Exploring Teachers’ Knowledge of Second Language Pronunciation Techniques: Teacher Cognitions, Observed Classroom Practices, and Student Perceptions

Exploring Teachers’ Knowledge ofSecond Language Pronunciation Techniques: Teacher Cognitions, Observed Classroom Practices, and to pronunciation-oriented techniques.. The present studybu

Exploring Teachers’ Knowledge of

Second Language Pronunciation

Techniques: Teacher Cognitions,

Observed Classroom Practices, and

to pronunciation-oriented techniques Integral to the study was theuse of semistructured interviews, classroom observations, and stimu-lated recall interviews with the teachers and questionnaires withstudents Findings reveal that the teachers’ knowledge base of pro-nunciation techniques consisted mainly of controlled techniques—techniques strongly manipulated by the teachers and typically consid-ered less communicative than other techniques Of all techniques,guided techniques (semistructured) were the least frequently used,suggesting in part that the teachers’ knowledge of how to incorpo-rate guided techniques on a consistent basis with oral communica-tion curricula may be limited This article also includes discussion ofthree sets of beliefs held by some of the teachers: (1) listening per-ception is essential for producing comprehensible speech, (2) kines-thetic/tactile practice is integral to phonological improvement, and(3) pronunciation instruction can be boring

doi: 10.1002/tesq.99

A significant body of research has emerged over the past fewdecades examining the cognitions of second language (L2) teach-ers Borg (2006) defines second language teacher cognition (SLTC) as

“an often tacit, personally-held practical system of mental constructsheld by teachers and which are dynamic—i.e defined and refined onthe basis of educational and professional experiences throughoutteachers’ lives” (p 35) Teacher cognition encompasses a broad spec-trum of notions, including the knowledge, beliefs, perceptions, and

attitudes that teachers have in relation to their actual teaching tices in a local or specific target context SLTC research has providedinsight into what constitutes teachers’ beliefs and knowledge aboutteaching, how these cognitions have developed, and how they arereflected in classroom practice (see Borg, 2006) The present studybuilds on current SLTC research by examining the intricate relation-ships between the mental processes and instructional practices ofexperienced English as a second language (ESL) teachers and theteaching of L2 pronunciation.

prac-SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER COGNITION

The study of teacher cognition has received considerable attention

in recent years for the purpose of understanding complexities ing the interplay between teachers’ cognitions and their classroombehaviors and practice An essential feature of this research is theinclusion of observations of teachers’ actual classroom practices andnot merely teachers’ self-reports of their practices (Borg, 2006) This isimportant because an ESL classroom serves as a meeting place whereboth teaching and learning takes place and where teacher knowledgeand beliefs intersect with student behavior

underly-Research into SLTC has targeted teachers’ cognitions in relation toteaching several skills areas, but especially grammar (e.g., Andrews,2003; Borg & Burns, 2008; Farrell & Lim, 2005), reading (e.g., John-son, 1992; Kuzborska, 2011), and writing (e.g., Lee, 2010; Shi & Cum-ming, 1995) In comparison, general oral communication (OC) skillshave been largely underrepresented in the literature, with some excep-tions, most notably the work of Cohen and Fass (2001), who investi-gated teachers’ and students’ beliefs on oral language assessment andinstruction In fact, pronunciation instruction, an integral component

of OC, has received substantially greater attention in comparison, butcurrent SLTC research in this area is limited, as will be discussed later

SLTC AND PRONUNCIATION PEDAGOGY

The focus of most studies into SLTC and pronunciation pedagogy

is mainly on teachers’ beliefs regarding which features of tion to teach and which teaching techniques to use, and, with fewexceptions, the data gathering relies on surveys or questionnaires only

pronuncia-In English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, several survey studieshave been conducted Sifakis and Sougari (2005) surveyed teachers inGreece and found that many teachers strongly valued native-speaker

(NS) norms and tended to conform to NS-oriented approaches (e.g.,role-plays emphasizing NS roles) Hismanoglu and Hismanoglu’s(2010) questionnaire study in North Cyprus determined that readingaloud, dictionaries, and dialogues constituted the top three preferredtechniques of teachers Saito’s (2011) survey found that Japanese Eng-lish teachers identified eight segmentals believed to have a negativeimpact on learner comprehensibility, and Saito and van Poeteren’s(2012) questionnaire study revealed that the teachers reported usingpronunciation-related adjustment strategies (e.g., speech rate modifica-tion, word-level enunciation, segmental-level enunciation) to modifytheir pronunciation in the classroom Finally, two studies by Jenkins(2005, 2007) and one by Timmis (2002) focused on the theme ofteachers’ perceptions in relation to accents and L2 instruction InJenkins’s (2007) study, for example, interviews revealed that teachersappeared to favor teaching English as a lingua franca accents intheory, but in practice considered such teaching as impractical in theclassroom.

In ESL contexts, research into teachers’ beliefs about pronunciationinstruction has received less attention to date and has relied almostsolely on interview data S Macdonald (2002) interviewed teacherswho had reported a reluctance to teach pronunciation and found thatlack of institutional resources as well as insufficient knowledge of how

to assess student pronunciation contributed to their avoidance toteaching pronunciation Baker’s (2011) interview study revealed thatteachers whose TESOL training included a course in pronunciationpedagogy reported prioritizing the teaching of suprasegmental fea-tures of pronunciation in their classes; at the same time, however,many of these teachers still seemed to lack confidence in teachingsome components of English pronunciation Finally, Cathcart andOlsen (1976) explored teachers’ and students’ beliefs about grammarand pronunciation correction, and found that students wanted teach-ers to correct them more frequently than the teachers actually did andboth teachers and students preferred the “correct” (e.g., NS) modelapproach This final study alone included an examination of actualclassroom practices; however, the article does not clearly connect theobserved lessons with the teachers who taught those lessons What ismissing from all this research, therefore, is an in-depth exploration ofhow teachers implement their beliefs efficiently and successfully in theclassroom to assist students to achieve comprehensible pronunciation.The limited scope of the research into SLTC and pronunciationpedagogy may reflect, on a broader level, a neglect of pronunciation

in classroom-oriented research This is surprising, considering theessential role that intelligible pronunciation plays in successful com-munication and the demand for pronunciation instruction from L2

learners (Couper, 2003; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002) To date, classroomresearch has examined the relationship between instruction andimproved phonological ability (Couper, 2003, 2006; Saito, 2007) andbetween instruction and improved intelligibility (Derwing, Munro, &Wiebe, 1997, 1998; D Macdonald, Yule, & Powers, 1994) Suchresearch has also investigated students’ beliefs and attitudes concern-ing pronunciation instruction (Couper, 2003; Derwing & Rossiter,2002; Kang, 2010), particular accents (Derwing & Munro, 2003; Gat-bonton, Trofimovich, & Magid, 2005; Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard, &

Wu, 2006; Timmis, 2002), and error correction (Cathcart & Olsen,1976) Aside from these studies, the teaching and learning of pronun-ciation in typical ESL or EFL classrooms has remained largely unex-plored, indicating that research into current pronunciation-orientedteaching practices of L2 instructors is long overdue

In a similar vein, relatively few teacher education programs providecourses on how to teach L2 pronunciation Research has shown thatmany L2 teachers have received only limited training in phonetics orpronunciation pedagogy (Breitkreutz, Derwing, & Rossiter, 2001;Derwing, 2010; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Murphy, 1997; Saito & vanPoeteren, 2012), although those numbers are increasing, at least inCanada (Foote, Holtby, & Derwing, 2011) Studies have also shownthat some teachers are reluctant to teach pronunciation (Fraser, 2000;

S Macdonald, 2002) For an expanded discussion of the current state

of pronunciation pedagogy and classroom research, see Baker andMurphy (2011)

As demonstrated from this review of literature, numerous studiesprovide evidence for the importance of pronunciation instruction, butresearch has yet to generate robust documentation of the actual pro-nunciation-oriented practices of classroom teachers In particular, thefield lacks insight garnered from in-depth investigation into whichtechniques are commonly and practically useful in the context ofteaching pronunciation in the classroom and teachers’ cognitionsregarding those techniques Given the overall lack of empirical, class-room-based research on pronunciation teaching and learning andteacher cognition research in this area, the aim of this article is toenhance the pronunciation-specific knowledge base by investigatingESL teachers’ cognitions and practices when teaching pronunciation

It addresses the following questions:

1 What cognitions do experienced teachers have about techniquesfor teaching L2 pronunciation in their OC classes?

2 What do classroom observations and student questionnairesreveal about the teachers’ knowledge and practices concerningthe techniques they use for teaching L2 pronunciation?

Participants

Five experienced teachers in the same North American intensiveEnglish program (IEP)1 agreed to participate in the project.2 Theteachers were selected based on their current placement as an OCinstructor, their teaching experience, and willingness to participate in

a research study All five teachers had taught their OC course at leastonce in a previous semester, and each teacher had between 6 and

14 years’ teaching experience: Tanya (7 years), Laura (6 years), Abby(6 years), Ginger (14 years), and Vala (7 years) They had earned amaster’s degree in TESOL (or a TESOL-related field) from one ofthree universities, where their exposure to pronunciation pedagogyvaried: from university A, Tanya, Laura, and Abby3 had taken a coursedevoted to pronunciation pedagogy; from university B, Ginger hadcompleted a course with a combined focus on speaking, listening, andpronunciation pedagogy; and from university C, Vala had not receivedany relevant coursework in pronunciation pedagogy In terms of lan-guage proficiency, four of the teachers grew up speaking English astheir first language, whereas Abby grew up as bilingual in Portugueseand English In addition to the teachers, 63 students from their classesparticipated in the study The majority of these were international stu-dents, more than 70% of whom indicated a desire to matriculate intouniversity programs in the United States

Curriculum

In the IEP, all OC courses consist of 50-minute lessons held threetimes weekly for approximately 14 weeks The teachers reported thatpronunciation plays a strong role in the building of OC skills in thesecourses, but mainly in Level 1 (high beginning), Level 2 (low interme-diate), and Level 3 (intermediate) According to the teachers, pronun-ciation comprises 90% of the content of Level 1 (Tanya), 33% ofLevel 2 (Laura), 20%–70%4

of Level 3 (Abby and Ginger,

1 The goal of IEPs is to help L2 learners of English achieve sufficient language proficiency

to succeed in undergraduate or graduate programs in North American universities.

2 At the beginning of the study, all teachers were informed that the research would focus

on the teaching of pronunciation.

3 All names are pseudonyms.

4 The discrepancy in regard to Level 3 is the result of Ginger feeling that 20% of in-class time was devoted to pronunciation, but a considerable amount of time was spent out of class giving feedback on student work (oral recordings) Abby felt that she devoted 60% – 70% of the course to pronunciation.

respectively), and 20% of Level 4 (Vala) Overall, Levels 1–2 focus ondeveloping conversation skills; the higher levels, conversely, are con-tent-based courses devoted to academic OC skills The following textswere used: Level 1, Well Said Intro (Grant, 2007); Level 2, Interactions II(Tanka & Most, 2006); Level 3, an in-house developed study guide;and Level 4, College Oral Communication 3 (Delk, 2006) Table 1 pro-vides a listing of the pronunciation features addressed in the partici-pants’ classes These features were selected by the curriculumcommittee because they were considered to have a significant impact

on learner comprehensibility

Data Gathering Instruments

Semistructured interviews, classroom observations, and stimulatedrecall interviews were the three methods used to examine the teachers’cognitions and practices The use of these three methods assisted withdata triangulation, in that each method provides a different perspec-tive on the data collected in order to better inform any conclusionsdrawn from one method alone In addition, selected data from stu-dent questionnaires was used to gain additional insight into the teach-ers’ knowledge of pronunciation techniques

Semistructured interviews (SSIs) The vast majority of qualitativestudies of SLTC attempt to gather large amounts of descriptive datafrom a small number of participants through SSIs (e.g., Borg, 1998;Farrell & Lim, 2005) In the current study, three SSIs were conductedwith each teacher: at the beginning of the semester, three quarters of

Abby (Intermediate)

Ginger (Intermediate)

Vala (High Intermediate) Syllables a Syllables Syllables Syllables Syllables Word stress Word stress Word stress Word stress Word stress Vowels Vowels Vowels Vowels Word endings Consonants Consonants Rhythm Rhythm

Word endingsb Word endings

Rhythm

Intonation

Connected speech

a Students learn to identify the number of syllables in a word.

b In particular, -s endings and verb endings.

the way through the semester, and end See Appendix 1 for sampleinterview questions.

Classroom observations In more robust studies of SLTC, classroomobservations are considered essential, typically consisting of one tofour observed classes per teacher (e.g., Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis,2004; Burns & Knox, 2005; Collie Graden, 1996; Johnston & Goettsch,2000) In the current study, each teacher was observed four times(approximately 200 minutes in total) during one semester The firstset of observations, consisting of two consecutive lessons, occurrednear the beginning of the semester The second set of observations,again consisting of two consecutive lessons, occurred 3–5 weeks afterthe first set Each observation was video-recorded and transcribed.Stimulated recall interviews (SRIs) Stimulated recall is a type of ret-rospective verbal report in which a participant receives a stimulus (e.g., avideo of teaching) and then recounts her or his cognitions at the timethe event took place In research on SLTC, SRIs have been used intandem with observations to uncover teachers’ thoughts while teaching(Andrews & McNeil, 2005; Gatbonton, 2008; Popko, 2005) The stimuliused in the current study were pronunciation-related activities from thevideo-recorded classes Each teacher participated in two, 45-minute SRIs,which involved the viewing of 15–20 minutes of video footage selectedfrom two consecutively observed classes All SRIs (except for one) tookplace within 48 hours of the set of two observed lessons The episodeswere chosen to provide a range of different types of instructional activi-ties, including explanations of a pronunciation feature, instructions foractivities, feedback on student performance, and so forth

Questionnaires The student data consisted of a brief questionnaireabout students’ beliefs about pronunciation learning and teaching Todate, the inclusion of data about student perceptions has only been col-lected by a small number of studies focused primarily on SLTC (e.g.,Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Cohen & Fass, 2001) The student question-naire included both Likert-scale items and open-ended questions Forthe present article, the only item that related to pronunciation tech-niques was the following open-ended question: “What activity has yourteacher used that is most helpful for improving your pronunciation?”

Data Analysis

The analysis of the interview and classroom data involved a stage process: (1) transcription of interview and observation data, (2)

three-data segmentation and coding of the interview three-data, and (3) three-data mentation and coding of the observation data A qualitative analysiscomputer program called Transana (Woods & Fassnacht, 2009) wasused to assist in the transcription, segmentation, and coding of thevideo and interview data.

seg-The coding of the interview transcripts involved the use of a list ofcodes derived from an adapted version of Shulman’s (1986, 1987)theoretical model of teachers’ seven categories of knowledge Shul-man’s model was particularly useful in exploring teachers’ knowledge

of pronunciation pedagogy because it offers several discrete categoriesthat include not only subject matter content knowledge (e.g., knowl-edge of English phonology), but also pedagogical content knowledge(e.g., how to teach pronunciation), knowledge about learners (e.g.,how or why to teach pronunciation to a particular group of students),and knowledge about curriculum

Observations of the five instructors’ lessons revealed that thecoding needed to be more carefully fine-tuned for examining spe-cific knowledge about pronunciation techniques The coding wasthereby enhanced based on several sources, including Crookes andChaudron (2001); Brown (2007); and Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Good-win, and Griner (2010) To differentiate between the broad catego-ries of technique types (controlled, guided, free), Brown’s (2007)discussion of a continuum of techniques is used Brown refers to thedifference between controlled to free techniques as “a continuum ofpossibilities between highly manipulative and very communicative—but one that also specifically considers the extent to which theteacher maintains control over the learning activity” (p 184) Withcontrolled techniques, the teacher has a dominant role in their exe-cution, manipulating the highly structured techniques in such a waythat student responses can typically be predicted (e.g., repetition drillsand listening discrimination minimal pair activities); with free tech-niques, the student has a more dominant role, frequently collaborat-ing with other students in an open-ended activity that may involve

“negotiation,” “unpredicted responses,” and/or real-world or municative” performance to a certain degree (e.g., role-play, drama,presentations; Brown, 2007, p 184) In the context of the currentstudy, free techniques were only considered pronunciation-oriented

“com-if the teacher explicitly linked the free technique to pronunciationdevelopment

Finally, guided techniques, also referred to as semicontrolledtechniques, fall within the middle area of the continuum andcontain a blend of characteristics from both extremes describedearlier, in that they may be structured but can be open-endedand/or, even if controlled by the teacher, may involve

unpredictable responses by students or resemble activities thatlearners might perform outside the classroom (e.g., informationgap activities, interviews, preparation work for presentations orgroup discussions) As Brown (2007) notes, however, these catego-ries are guidelines: Techniques cannot always be categorized easilybecause even some “controlled techniques sometimes have commu-nicative elements” (p 184).

In studies of second language acquisition, the use of less trolled techniques such as guided and free techniques has beenshown to have a significant impact on learner acquisition of linguis-tic features in English Although focused solely on grammaticalfeatures, Lyster and Saito’s (2010) meta-analysis of 15 classroom-based studies analyzing the effect of oral corrective feedbackrevealed greater student improvement when students gave freelyconstructed responses, as opposed to constrained responses, in tasks.Furthermore, Norris and Ortega’s (2000) meta-analysis of 49 experi-mental and quasi-experimental studies of explicit and implicit types

of instruction determined that highly controlled as well as less trolled, contextualized tasks, are “equally effective” (p 501) whenteaching target features to language learners Thus, examining thedifferent types of pronunciation techniques included in a teacher’sknowledge base may be important Such an analysis may provideinsight into how equipped teachers may be to create an optimallearning environment for pronunciation development in the class-room

con-Based on the data collected, the classification system was thenadapted to better represent the pronunciation-specific focus of theresearch, resulting in robust codes that enabled discrete analysis ofeach type of activity used by the five instructors To check the reliabil-ity of the coded observational data, a second coder examined 10% ofthe data, and we reached an inter-rater agreement level of 95% Thesecond coder was provided with a table consisting of excerpts from theobservation transcripts, which I preselected to ensure that the 10%contained a full range of activity types The activities ranged from aslittle as 5 seconds in duration (e.g., repetition drill activity) to 5 min-utes or longer (e.g., games) The coder was asked to assign only onecode per excerpt

In addition to the qualitative analysis of the data, the observationsand components of the interview and questionnaire data were alsoanalyzed quantitatively Using the coded data, calculations of the num-ber of techniques employed by the teachers were made based on boththe reported and observed practices

Table 3 illustrates the range of techniques used by each teacher, asindicated by the combined results from the teacher’s self-reports, class-room observations, and the student questionnaires Altogether, Tanya,Laura, and Abby used 19 pronunciation-oriented techniques in theirclasses, whereas Ginger and Vala used 12 techniques Controlled tech-niques dominated across all the classes: Tanya (13), Laura (13), Abby(13), Ginger (9), and Vala (8) In comparison, guided techniques wereused less frequently: Tanya (4), Laura (4), Abby (3), Ginger (1), andVala (2) Finally, only 2 free techniques were employed by eachteacher, except for Abby, who used 3.

Looking across the two tables, the data gathered through theteachers’ self-reports and the classroom observations generallydiffered For example, for Tanya, the observations revealed nineadditional activities that were not mentioned in the interviews, andthe interviews revealed two activities that were not observed in thefour lessons

The data collected from the student questionnaires did not ate a great deal of new information Appendix 2 reports on the datacollected from the student questionnaires as well as the teacher inter-views and observations The data reveal that, in almost every case, thestudent questionnaires provide the same results as either the observa-tions or the teacher interviews Only for Laura and Abby did thestudent data provide additional insight into the teachers’ knowledgeabout pronunciation techniques, in this case the addition of listeningtext presentation techniques for Laura and games for both Laura andAbby That said, the students were only asked to identify activities theyfound to be the most useful in learning English pronunciation, asopposed to listing every activity used by the teachers throughout thesemester Nevertheless, the student data remain useful as a tool forconfirming the information gathered through the interviews or class-room observations

gener-TABLE 2

Summary of the Different Types of Pronunciation Activities Used by the Five Teachers

# Code Brief description

Controlled activity

1 Listening text presentation Students listen to a text No additional work is required.

2 Explanations and examples Teacher explains and gives examples of a feature of

pronunciation and how to use it.

3 Production practice Students read a set of words or sentences, focusing on

specific features of pronunciation that have been previously identified.

4 Kinesthetic/tactile

production practice

Accompanied by a specific physical movement (e.g., clapping), students read target words or sentences, focusing on specific features of pronunciation that have been previously identified.

5 Checking activity Teacher checks student performance and gives

feedback on the students’ work from a previous pronunciation activity.

8 Repetition drill activity Students repeat a target form.

9 Visual identification

activity

With the aid of a visual prompt or text-based material, students select a particular target form, feature, or rule Students respond verbally.

12 Visual recognition activity As with visual identification, teacher has students

identify a particular target form; however, students do not respond verbally.

13 Audio recognition activity (Listening discrimination activity) As with audio

identification, students make a choice based on what they hear; however, students do not respond verbally.

14 Review activity Teacher reviews content learned in a previous lesson.

15 Testing activity Either students do a formal test or quiz or teacher

discusses how she will assess students in an upcoming test or quiz.

18 Production —audio

identification activity

One student produces a target form while a second student (or the whole class) makes a choice based on what he or she hears The second student (or other students) responds verbally.

(Continued)

(or whole class) does not respond verbally.

20 Mutual exchange

activity

In pairs, students exchange information to accomplish

a task Requires both listening discrimination and appropriate production by both students to accomplish successfully.

21 Preparation In pairs or groups, students prepare for a major project

such as a presentation or dramatic work.

Free activity

22 Game Students engage in a language activity that involves an

objective, a set of rules, and a degree of competition.

23 Drama Students plan, practice, and/or perform a play, a skit,

or a scene from a movie or TV show.

24 Presentation Students give an oral exposition or report on a topic

prepared by the students.

25 Discussion Students discuss or debate a specific topic in groups TABLE 3

All Types of Activities Used Based on Combined Research Methods

Tanya Laura Abby Ginger Vala Controlled activities

Listening text presentation X X X

Explanation and examples X X X X X Production practice X X X X X Kinesthetic/tactile practice X X X

Question-answer display —knowledge verification X X X X

Question-answer display—knowledge exploration X X X

Repetition drill X X X X X Visual identification X X X X X Audio identification X X X Repetition drill —audio identification X

Collectively, from these data sources, I obtained a more completepicture of the teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in terms ofthe different types of techniques they used in their OC courses What

I found is that the three teachers who had completed a graduatecourse devoted entirely to pronunciation pedagogy (Tanya, Laura, andAbby) appeared to use a much wider repertoire of techniques thanthe other two teachers This finding suggests that in-depth training inpronunciation pedagogy has a direct and positive impact on teachers’knowledge base of techniques for use in the classroom

Overall, the controlled techniques were clearly dominant in all ses, at least in terms of overall number of techniques used Perhapsunsurprisingly, explanations and examples and checking activities were

clas-an integral part of their pronunciation work in the class All teachersspent time explaining some feature of English pronunciation (expla-nation and examples) and, after conducting a pronunciation activitywith the students, checking the students’ work and giving feedback on

it (checking activity) In addition, all five teachers used the followingactivities: production practice, repetition drills, visual identification,and testing

Other controlled techniques used by the teachers varied to somedegree Most notably, the kinesthetic/tactile production techniqueswere highlighted during both the interviews and the observations con-ducted with Abby, Ginger, and Laura Collectively, their repertoire ofthese techniques included moving the whole body (standing/sitting),blowing on kazoos, stretching rubber bands, clapping, and beating arhythm on desks Furthermore, display questions (question-answerdisplay—knowledge exploration and knowledge verification activities)played a role in the classes taught by Tanya, Laura, Abby, and, to someextent, Ginger

The last set of activities warranting comments are the identificationactivities (visual identification and audio identification) and the recog-nition activities (visual recognition and audio recognition) These fourtechniques are essentially very similar, and no distinction is made inthe literature between techniques using either audio or visual stimuli.However, because listening comprehension and pronunciation areinterconnected in speech (Gilbert, 1987), particularly in authenticcommunicative contexts, categorizing the two separately has pedagogi-cal importance in pronunciation instruction Pronunciation techniquesthat are limited to visual stimuli require learners to focus mainly onoutput alone, whereas pronunciation techniques that include theinterpretation of audio stimuli necessitate a focus on both input andoutput In short, both are useful techniques for raising languageawareness, but the latter are cognitively and physically more challeng-ing, and thus more representative of the everyday demands of real-life

communication With this distinction in mind, the teachers in thepresent study all used visual identification activities in their classes;however, only three teachers—Abby, Ginger, and Vala—seemed to useaudio identification activities, the more authentic and cognitivelydemanding of the two types In Tanya’s and Laura’s classes, this activ-ity did not appear to be used, even though the focus of their respec-tive courses (as the teachers reported in the interviews) was onperception to a greater degree than on production Nevertheless, theyboth used audio recognition activities as well as visual recognitionactivities, in which students may respond using gestures or in writtenform.

Unlike the controlled techniques that the teachers used, the ety of guided techniques is considerably more limited Although allfive teachers used guided activities, only Ginger appeared to usepreparation techniques (e.g., preparatory work for presentations).Aside from the preparation techniques that were used by all teachersand the referential questions (question-answer referential activity)that appeared to be used by Tanya, most of the guided techniqueswere forms of information gap activities Furthermore, only Abbyappeared to use an information gap activity that required a mutualexchange of information (mutual information exchange) to complete

vari-a tvari-ask

Finally, all five teachers employed free techniques to varying extents

in their classes At the lower levels, and even in Abby’s class, gamesappeared to have a role At the higher levels, presentations and discus-sions were integral components of the course curriculum; thus, Abby’s,Ginger’s, and Vala’s classes included both types of activities Finally, asfinal projects, the learners in Tanya’s class presented a memorizedpoem and the students in Laura’s class performed mini-dramas

Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practice

The remainder of the Results section examines three sets of beliefsthat emerged from the data These beliefs, however, were not necessar-ily expressed by all of the teachers, because the interview schedule wasnot designed to elicit information on predetermined beliefs Rather,these themes emerged as part of the discussion of and rationale forthe techniques the teachers used in their classes As a result, eachtheme in this section is linked to sets of teachers who either taughtsimilar levels of students or used similar teaching methods Finally, it

is important to note that, although not discussed in detail here, all fiveteachers expressed the belief that comprehensible speech—speechthat is relatively easy for listeners to understand (Derwing & Munro,