The use of pronunciation learning strategies in form-focused and meaning-focused activities as a function of contextual and individual variables

Situating strategy use: The interplay of language learning strategy use and individual learner characteristicsAlpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt

October 17-18, 2015

Mirosław PawlakAnna Mystkowska-WiertelakAdam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz

State University of Applied Sciences, Konin

Presentation outline

language learning strategies and learning pronunciation

previous research into pronunciation learning strategies

issues in classification and measurement of PLS

proposed classification of PLS

aims and research questions

design of the study

findings of the study

conclusions and implications

Strategies and learning pronunciation

importance of learner autonomy in teaching pronunciation (cf. Pawlak 2006a, 2006b)

the use of PLS as a key to autonomy in this areaPLS can be defined as deliberate thoughts and actions,

typically used in a logical sequence, that are consciously employed for learning and getting better control over various aspects of pronunciation

it can be assumed that some learning strategies are more appropriate for learning pronunciation than others

the role of metacognitive, social and affective strategiesthe role of cognitive, memory and compensation strategies

Previous research into PLS

there is still a paucity of research specifically targeting PLS (Peterson 2000; Pawlak 2009; Berkil 2009)

the studies conducted so far have mainly focused on the identification and description of PLS

little attention has been given to variables affecting PLS choice and use, its relationship to TL proficiency and the effects of strategies-based instruction in this area

few specific taxonomies of PLS have been proposeddifferent data collection tools used in different studies little research on the use of PLS in specific tasks

Previous research into PLS

various PLS reported in the findings of good language learner studies (e.g. Rubin 1975; Naiman et al. 1978) – no classification, focus on observational data

Petersen (2000) collected diary and interview data, and classified PLS according to Oxford's (1990) taxonomy

Vitanova and Miller (2002) showed a positive role of metacognitive PLS training using reflection prompts

Osborne (2003) used monitored interviews and think-aloud protocols to explore the application of PLS by advanced learners and classified them into six broad categories (e.g. focusing on memory and imitation).

Previous research into PLS

Eckstein (2007) established a connection between the use of some PLS and spontaneous pronunciation performance – a questionnaire relating to the stages of input, practice, feedback/noticing, hypothesis formation and testing

Varasarin (2007) demonstrated that PLS training leads to increased confidence and intelligibility – Oxford's (1990) classification used as a point of reference

a positive relationship between the employment of PLS and attainment demonstrated by Berkil (2009)

the importance of metacognitive PLS that have to be used alongside cognitive PLS stressed by Saniei (2012)

Previous research into PLS

Droździał-Szelest (1997) employed open-ended items and identified 6 cognitive and 4 metacognitive PLS

Bukowski (2004) showed positive effects of trainingPawlak (2006b) found predominance of traditional PLS

in response to checklists included in the ELP 16+ Wrembel (2008) investigated learners' opinions about

PLS by means of a strategic pronunciation survey Pawlak (2009) found that students' use of PLS reflects

their teachers’ instructional practicesthe importance of PLS shown by Rokoszewska (2012)Szyszka (2014) investigated PLS strategy chains

Proposed classification of GLS

the classification is general rather than language-specific it is based on the assumption that a taxonomy of PLS

should draw upon both a general classification of LLS and an inventory of instructional techniques

the points of reference in its construction were: the taxonomy of LLS proposed by Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) as

well as modified items from Oxford's (1990) SILL

options in teaching pronunciation identified in a number of publications on this subject (e.g. Kelly 2000; Goodwin

2001)

findings of previous descriptive studies on PLS

Proposed classification of PLS

the classification comprises four groups of strategies◦ metacognitive PLS such as deciding to focus on particular pronunciation features

◦ affective PLS such as rewarding oneself for making progress in pronunciation learning

◦ social PLS such as practicing pronunciation with other students

◦ cognitive PLS such as using phonetic symbols or one's own codes to remember sounds

forming and using hypotheses about pronunciation rules

a data collection tool designed (Pawlak 2012; α = 0.69)

Aims and research questions

the study aimed to investigate the use of PLS during the

performance of two activities focused on pronunciation –

a form-focused and a meaning-focused task

the following research questions were addressed:

What PLS do students use when preparing for, performing and

after completing the two tasks?

What is the effect of task type on the use of PLS?

What is the impact of individual difference variables on the use

of PLS in the performance of the two types of tasks?

Design of the study

the participants were 42 advanced learners of English in an institution of higher Education (F – 28 and M – 14)

they were English majors in year two of a BA programtheir proficiency level fluctuated around B2their self-evaluation on a six-point scale was as follows:

overall – 4.23, pronunciation – 3.72, listening – 3.64, speaking – 3.85

they attended extensive English classes (a separate class in pronunciation) and had received training in foreign language methodology

Design of the study

the students were requested to perform two tasks – a form-focused and a meaning-focused one

both of them were based on the same textthe form-focused activity involved reading a text aloud,

with the following procedure being applied:◦ the students were given ca. 4 minutes to prepare for reading

◦ the were told they should focus on pronunciation

◦ they took turns to read the text in pairs (about 5 minutes each)

◦ several students were requested to read the text to the class

◦ no corrective feedback provided on errors in pronunciation

Design of the study

part of the text (Pawlak 2012):

Colonel Frank Robertson was a famous explorer who had extensive knowledge of many countries in Africa, Asia and many islands in the Mediterranean. He was a partly bald man with a beard and a moustache, he weighed over 100 kilograms and he had some problems with his right knee. To the surprise of many people, he was stingy and usually put on old clothes, but often wore a silver necklace and some other valuable jewelry. He was also very calm and seldom showed signs of fear or anxiety in dangerous situations or gave way to basic human instincts. He had a photographic memory which allowed him to memorize whole books and he was always able to draw appropriate conclusions. He was remembered for a conference in Geneva where he answered questions about archeology with great accuracy for entire two days.

Design of the study

immediately after the performance of the activity, the students were asked to fill out a short questionnaire (it also included items about student profiles):◦ What strategies did you use to prepare for reading?

◦ What strategies did you use when reading?

◦ What did you pay attention to when reading?

◦ What did you try to do when you were listening to your friends in pairs?

◦ What helped you the most when you were reading?

◦ What strategies did you use after performing the task (when others were reading to whole class)?

Design of the study

the meaning-focused activity involved retelling the text,

with the following procedure being applied:

◦ the students were given ca. 10 minutes to prepare for the task

◦ they were told they should focus on pronunciation

◦ they took turns to retell the text in pairs (about 5 minutes each)

◦ several students were requested to retell the text to the class

◦ no corrective feedback provided on errors

immediately after the performance of the activity, the

students were asked to fill out a short questionnaire

Design of the study

the questions were as follows:

◦ What strategies did you use to prepare for the retelling task?

◦ What strategies did you use when retelling the text?

◦ What did you pay attention to when retelling the text?

◦ What did you do when you were listening to your friends?

◦ What helped you the most when you were retelling the task?

◦ What strategies did you use after performing the retelling task

(when others were telling their versions to the class)?

qualitative analysis was performed, taking as a point of

reference the classification described above

Learning Style Survey (Cohen et al. 2002) used as well

Results of the study (form)

preparing for reading◦ trying to focus on the text (a metacognitive PLS)

◦ practicing sub vocally the pronunciation of some longer and more

difficult words (cognitive PLS)

◦ using a dictionary to check pronunciation (cognitive PLS)

◦ some irrelevant strategies reported (e.g. predicting what would happen

in the text) and some blank spaces left

reading ◦ trying to focus on the text and stay calm (affective PLS)

◦ guessing the pronunciation of some words (cognitive PLS)

◦ some irrelevant strategies reported (e.g. creating mental images,

scanning and skimming)

Results of the study (form)

focus of attention◦ avoiding errors in pronunciation

◦ stress and intonation

◦ specific sounds

◦ suffixes of specific words

◦ context

listening to others ◦ making comparison with other students’ reading (cognitive PLS)

◦ focusing on difficult words (metacognitive PLS)

◦ correcting pronunciation errors – either in the course of reading of

afterwards

Results of the study (form)

most helpful aspects of reading◦ trying not to think about the presence of the listener (affective PLS)

◦ having sufficient planning time (metacognitive PLS)

◦ getting assistance from the listener (social PLS)

◦ being the second person to read the text

◦ some irrelevant strategies reported (highlighting key information)

after reading ◦ comparing pronunciation to that of other students (the partner or students

reading to the whole class) (cognitive PLS)

◦ trying to remember the pronunciation of difficult words (cognitive PLS)

◦ checking the pronunciation of difficult words (cognitive PLS)

Results of the study (meaning)

preparing for the task◦ trying to remember the main events and facts

◦ checking the pronunciation of some words (cognitive PLS)

◦ asking others for help with pronunciation (social PLS)

◦ practicing the pronunciation of difficult words (cognitive PLS)

◦ reading the text several times

performing the task◦ including the most important facts

◦ attending to the pronunciation of difficult words (metacognitive PLS)

◦ focusing on content

◦ using words that were easier to pronounce

Results of the study (meaning)

focus of attention◦ content

◦ fluency

◦ accent

◦ difficult words

◦ errors made

◦ grammar

listening to others ◦ checking the accuracy of events and facts

◦ paying attention to the grammar and pronunciation (metacognitive)

◦ making comparisons with other versions (cognitive PLS)

◦ providing corrective feedback (cognitive PLS)

Results of the study (meaning)

most helpful aspects◦ having sufficient planning time (metacognitive PLS)

◦ taking notes when preparing for the task

◦ monitoring the pronunciation of difficult words (metacognitive PLS)

◦ talking to a familiar person and positive attitude (affective, social PLS)

◦ assistance on the part of the listener (social PLS)

after performing the task◦ comparing pronunciation to that of other students (the partner or

students reading to the whole class) (cognitive PLS)

◦ checking the pronunciation of difficult words (cognitive PLS)

◦ reading the text once again

Results of the study

individual differences seemed to be of lesser relevance

than the type of task performed

females turned out to apply PLS more often than males

they seemed to be more concerned with accuracy and the

need to avoid errors in both of the tasks

no differences were observed with respect to proficiency

the students who were field-independent more likely to

focus on accuracy, pay attention to form and practice

similar patterns manifested by analytic students

interplay of various factors evident

Conclusions and implications

the range of strategies the students reported was narrowpredominance of metacognitive and cognitive PLSclearly different foci of attention visible (content and

fluency vs. form and accuracy)most similarities detected in strategies used after the taskinteraction of contextual and individual factors visiblea simultaneous focus on form and meaning feasiblestudents’ beliefs and priorities may play a crucial roleother data collection tools should be usedreconciling the macro- and micro-perspective

Thank you!!!