) summarized the pros and cons of phonics instruction in Taiwan. Scholars and experts who support phonics instruction think of it as an important intuition one must obtain in order to sound like a native English speaker. They also emphasized the necessity of phonics instruction if one expects to understand the 25 .

(39) spelling rules thoroughly. In addition, phonics generalizations and syllabication share a close relationship. Students’ familiarity with phonics generalizations determine their ability of syllabication. On the other hand, the advantages of adopting phonics instruction are still being argued because it was primarily arranged to teach reading and writing for L1 learners and was not intentionally designed to be a pronunciation teaching method for EFL students. In addition, many English words, especially sight words, are excluded from phonics generalizations; moreover, though phonics aims to discuss the relationship between letters and sounds, it is not a substitution of pronunciation instruction. From an English teacher’s perspective, the practice of phonics instruction does need to be re-evaluated. Therefore, Tsao suggested that beside phonics, K. K. phonetic symbols were necessary for teaching pronunciation.. K.K. Phonetic Symbols and K.K. Phonetic Instruction. Barret and Fleming (as cited in Bristow, Cowley, & Daines, 1999) stated, “Many children have difficulties with learning the names of letters, letter sounds, and linking the sound to the visual representation (the symbol)” (p. 71). Taiwanese EFL learners do encounter the same problems. To avoid inconsistency of English spelling, learning phonetic symbols is essential for EFL students to understand the relationship between the sound features and the spelling of words (Lee, 2009). The more familiar they are 26 .

(40) with phonetic symbols, the more independent they become. The International Phonetic Association (IPA), formed by a group of French and British language teachers, developed the International Phonetic Alphabet to represent the sounds of oral language. It was the first time a written symbol and the sound it represented had a consistent one-to-one relationship. Students were able to capture the sounds of any language visually and accurately (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). A Pronunciation Dictionary of American English, written by J. S. Kenyon and T. A. Knott and first published in 1944, used symbols to provide a phonemic transcription of the American English pronunciation of words. K.K phonetic symbols consist of 17 vowels and 24 consonants, as shown in Table 3. In Taiwan, K. K. phonetic symbols have been applied island-wide for teaching pronunciation in junior and senior high schools for decades. Table 3 K.K. Phonetic Symbols Vowels. [‫[ ]ܼ[ ]ܭ‬æ] [ԥ] [‫[ ]ܧ[ ]ݜ[ ]ܤ[ ]ܬ[ ]ݞ‬e] [i] [o] [u] [‫[ ]ܯ‬a‫[ ]ݜ‬aܼ] [‫]ܼܧ‬ [p] [b] [t] [d] [k] [g] [f] [v][ș] [ð] [s] [z] [‫[ ]ݤ[ ]ݕ‬h] [t‫]ݶ[ ]ݕ‬. Consonants. [m] [n] [ƾ] [r] [l] [j] [w]. Phonetic symbols are “special symbols which express the sounds of an actual spoken utterance in writing. A transcription of such utterance in phonetic symbols is said to be in phonetic notation or script.” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p.434) As long 27 .

(41) as students recognize the symbols, they are capable of pronouncing words (Liu, 2009). K.K. phonetic symbols function the same way, as the one-to-one symbol-sound relationship enables students to comprehend the element of pronunciation. Mompean (2005) claimed that students would definitely benefit from learning phonetic symbols to improve their pronunciation skills. Yeh (2005) evidenced that the instruction of K.K. phonetic symbols brought positive effects on students’ English performance and learning motivation. In 2006, Fang echoed these effects with stories and picture cards, thereby making significant progress on their symbol recognition, phonemic awareness, and word recognition. Different from phonics instruction, learning K.K. phonetic symbols only takes students a reasonable amount of time. Once the K.K. phonetic symbols become familiar, they are able to look them up in the dictionary when they encounter new words. Students can also make use of the symbols to transcribe words, which may help them practice those unfamiliar to them (Lee, 2015). Despite the fact that learning K.K. phonetic symbols favors EFL students’ word pronunciation, some disadvantages have been pointed out. Deng (2013) concluded three drawbacks: First, the instruction inclines towards boredom, and memorizing the symbols that represent certain sounds is also a burden. Second, EFL students, especially beginners, easily mix up K.K. phonetic symbols 28 .

(42) with the alphabet. For instance, students become confused by the K.K. phonetic symbol [e] and lowercase letter e because of the same written form. Third, although the symbols help students correctly pronounce words, they do not guarantee the oral fluency.. Phonics Instruction vs. K.K. Phonetic Instruction. Both phonics and K.K. phonetic instructions aim to assist students in learning English, and both help to acknowledge the relationship between letters and sounds. However, the ultimate goals of these two instructions are different. Phonics is used to help L1 students spell and read, and it does not have a direct impact on their pronunciation (Chang, 2009). However, the system of K.K. phonetic symbols was designed to provide students with a specific indication of word pronunciation (Yin, Sun & Hsieh, 2001). A brief comparison of phonics and K.K. phonetic instructions is as shown in Table 4.. 29 .

(43) Table 4 Comparison of Phonics and K.K. Phonetic Instruction. Goal. Phonics Instruction. K.K. Phonetic Instruction. To assist L1 leaners in. To help EFL learners achieve. acquiring spelling and. accuracy of pronunciation. reading skills. Features. 1. Students can pronounce. 1. Students can pronounce. words accurately on the. words accurately on the. condition that they are. condition that they are able. able to memorize all. to differentiate phonetic. phonics rules.. symbols and alphabet.. 2. Students may not. 2. Students can pronounce. pronounce words. words accurately due to the. accurately due to. specific one-to-one letter-. exceptions of phonics. sound relationship.. rules.. Pronunciation Anxiety. In the mid-20th century, interest in anxiety as a significant determinant of language learning grew exponentially, and researchers began to realize that the affective factors, personality, and motivation were as vital in learning as cognitive capacities (Shams, 2006). Numerous studies have proven language anxiety was able to cause a negative influence on both foreign language learning and performance (Horwitz, 2010). Language learning is a complicated process, and various sources cause anxiety, as objective data showed that the feeling of apprehension experienced 30 .

(44) by students was directly related to their pronunciation level and perceived pronunciation skills (Baran-àucarz, 2013). Suppose one fails to understand other people, or is not understood by others in a foreign language classroom, one’s discomfort and frustration can be imagined. Kao (2016) demonstrated that pronunciation was the most difficult language skill for Taiwan’s military school trainees to handle due to its immediate effect on the interaction of a dialogue. Hamouda (2013) investigated the causes of Saudi students' reluctance to participate in the English Language classroom. The results showed that 71.7% of Saudi learners worried about their pronunciation when they spoke English, and 55.97% expressed embarrassment if they mispronounced. The findings indicated that pronunciation appeared to cause EFL learners’ stress. Tanveer (2008) also found pronunciation anxiety was at a higher level among Chinese EFL learners. One Chinese female EFL practitioner feared mispronunciation resulted in the breakdown of a conversation with a native English speaker. Learners’ beliefs about language learning are a major contributor to language anxiety (Young, 1990). To cope with these anxiety factors, teachers need to promote more positive speaking experiences which may make the students feel relaxed, motivated, and confident (Awan, Azher, Anwar, & Naz, 2010). Recognizing students’ manifestations of anxieties enables teachers to efficiently manage their lessons. 31 .

(45) Shams (2006) reported that the decrease in language anxiety of 65 participants resulted not only from the improvement of pronunciation, but also from their selfassessment, and the belief in their pronunciation skills being at a higher level after intensive pronunciation practice. Szyszka (2012) investigated the relationship between foreign language anxiety and the self-perceived levels of pronunciation of 48 teacher training college students, who studied English as a foreign language. The findings indicated there was a need to develop pronunciation self-evaluation abilities among the teacher trainees for pedagogical purposes, so that they would be able to use these abilities later. Language anxiety is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon. Teachers are duty-bound to decrease learners’ anxiety in the classroom. Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope (1986) pointed out that teachers had two options when dealing with anxious students: “(1) They can help them learn to cope with the existing anxiety-provoking situation, or (2) they can make the learning context less stressful” (p.131). It is important to develop students’ understanding of the fact that pronunciation errors are inevitable in the process of foreign language learning and that they are common amongst all students. To decrease this anxiety, it is worthwhile to raise their pronunciation selfassessment by introducing regular well-planned pronunciation practice; hence, their actual pronunciation level would therefore be improved (Baran-àucarz, 2013). 32 .

(46) Pronunciation plays a fundamental role as an entry point for successful communication among all language skills. The goal of language learning is no longer focused on “usage” but rather “use”, owing to the concept of communicative competence (Brown, 2007; Chen, 2006; Goodwin, 2001). However, pronunciation is one of the most difficult areas for learners, as well as for teachers. Though learners are very unlikely to attain a native-like accent, their intelligibility can be greatly improved by effective pronunciation instruction (Fraser, 1999). In point of fact, to explore an effective pronunciation teaching and learning method that helps Taiwanese EFL students now becomes an important issue.. 33 .

(47) 34 .

(48) CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This study aimed to examine which teaching method, phonics or K.K. phonetic symbols, was more effective for Taiwanese EFL third graders on their phonological awareness and the accuracy of word pronunciation. In addition, the participants’ anxiety towards these two different teaching methods was also investigated. In this chapter, participants, instruments, and the research design and procedure are presented in detail.. Participants. A total number of 206 third graders (112 boys and 94 girls) who were nine or ten years old participated in this study. The participants were from eight different classes with the same English teacher at a Kaohsiung municipal elementary school in the Renwu district. According to the regulations of the Education Bureau, Kaohsiung City Government, students are required to receive formal English education from Grade three. Thus, English is a brand new required course for the participants, as neither K.K. phonetic symbols nor phonics had been introduced to them. Four classes of Grade three (N= 103, 53 boys and 50 girls) were further randomly assigned into the experimental group, which received their instruction of 35 .

(49) K.K. phonetic symbols twice a week for 20 weeks; while the rest of the four classes were placed into the control group (N= 103, 59 boys and 44 girls) and received the intensive phonics instruction over the same period.. Instruments. The Teaching Materials. Story.com 1, published by Hess, was the textbook used, and each participant received a copy. The teaching materials for the experimental and control groups were similar. The only difference being the K.K. phonetic symbols were provided to the experimental group, while phonics was introduced to the control group. Due to the English curriculum plan for the third graders at Renwu Elementary School, the participants were, at most, expected to learn the letter names, letter sounds, and letter-sound correspondence for the first semester. Lin (2003) proposed that the sequence of teaching phonics should be as follows: letter sounds, short vowels sounds, consonant sounds, consonant digraphs, consonant clusters, long vowel sounds, vowel digraphs, and r-controlled vowels. The sequence was adopted to teach phonics and K.K. phonetic symbols to both groups in this study. The Phonological Awareness Test. The test of the Renwu District English Experimental Project was employed to examine the 206 third graders’ English proficiency level (see Appendices C & D). The test was designed by the Global Education Association in Taiwan (GEAT), and its instructions and criteria were 36 .

(50) followed to test and grade the students. English alphabet and phonics recognition were the main focuses of the test, and four parts were covered: Uppercase and lowercase letters. There were five items in this section. Each item provided only an uppercase or a lowercase letter. Students were required to write its corresponding uppercase or lowercase letter. Uppercase and lowercase letters in words. There were also five items in this section. Different from Section 1, a complete word in either uppercase or lowercase letters and parts of the correct answer were presented for each item. Students were expected to submit one uppercase or lowercase letter to complete the answer. Letter words and letter sounds. This section was composed of 10 multiplechoice questions with four choices for each item. The teacher read an English letter twice, and students circled the correct answer. Phonics. Ten items were covered in this section. Each item contained an English word with a missing letter. The teacher read each word twice, and students were expected to recognize the missing sound in the word and write down its corresponding letter. The Word Pronunciation Test. A total of 20 vocabulary words from five units of the textbook, Story.com 1, was selected for the pretest and posttest (see Appendices E & F). The pretest aimed to examine the participants’ initial proficiency, so the same 20 37 .

(51) words listed in the orthography were distributed to the students of both groups. The results of the posttest was to explore the effect of the two different teaching methods; thus, the words for the experimental group were provided with K.K. phonetic symbols, whereas the same ones were still in the orthography for the control group. Students were requested to read each word aloud and had to finish the test in five minutes. Students were encouraged to try to read every word aloud, and it was accepted that they skipped words they were not able to read. Table 5 shows the outlines of the two tests. Table 5 The Test Outlines Test. Test Type. Number of Item. Time. The Phonological Awareness Test. written test. 30. 15 minutes. The Word Pronunciation Test.. oral test. 20. 5 minutes. The Questionnaire. Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) was adopted, modified, and translated into Mandarin Chinese to make it comprehensible for third graders. The questionnaire (see Appendix G) contains two parts: the student’s personal information and present learning experience. The participants’ previous experiences were covered in the first part. The participants’ attitude towards the 20-week English pronunciation classes was investigated in the second part, and 22 items were listed to elicit the participants’ pronunciation anxiety specific to an EFL classroom setting. Each item was evaluated 38 .

(52) by a Likert scale with five responses: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. Table 6 displays the reliability of the English pronunciation anxiety questionnaire. Table 6 Reliability of the English Pronunciation Anxiety Questionnaire questionnaire. N of participants. N of items. Cronbach Į. 81. 22. .925. Research Design and Procedure. At the beginning of the new semester, all the third graders were re-allocated to new classes, meaning that the study population was randomly assigned. Ranjit Kumar (2014) stated, “Random assignment in experiments means that any individual or unit of a study population group has an equal and independent chance of becoming part of an experimental or control group.” (p. 142) A true experiment, as shown in Figure 2, was conducted to investigate the influences of two teaching methods, phonics and K.K. phonetic symbols, on Taiwanese EFL third graders’ phonological awareness, their accuracy of word pronunciation, and learning anxiety. LoBiondo-Wood, Haber, Cameron, and Singh (2013) claimed that the properties of a true experiment, randomization, control, and manipulation, provided the strength of the design for testing cause-and-effect relationships; moreover, a true experiment is of the best research design. 39 .

(53) Experimental. Pretest. Experimental Treatment. Group. Posttest. Random Assignment Control. Pretest. Posttest. Group. Figure 2 The design of a true experiment Eight classes of grade three students were arranged to participate in this study. In order to allow the teacher and students to become conversant, the students were given a pretest during the first week of the semester to find out their English foundations. The pretest of phonological awareness was taken by both the experimental and control groups during the first period. The phonological awareness was in written form; therefore, it was carried out by the class. The oral production test was conducted one on one in the following class. Each student was asked to read the listed 20 words to the teacher, who noted the correct words each student achieved. The content of the letter-sound correspondence was instructed in two different ways, phonics and K.K. phonetic symbols, for all 20 weeks. The students in Classes 1-4 were placed in the experimental group which received K.K. phonetic instruction, whereas Classes 5-8 were assigned in the control group which received intensive phonics instructions. To coordinate with the class schedules, the pronunciation teaching was merely 40 .

(54) implemented in the English classes, whereas I, as their teacher, carried out the English pronunciation classes for both groups. According to a survey conducted by Foote, Holtby, and Derwing in 2011, the result suggested that larger ESL and EFL programs offer stand-alone pronunciation courses. Taking into consideration the English curriculums of the school, and the students’ prior knowledge of English pronunciation, I spent the first 20 minutes of each class teaching pronunciation. A four-step lesson plan that contained warm up, presentation, practice, and wrap up, was implemented in the lessons for both groups. All the lessons began with a brief review in accordance with what the students had learned in the previous period. Then, the target sounds or the K.K. phonetic symbols for the day were explicitly introduced. To assist familiarity with the phonics rules and K.K. phonetic symbols, I designed different activities to reinforce the pronunciation instructions. Lastly, the target sounds were reviewed by the end of the pronunciation section. All the practices were completed in class, and no homework assignments or quizzes were given after class. The phonological awareness test and the word pronunciation test were performed again the week following the experiment. The questions of posttest were slightly changed from the pretest. In addition, a questionnaire was distributed to each student after the posttest. Due to the age of the participants, all the items in the questionnaire were explained in a simpler way to ensure the questions were 41 .

(55) comprehensible. The results of the study aimed to reveal the effects of two teaching methods that would help third graders with their pronunciation learning. Table 7 and Figure 3 show the design of the experiment. Table 7 The Pretest-Posttest Two-Group True-Experimental Design of the Study Group. Pretest. Treatment. Posttest. EXP. P1. K.K.. P2. CON. P1. PX. P2. Note. EXP = the experimental group; CON = the control group; K.K. = K.K. phonetic instruction; PX = phonics instruction; P1 = pretest; P2 = posttest. Classes 5-8 (control group). Classes 1-4 (experimental group). pretests. phonics. K. K. phonetic symbols. posttests & the questionnaire Figure 3 The design of this study 42 .

(56) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this chapter, the results of the data collected from the participants’ phonological awareness tests, word pronunciation tests, and the English pronunciation learning anxiety questionnaires were analyzed and presented. This study employed a quantitative approach. The participants’ previous English learning experience was analyzed by frequency and percentage. Next, descriptive statistics, paired-sample ttest, and one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were administrated to find out the effectiveness of phonics and K.K. phonetic symbols on third graders’ phonological awareness and word pronunciation. One-way MANOVA was conducted again to analyze the questionnaires used to examine the participants’ anxiety of word pronunciation, and the frequency and percentage of each item in the English pronunciation anxiety scale was presented to discuss the differences between the experimental and control groups. Participants’ Previous English Learning Experience In Taiwan, English is a compulsory course that begins with third grade, which means it is a brand new subject for the participants. However, some students have attended bilingual kindergartens and English cram schools beforehand. Figures 4 and 5 show the percentage and details of these experiences. Approximately one-third of 43 .

(57) the participants (N = 67) had never received any English instruction before the experiment, and two-thirds of the participants (N = 139) had previously studied English.. N = 206 Figure 4 The percentage of the participants’ previous English learning experience. Figure 5 A detailed description of the participants’ previous English learning experience 44 .

(58) The Homogeneity of the Experimental and Control Groups To investigate the effectiveness of the two pronunciation teaching methods, K.K. phonetic symbols and phonics, on Taiwanese EFL third graders, the participants were divided into two groups, the experimental and control groups. The students in the experimental group received instruction of K.K. phonetic symbols, while phonics was introduced to the students in the control group. The paired-samples t-test was firstly applied to examine the homogeneity of the two groups for the purpose of ensuring there were no significant differences in their initial English abilities. As mentioned in Chapter Three, four parts were covered in the phonological awareness test to examine their alphabet and phonics recognition. Based on the test types and its purposes, the scores of both pretest and posttest were divided into three subcategories: Listening, Alphabet Recognition, and Phonological awareness. Additionally, the scores of word pronunciation pretest and posttest are entitled, Speaking, throughout this chapter. The paired-samples t-test results of the pretests shown in Table 8 indicated there was no significant difference between the two groups in the sections of Listening (t = 1.016, p >.05), Alphabet Recognition (t = 1.317, p >.05), and Speaking (t = 0.911, p >.05). Both the experimental and control groups were found to be homogenous, and this suggested that the participants began with the same baseline before the intervention of the two different pronunciation teaching methods. 45 .

(59) Table 8 Paired-Samples t-Test Results for the Pretests of the Two Groups Group. t-value. p. 1.016. .312. 1.317. .191. .911. .364. CON (N = 103). Listening Pretest. EXP (N = 103). Alphabet Recognition Pretest. CON (N = 103) EXP (N = 103). Speaking Pretest. CON (N = 103) EXP (N = 103). *p < .05 Note. N = the number of participants; CON = the control group; EXP = the experimental group. Results of Descriptive Statistical Analysis To quickly compare the influences of the two pronunciation teaching methods, the scores of all the pretests and posttests were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis. The outcomes of the pretests in Table 9 shows that the mean scores of Listening (M = 13.02), Alphabet Recognition (M = 7.26), Phonological Awareness (M = 20.27), and Speaking (M = 4.05) for the control group were higher than those for the experimental group (Means of 12.42, 6.72, 19.13 and 3.49). The results displayed no notable difference between the two groups at the initial stage. The students in the 46 .

(60) control group performed just slightly better than the ones in the experimental group before receiving the different pronunciation teaching methods. Table 9 Results of Descriptive Statistics for the Pretests of the Two Groups !. Group. N. Min. Max. Mean. 103. 4. 20. 13.02. 103. 0. 10. 7.26. PA. 103. 5. 30. 20.27. Speaking. 103. 0. 17. 4.05. Listening!. 103. 4. 20. 12.42. 103. 0. 10. 6.72. 103. 6. 30. 19.13. Listening! Alphabet CON. Recognition!. Alphabet EXP. Recognition! PA. Speaking 103 0 19 3.49 Note. N = the number of participants; Min = the minimum score; Max = the maximum score; CON = the control group; EXP = the experimental group; PA = phonological awareness Table 10 presents the results of the posttests that the participants received after the 20-week practice of phonics and K.K phonetic symbols. The mean posttest scores of the control group on Listening, Alphabet Recognition, Phonological Awareness, and Speaking were 15.37, 8.67, 24.04, and 9.15, respectively. In contrast, the mean posttest scores of the experimental group on Listening, Alphabet Recognition, Phonological Awareness, and Speaking were 15.76, 9.03, 24.79, and 10.70, respectively. Obviously, the outcome of the posttest on each section for the 47 .

(61) experimental group were higher than the control group, indicating that the experimental group outperformed the control group after the semester’s instruction. Table 10 Results of Descriptive Statistics for the Posttests of the Two Groups !. Group. N. Min. Max. Mean. 103. 6. 20. 15.37. 103. 0. 10. 8.67. PA. 103. 6. 30. 24.04. Speaking. 103. 0. 20. 9.15. Listening!. 103. 2. 20. 15.76. 103. 2. 10. 9.03. 103. 10. 30. 24.79. Listening! Alphabet CON. Recognition!. Alphabet EXP. Recognition! PA. Speaking 103 0 20 10.70 Note. N = the number of participants; Min = the minimum score; Max = the maximum score; CON = the control group; EXP = the experimental group; PA = phonological awareness The increase of the participants’ scores in the pretests and posttests for the experimental and control groups implied that the instruction of both K.K. phonetic symbols and phonics had a positive effect on promoting student phonological awareness and achieving the accuracy of word pronunciation. Results of Paired-Samples t-Test To further explore the effectiveness of the instruction of phonics and K.K. phonetic symbols, the outcomes of the participants’ performance in the experimental 48 .

(62) and control groups on the pretests and posttests were computed by paired-samples ttest and the results of within-group comparison, are as shown in Tables 11 and 12. In Table 11, the mean scores of the posttests for the experimental group were higher than those of the pretests, confirming that the participants made abundant progress after receiving the instruction of K.K. phonetic symbols. The paired-samples t-test results revealed that the participants’ scores of the pretests and posttests on Listening (t = -10.363, p <.05), Alphabet Recognition (t = -8.718, p <.05) and Speaking (t = -20.372, p <.05) were significantly different, respectively, especially on Speaking, being the test of word pronunciation. The results evidenced that the instruction of K.K phonetic symbols assisted the participants in their phonological awareness and the accuracy of word pronunciation. That is to say, K.K. phonetic symbols facilitated their phonological awareness and significantly influenced their word pronunciation in this study.. 49 .