Teacher’s corrective feedback on the pronunciation of english fricatives and affricates by non english major freshmen at the diplomatic academy of vietnam

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOIUNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ---o0o---NGUYỄN THANH THỦY TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PRON

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

-o0o -NGUYỄN THANH THỦY

TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF ENGLISH FRICATIVES AND AFFRICATES BY NON-ENGLISH MAJOR FRESHMEN AT

THE DIPLOMATIC ACADEMY OF VIETNAM

Phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên đối với cách phát âm các phụ âm xát

và tắc xát trong tiếng Anh của sinh viên năm thứ nhất không chuyên

tiếng Anh ở Học viện Ngoại giao M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGYCODE: 60140111

Hanoi, 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

-o0o -NGUYỄN THANH THỦY

TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF ENGLISH FRICATIVES AND AFFRICATES BY NON-ENGLISH MAJOR FRESHMEN AT

THE DIPLOMATIC ACADEMY OF VIETNAM

Phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên đối với cách phát âm các phụ âm xát

và tắc xát trong tiếng Anh của sinh viên năm thứ nhất không chuyên

tiếng Anh ở Học viện Ngoại giao M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGYCODE: 60140111

SUPERVISOR: DR DƯƠNG THỊ NỤ

I, Nguyễn Thanh Thủy, K21, being a candidate for the degree of Master ofArts hereby declare that the MA thesis entitled Teacher’s Explicit CorrectiveFeedback on the Pronunciation of English Fricatives and Affricates by Non-EnglishMajor Freshmen at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam is my original work underthe strict guidance of my supervisor No part in the thesis has been copied orreproduced by me from any other person’s work without acknowledgements.Furthermore, the thesis has been adjusted according to valuable comments of theexamination board

This paper would not have been completed had it not been for the beneficialhelp of many people, to all of whom I am indebted

First and foremost, I owe an enormous debt of gratefulness to my supervisor

Dr Dương Thị Nụ for her constant support, guidance and insightful comments whichwere fundamental factors in the completion of the study

In addition, sincere thanks are due to the teachers and students in class KT40B

at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam for allowing me to administer the test andquestionnaire schedule during their precious class time

I also cannot find words to express my gratitude to Ms Julia Williams, Ms

Đỗ Hải Hà, Ms Đinh Thị Mai Anh, Ms Nguyễn Thị Huyền Trang, and Ms

Nguyễn Thùy Nhung for their invaluable assistance during the experimental period

Furthermore, I would like to express my thankfulness to my parents, myfriends, and my classmates for their continual encouragement during the time Iconducted this research

Last but not least, I would like to show appreciation to my readers for theirinterest and criticism on the thesis

It is undeniable that English has become one of the most popular foreignlanguages in Vietnam However, though Vietnamese learners can speak English, notmany of them have intelligible English pronunciation The fact remains that they areunlikely to perceive their pronunciation mistakes when speaking Such pronunciationmistakes will be fossilized if they are not corrected by the teacher

Of 24 English consonants, the six consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ have beenidentified as the most common pronunciation problems that non-English majorfreshmen at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam encounter As a result, the presentstudy aims to help them overcome these problems In order to achieve the aim of thestudy, a quasi-experimental design was conducted on 36 non-English major freshmen

in class KT40B at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Besides, after theexperimental period, a short questionnaire was distributed to the experimental group

to explore their opinions about the use of Teacher’s Explicit Corrective Feedback inEnglish speaking lessons

The results of the study indicate that students’ pronunciation of the six Englishconsonants improves significantly when they are provided with Teacher’s ExplicitCorrective Feedback Furthermore, the use of this corrective feedback type alsoreceives support from the experimental students Based on the findings, the thesisprovides some recommendations for the application of Teacher’s Explicit CorrectiveFeedback, which would be of great assistance for university students in Englishspeaking lessons

iii

LISTS OF TABLES

List of Tables

Table 1: English Consonants

Table 2: Similarities and Differences of English Alveolar Fricatives,

Alveo-Palatal Fricatives and AffricatesTable 3: Percentile Rank of the Pre-test Scores of KT40B Students

Table 4: Placements of 34 Subjects in Pairs for Random Assignment

Table 5: Frequency of the Pre-test Scores

Table 7: The Scoring Process in the Experimental Subgroup 2

Table 8: Results of the Pre-test and Post-test of Both Groups

Table 9: Comparison of the Pre-test Scores of Two Groups

Table 9a: Paired-samples Statistics (Pair 1)

Table 9b: Paired-samples T-test (Pair 1)

Table 10: Comparison of the Gain Scores Made by Two Groups after the

Experimental PeriodTable 10a: Paired-samples Statistics (Pair 2)

Table 10b: Paired-samples T-test (Pair 2)

Table 11: Comparison of the Post-test Scores of Two Groups

Table 11a: Paired-samples Statistics (Pair 3)

Table 11b: Pair-samples T-test (Pair 3)

Table 12: The Experimental Group’s Opinions about TECF on Their

Pronunciation of the Six Consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/

LISTS OF FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS

Lists of Figures

Figure 1: The Process of Providing Pronunciation-Focused TECF on Students’

OutputFigure 2: Differences in Gain Scores Obtained by Both groups after the

ExperimentFigure 3: The Experimental Group’s Opinion about TECF on Their

Pronunciation of the Six Consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/

Lists of Abbreviations

DAV: Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

TCF: Teacher’s Corrective Feedback

TECF: Teacher’s Explicit Corrective Feedback

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

ABSTRACT ii

LISTS OF TABLES iii

LISTS OF FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS iv

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

I Statement of the Problem and Rationale of the Study 1

II Aim and Objectives of the Study 3

III Research Hypothesis and Research Questions 4

III.1 Research Hypothesis 4

III.2 Research Questions 4

IV Scope of the Study 5

V Methodology 5

VI Significance of the Study 6

VII An Overview of the Rest of the Paper 6

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 8

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW 8

I.1 The Importance of Pronunciation Teaching and Learning 8

I.2 Aspects of Pronunciation 9

I.3 The Aim of Teaching Pronunciation: Intelligibility 10

I.4 General Description of Consonants and English Consonants 12

I.5 English Fricative Consonants 14

I.5.1 Production of English Alveolar Fricatives: /s, z/ 14

I.5.2 Production of English Alveo-palatal Fricatives: /ʃ, ʒ/ 15

I.6 English Affricates: /ʤ, ʧ/ 15

English Consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ 16

I.8 Teacher’s Corrective Feedback 18

I.8.1 Definition of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback 18

I.8.2 Types of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback 19

I.9 Teacher’s Explicit Corrective Feedback 21

I.10 Theoretical and Empirical Background on TECF 23

I.10.1 Theoretical Background on TECF 23 I.10.2 Empirical Background on TECF 25

I.11 Research Gap 26

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY 27

II.1 Context of the Study 27

II.2 Study Design 28

II.3 Selection of the Main Subjects for the Study 31

II.4 Assignment of the Subjects to the Experimental and Control Group 32

II.5 Instruments for Data Collection 35

II.6 Instrument for Data Analysis 39

II.7 Treatment to the Experimental Group and Control Group 40

II.8 Integration of Pronunciation Targets into the English speaking lessons 47 CHAPTER III: RESULTS 51

III.1 Comparison of the Pre-test and Post-test Scores 51

III.1.1 Comparison of the Pre-test Scores of Both Groups 52

III.1.2 Comparison of the Gain Scores of Both Groups after the Experiment 53

III.1.3 Comparison of the Post-test Scores of Both Groups 56

III.2 The Experimental Group’s Opinions about TECF on their Pronunciation of the Six English Consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ 57

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION 61

IV.1 Discussion of Both Groups’ Pronunciation Gain Scores and Post-test Scores after the Experimental Period 61

IV.2 Discussion of the Experimental Group’s Opinions about TECF

on Their Pronunciation of the Six English Consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ 63 IV.3 Recommendations for the Application of TECF in English

Speaking Lessons 65

PART C: CONCLUSION 67

I Conclusion 67

II Limitations of the Study 68

III Recommendations for Further Studies 69

REFERENCES 70

APPENDICES I APPENDIX 1: PRE-TEST II APPENDIX 2: POST-TEST V APPENDIX 3: PICTURE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY VIII APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH) X APPENDIX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE (VIETNAMESE) XI

PART A: INTRODUCTION

This chapter sheds light on the research problem and rationale of the study aswell as its scope and significance More importantly, the aim and objectives of thestudy are emphasized with its research questions Finally, the chapter concludes with

an overview of the rest of the paper, which serves as an orientation for readersthroughout the research

I Statement of the Problem and Rationale of the Study

As a member of World Trade Organization, Vietnam has given foreignlanguages in general and English in particular a greater role than ever before for thepurpose of attracting foreign investment and promoting the economy As English iswidely used in many international settings, the ability to communicate in real-lifesituations is of great importance Therefore, of four English skills, speaking plays anintegral part in every school’s English curriculum throughout the country

In the process of improving speaking skills, many learners face the problem ofpronunciation In fact, according to many foreigners, Vietnamese learners can speakEnglish; however, not many of them have intelligible English pronunciation so thatthey can be understood easily in direct communication with foreigners (Duong,2009) In her view, the low level of communicative competence of learners is directlyattributed to their deficiencies in pronunciation, not vocabulary and grammar This isthe justification of why teaching pronunciation needs to be given priority

For two years working at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam (DAV), theresearcher has realized that most of her first-year students show few improvements inpronunciation after two semesters although they are required to speak English in allEnglish lessons In other words, their frequent mistakes tend to be maintained as thefirst days they entered the Academy Through direct observation in many Englishspeaking lessons at DAV, of 24 English consonants, two alveolar fricatives

1

/s, z/, two alveo-palatal fricatives /ʃ, ʒ/ and affricates /ʤ, ʧ/ have been identified as themost common pronunciation mistakes of the researcher’s students They have alsobeen more confirmed after considerable discussion with many teachers at DAV For

instance, most of the students tend to pronounce the word social as /ˈsəʊsl/ instead of /

ˈsəʊʃl/, or television as /ˈtelɪvɪzn/ instead of /ˈtelɪvɪʒn/

The fact remains that learners with poor pronunciation at the segmental levelare not always at an advantage In Tench (1981, p.17-20, as cited in Chung), “spokenlanguage is a social act, and you are expected to fulfill many of the listener’sexpectations and needs.” Therefore, “the more of these are violated, the harder it will

be on the listener, and the more “points” will be taken off by listeners in theirjudgment of the speaker” (Chung, p.2) This view is echoed by Yates (2002, p.1) whobelieves, “we often judge people by the way they speak, and so learners with poorpronunciation may be judged as incompetent or lacking in knowledge.” That is thereason why the researcher finds it necessary to teach her first-year students how topronounce individual sounds correctly because it will serve as a foundation for betterspeaking competence in the next three years In order words, they need to start withindividual sounds before moving on other complicated aspects of speech such asintonation, stress, etc

With regard to the coursebooks used by freshmen in English speaking lessons

at DAV, namely Let’s talk 2 in the first semester and Let’s talk 3 in the second

semester, they do not consist of any sort of pronunciation work on individual sounds.Instead, they contain a variety of speaking activities for the purpose of developingstudents’ oral communication skills and fluency The employment of these bookspresumes students to acquire basic knowledge of pronunciation, including Englishconsonants, to get involved in different English conversations However, in manysituations, when a student delivers a talk, mistakes like /ˈsəʊsl/ and /ˈtelɪvɪzn/ seem not

to be perceived Furthermore, those who are less likely to notice such pronunciation

mistakes are non-English majors.

From the researcher’s viewpoint, the problem lies in the fact that students donot receive adequate feedback from the teacher on their pronunciation performance.

In other words, they need to be assisted by the teacher to realize their problems.Kenworthy (1987, p.2) comments:

Learners need to know what to pay attention to and what to work on Becausespeaking is for the most part unconsciously controlled, learners may misssomething important For example, they may not realize that when a particularword is stressed or said in a different way this can affect the message that issent to the listener Teachers need to make learners aware of the potential ofsounds (Kenworthy, 1987, p.2)

It is suggested that Teacher’s Corrective Feedback (TCF) can be used to helplearners perceive and discard what is unacceptable or inappropriate from their

interlanguage In simple words, the students will have a clear picture of what theyare weak at and what they need to improve Considering the benefits TCF can bring

to learners of English, the researcher wants to determine if TCF can solve her

students’ pronunciation problems in terms of the six English consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ,

ʤ, ʧ/ in English speaking lessons where pronunciation work is not included

Last but not least, research into TCF on pronunciation mistakes in Englishspeaking lessons at university level in Vietnam is quite small in number All theaforementioned reasons have motivated the researcher to conduct this quasi-

experimental research on Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on the pronunciation

of English fricative and affricate consonants by non-English major freshmen at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

II Aim and Objectives of the Study

The study aims at helping non-English major freshmen at DAV improve theirpronunciation of the six consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/

To be specific, the primary objectives of the study are as follows:

To examine the effect of TECF on the pronunciation of the six consonants /s,

z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ by non-English major freshmen at DAV;

3

To investigate the experimental students’ opinions about TECF on their pronunciation of the six consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ after the experimental period.

III Research Hypothesis and Research Questions

III.1 Research Hypothesis

A hypothesis is constructed for the purpose of achieving the aim of the study:

H1: Non-English major freshmen who receive TECF make more significant

improvements in their pronunciation of the six consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ than those who do not receive TECF

If the above hypothesis is fully accepted, the following null hypothesis will be obviously rejected or vice versa:

Ho: There is no difference in the pronunciation of the six consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ,

ʤ, ʧ/ between non-English major freshmen who receive TECF and those who donot

In order to identify which hypothesis will be accepted, the first research question, posed in Section III.2, needs to be satisfactorily answered

III.2 Research Questions

Based on the aim and objectives of the study, two questions were formulated and needed to be satisfactorily answered:

(1) What is the difference that Teacher’s Explicit Corrective Feedback brings about inthe pronunciation of the six consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ by non-English major freshmen at theDiplomatic Academy of Vietnam?

(2) What are the experimental group’s opinions about Teacher’s Explicit CorrectiveFeedback on their pronunciation of the six consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ after the experimentperiod?

IV Scope of the Study

Initially, corrective feedback as stated in the research title is, in fact, confined

to Explicit Corrective Feedback, one type of TCF in a study of Ellis, Loewen &Erlam (2006, as cited in Fawbush, 2010), for the reasons elaborated on in theLiterature Review Chapter

Regarding English fricative consonants, the study focuses on two Englishalveolar fricatives /s, z/ and two alveo-palatal fricatives /ʃ, ʒ/ When it comes toEnglish affricate consonants, they are /ʤ, ʧ/ Only issues concerning thepronunciation of these sounds are taken into consideration

Finally, it should be noticed that 36 non-English major freshmen in the classKT40B at DAV were involved in the study but only 34 students were eligible tobecome its main subjects The process of selection will be elaborated in theMethodology Chapter

of their statements or arguments After the experimental period, both groups sat for apost-test (version of the pre-test) The pre-test and post-test scores were analyzed bymeans of paired-samples t-tests to find out the answer to the first research question.Besides, a short written questionnaire was employed as the supplementary instrument

to investigate the experimental students’ opinions about

5

TECF on their pronunciation mistakes regarding /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ after the experiment.

VI Significance of the Study:

As one of the trail-blazing studies on the impact of TECF on the pronunciation

of English consonant sounds by Vietnamese university students, the study would be

of great benefit for two reasons:

Initially, the research outcome could be used as evidence of the impact ofTECF on Vietnamese university students’ pronunciation of the six consonants /s, z, ʃ,

ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/, which are believed to be one of the biggest problems that most of themencounter As for English teachers in general and English teachers at DAV inparticular, they could base themselves on the results of the paper to make informeddecisions on whether TECF should be encouraged or not In fact, if there exists apositive link between TECF and students’ pronunciation of the six consonants /s, z, ʃ,

ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/, it can bring about a significant change in many English speaking lessons atcolleges and universities, where pronunciation work is not included

In addition, this study can serve as a reliable source of related literature and abasis for other researchers, who share an interest in the topic, to start their future workfrom

VII An Overview of the Rest of the Paper:

The rest of the paper consists of two main parts:

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

This part is divided into three chapters:

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW - establishes the solid foundation for thewhole paper Besides clarifying the key terms such as pronunciation, intelligibility,English fricatives and affricates, Teacher’s Explicit Corrective Feedback, the chapteroffers a critical review of related studies

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY - clarifies the reason why a quasi-experimentaldesign is employed in this study Furthermore, it also elaborates on the context of thestudy, the selection of the main subjects, the instruments for data collection andanalysis, and the treatment to the experimental and control group.

CHAPTER III: RESULTS - presents and analyzes all the collected data to find outthe answers to the research questions

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION - presents the researcher’s discussion based on theresearch findings Furthermore, it also offers some recommendations for theapplication of TECF in English speaking classrooms

PART C: CONCLUSION

This part summarizes all the major points raised in the paper Furthermore, it alsoindicates the limitations of the study as well as some suggestions for further studies

7

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to this study,establishing a solid foundation for the whole paper Not only are key terms likepronunciation, intelligibility, English fricatives and affricates, Teacher’s ExplicitCorrective Feedback clarified but background information about the key terms is alsopresented to ensure a thorough understanding of the research matters Besides, theresearch gap is also revealed in this chapter

I.1 The Importance of Pronunciation Teaching and Learning

Gilakjani (2012) considers pronunciation as a set of habits of producingsounds, which is acquired by repeating the sounds over and over again and by beingcorrected when they are pronounced wrongly In other words, when one learns topronounce a second language, he/she is forming new habits of pronunciation andovercoming the bias of the first language (Cook, 1996) Pronunciation refers to theproduction of sounds that are used to make meaning Yates (2002) opines that:

Learners with good pronunciation in English are more likely to be understoodeven if they make errors in other areas, whereas learners whose pronunciation

is difficult to understand will not be understood, even if their grammar isperfect! (Yates, 2002, p.1)

This opinion is echoed by Hebert (2002, as cited in Shooshtari, Mehrabi, &Mousavinia, 2013), who argues that knowing grammar and vocabulary is importantbut useless if the speaker fails to pronounce those structures and words correctly.When mispronounced, even the simplest words can prevent learners from beingunderstood To sum up, the deficiencies in pronunciation may negatively affectlearners’ communicative competence Without proper pronunciation nobody can saythat he/she knows the language Apparently, this is the approach of scholars and

researchers who consider students’ communicative efficiency as the main purpose ofteaching and learning any foreign language (Hammer, 2001; Yates, 2002; Hebert,2002; Duong, 2009) Under this approach, the important role of pronunciationteaching and learning is emphasized As Harmer (2001) argues, pronunciationteaching not only helps students become aware of different sounds and sound featuresbut also improve their speaking immeasurably:

…concentrating on sounds, showing where they are made in the mouth,making students aware of where words should be stressed – all these thingsgive them extra information about spoken English and help them achieve thegoal of improved comprehension and intelligibility (Harmer, 2001, p.183)

I.2 Aspects of Pronunciation

Basically, pronunciation involves features at segmental (micro) level andsuprasegmental (macro) level The former includes individual vowels and consonantsand the latter involves aspects beyond the level of an individual sound such as word,phrase, and sentence stress, intonation, and rhythm (Seferoglu, 2015, as cited inTran, 2009)

The issue of teaching segmentals and suprasegmentals is controversial On onehand, Coniam (2002, as cited in AbuSeileek) opines that segmental aspects drawsome researchers’ attention because they are more easily explained and taught thanthe suprasegmental ones Burns (2003, as cited in Gilakjani, 2012) also recommendsgiving attention to segmental features because, in his opinion, phonemes are “soundsthat, when pronounced incorrectly, can change the meaning of the word.” On theother hand, as shown in some recent studies, there is a shift to suprasegmental aspects

of the sound system According to Morley (1991), suprasegmental features ofpronunciation should be taught because of their beneficial functions in interactivediscourse This is echoed by Seferoglu (2005, as cited in Gilakjani, 2012) whoemphasizes macro features as they help learners acquire communicative competence.However, there are still researchers (Goodwin, 2001; Burn, 2003; Gilakjani, 2012;Moghaddam, Nasiri, Zarea, & Sepehrinia, 2012)

9

who have a more balanced view that a lack of intelligibility can be attributed to bothmicro and macro features so they are equally important The present study is based onthe belief that both segmental and suprasegmental features of pronunciation play asignificant role in improving communication competence However, at differentstages of learning, attention should be paid to either or both of the two aspects Asdiscussed in Section I in the Introduction part, the focus of the study is on segmentalfeatures instead of suprasegmental features.

I.3 The Aim of Teaching Pronunciation: Intelligibility

In the 1970s, proponents of the audio-lingual approach emphasized thenecessity of pronunciation teaching in second language/foreign language (L2/FL)classrooms They are ones who approved of the mastery of native-like pronunciation.Later, the audio-lingual approach did not win support of L2/FL speech researchevidence The reason is, according to Moyer (1999), very few adult learners achievenative-like pronunciation in their L2 Since then, pronunciation became an

“unteachable” subject due to the inevitability of “foreign accents” (Flege, Munro, &Mackay, 1995; Levis, 2005)

However, these days, the interest in pronunciation teaching has begun torevive It is based on the premise that the ultimate goal of L2/FL speech learning is to

achieve “acceptable” pronunciation According to James (2010, as cited in Gilakjani,

2012), a learner’s pronunciation has three basic levels:

Level 1: People often do not understand what the speaker is saying The speaker uses the wrong sounds when making English words or uses the wrong prosodic features when making English sentences

Level 2: People understand what the speaker is saying, but the speaker’s pronunciation is not pleasant to listen to because he or she has a distracting and/or heavy accent

Level 3: People understand the speaker, and the speaker’s English is pleasant

to listen to This is called comfortable intelligibility - the goal of pronunciationteaching

According to Gilakjani (2012), a speaker has “acceptable” pronunciationwhen other people can understand what he says and the speaker’s English is pleasant

to listen to Kenworthy (1987, p.13) provides a more operational definition that wecan “put to work”: “The more words a listener is able to identify accurately when said

by a particular speaker, the more intelligible that speaker is.” Because words aremade up of sounds, it is necessary to talk about the issue of sound equivalence Inpractical terms, we are aiming for something “close enough” In Kenworthy (1987,p.13), an intelligible sound is defined as one that the listener can match with thesound a native speaker would use without too much difficulty

In fact, learners use a variety of strategies to cope with a new set of sounds.However, some ways of coping may create problems In Kenworthy (1987), a number

of learners’ pronunciation strategies leading to unintelligibility problems are shownclearly: (as the study only deals with segmental aspects, learners’ pronunciationstrategies related to suprasegmental aspects will not be included in this paper)

Sound substitutions: When a consonant of English does not occur in the learner’s mother tongue, the “missing” sound is substituted with something from the speaker’s first language The substitution of one consonant for another may cause serious confusion for listeners For instance, by substituting/z/ for /ʤ/, a Vietnamese learner would produce the word germ as /zɜːm/ instead of /dʒɜːm/

Sound deletions: The speaker leaves out a sound In the case of consonants,either a single consonant at the beginning, middle, or end of a word is deleted

or one of the consonants in a cluster is removed to simplify the cluster For

instance, the word his without the final /s/ would sound like hit.

11

The word devastating with the sound /s/ deleted would sound /ˈdevəteɪtɪŋ/, which is considered unintelligible.

Sound insertions: Non-native speakers may add sounds To illustrate, thelearner adds the sound /s/ at the end of the words they pronounce, causing theproblem of unintelligibility

Kenworthy (1987) also comments that “intelligibility” is often influenced byhow familiar the interlocutor is to the speaker In her opinion, the teacher himselfcannot make objective judgments of the intelligibility of his students She argues thatthe frequent interactions between the teacher and his students gradually enable him to

“tune in to” their accent In simple words, Vietnamese teachers of English may find iteasier to comprehend what Vietnamese learners say Therefore, it is afraid thatstudents’ pronunciation problems that threaten intelligibility may be left untreated

I.4 General Description of Consonants and English Consonants

In articulatory phonetics, consonants are articulated in two ways: either it isproduced by a closing movement of one of the vocal organs, forming such a narrowconstriction that the sound of the air passing through can be heard; or the closingmovement is complete, giving a total blockage The closing movement may berelated to the lips, tongue, or throat, but the articulation of consonants is verydifferent from that of vowels, which is relatively open and unimpeded (Roach, 1991)

English consonants can be classified according to three main phoneticfeatures: place of articulation, manner of articulation and voicing Manner ofarticulation describes how the tongue, lips and other speech organs are involved inmaking a consonant Six manners of articulation are plosive (a complete obstruction

of the air), fricative (a continuous airflow through the mouth), affricate (a slowrelease of the closure), nasal (the air escaping freely through the nose), lateral (the airescaping laterally over the sides of the tongue) and approximant (vowel-like)

Place of articulation is where, in the vocal tract, the obstruction of a consonant

occurs, and which speech organs are involved Places include bilabial (both lips),

labiodental (the upper teeth and inner lower lip), dental (the tongue tip), alveolar (the

tongue against the gum ridge), alveo-palatal (the tongue blade), palatal (the tongue),

and velar (the tongue against the soft palate) As regards voicing, it refers to the

activity of the vocal cords When the vocal cords are wide apart, consonants are said

to be voiceless (lenis) When the vocal cords are closely together and vibrating,

consonants are said to be voiced (fortis) English consonants with their different

features of production are described in Table 1

Table 1: English ConsonantsManner of Place of Articulation

Articulation Labial Labio-dental Dental Alveolar Alveo-palatal Velar Glottal

As can be seen in Table 1, there are 24 consonants in the English consonant

system, among which /s/ and /z/ are alveolar fricative sounds, /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ are

alveo-palatal or alveo-palatal alveolar fricatives, and /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ are alveo-palatal affricates

(highlighted in Table 1) The different features of production of the six sounds are

described and presented in the next section In English, most of these consonants can

be used as the initial, middle, and final consonants, e.g short /ʃɔːt/, teacher /ˈtiːtʃə(r)/,

garage /ˈɡærɑːʒ/

13

I.5 English Fricative Consonants

Fricatives are consonants with the characteristic that when they are produced,air escapes through a small passage and makes a hissing sound, which is sometimescalled “friction” Fricatives are continuant consonants, because you can continuemaking them without interruption as long as you have enough air in your lungs(Roach, 1991)

The fortis fricatives /z, ʒ/ are said to be articulated with greater force than thelenis fricatives /s, ʃ/ and their friction noise is louder The lenis fricatives have verylittle or no voicing in the initial and final positions, but may be voiced when theyoccur between voiced sounds (Roach, 1991)

I.5.1 Production of English Alveolar Fricatives: /s, z/

These sounds are articulated with the soft palate being raised and the aircannot pass through the nose The tip and blade of the tongue make a light contactwith the upper alveolar ridge, and the side rims of the tongue make a close contactwith the upper side teeth The airstream escapes through the narrow groove in thecenter of the tongue and then causes friction between the tongue and the alveolarridge /s/ differs from /z/ in the fact that while /s/ is a fortis (voiceless), e.g sip, rice, /

z/ is a lenis (voiced) with voice from the throat, e.g zip, rise Both /s/ and /z/ can be atthe initial, medial and final positions (Roach, 1991)

I.5.2 Production of English Alveo-palatal Fricatives: /ʃ, ʒ/

With regard to /ʃ/ and /ʒ/, their place of articulation is partly palatal and partlyalveolar The tongue is in contact with an area which is slightly further back than thatfor two sounds /s/ and /z/ If you make /s/ and then /ʃ/, you will feel your tongue movebackwards The air escapes through a passage along the center of the tongue as in thecase of /s/ and /z/, but the passage is a little wider /ʃ/ is a fortis, e.g shore, caution,whereas /ʒ/ is a lenis with voice from the throat, e.g garage, vision

14

Furthermore, in order to produce /ʃ/ and /ʒ/, most speakers have to round their lips,which is an important thing that differentiates them from /s/ and /z/ /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ can befound in the initial, medial and final positions In the case of /ʒ/, however, thedistribution is much more limited Very few English words begin with /ʒ/ This sound

is commonly found in the medial position, e.g decision, measure, usually (Roach,1991)

I.6 English Affricates: /ʤ, ʧ/

/ʧ/ and /ʤ/ are the only two alveo-palatal affricates in English (Roach, 1991).These sounds are articulated with the soft palate being raised and the nasal resonator

is shut off A closure made between the tip, blade, and rims of the tongue and theupper alveolar ridge and side teeth creates an obstacle to the air stream At the sametime, the front of the tongue is raised towards the hard palate in readiness for thefricative release The closure is released slowly, the air escaping in a diffuse mannerover the whole of the central surface of the tongue with friction occurring betweenthe blade/front region of the tongue and the alveolar/front palatal section of the roof

of the mouth The vocal cords are wide apart for /ʃ/, but may be vibrating for all orpart of /ʒ/ according to the situation of utterance /ʧ/is voiceless but /ʤ/ is voiced withvoice from the throat

In Duong’s research (2009), the similarities and differences of theaforementioned sounds in terms of voicing, place of articulation and manner ofarticulation are clearly indicated They are shown as follows:

Table 2: Similarities and Differences of English Alveolar Fricatives,

Alveo-Palatal Fricatives and Affricates

Voicing Manner of Place ofSound articulation articulation

Same Different Same Different Same Different

A number of studies have been conducted to find out the common problems of

Vietnamese learners regarding English consonants in general and six English

consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ in particular First, when it comes to the problem of sound

deletion, /s/ in the medial position is often omitted Similarly, the omission of the two

ending sounds /s/ and /z/ are frequent The reason lies in the fact that

16

Vietnamese speakers, in their language, do not have to pronounce the ending sounds(Duong, 2009; Ha, 2005) In addition, the three sounds /ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/ are not included inthe Vietnamese consonant system; as a result, these sounds are really difficult forVietnamese learners to produce, especially when they occur at the end of the words(Nguyen, 2007; Tran, 2009) Tran (2009) also opines that most Vietnamese learnersare unfamiliar with “the act of holding the tongue against the alveolar ridge for the air

to pass through with some friction.” As a result, it is the habit of “swallowing” endingsounds in the mother tongue that “inhibits the pronunciation of ending sounds in thetarget language” (Ha, 2005; Nguyen, 2007; Tran, 2009) Second, with regard tosound substitutions, Duong (2009), in the light of Hanoi dialect, finds out four soundpairs that make learners confused when pronouncing They are shown as follows:

or /s/ The word judge /ʤʌʤ/, for instance, is pronounced as /zʌz/ or /zʌs/ When itcomes to the last pair, English /ʧ/ is produced as Vietnamese /ć/, which is a voicelesspalatal stop and is produced with the blade of the tongue touching the hard palate Toillustrate, English /ʧ/ in child is incorrectly pronounced as Vietnamese /ć/ in Vietnamese chai.

17

In brief, regarding the six English consonants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ/, Vietnameselearners, especially those from the North of Vietnam have a tendency: (1) to changethem into familiar sounds existing in their mother tongue (sound substitutions); (2) toomit the sounds at the medial and final position (sound omission) This may maketheir English very Vietnamese but unintelligible, which, subsequently, may lead tomany problems in communication with native speakers.

I.8 Teacher’s Corrective Feedback

I.8.1 Definition of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback

In the literature of Second/Foreign Language Acquisition, one of the very firstdefinitions of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback is offered by Chaudron (1977), whoregards TCF as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovinglyrefers to, or demands improvement of the learner utterance.” Considering thisdefinition, it seems that, according to Chaudron (1977), TCF means an evident anddirect correction made by the teacher Nevertheless, as Hartono (2012) comments,TCF also involves providing learners with some clues to elicit their self-correction Itcan be seen that in Chaudron (1977) the term TCF is not be treated properly As aresult, it is necessary to seek a more comprehensive definition of TCF The definition

of TCF by Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006, p.340) really comes in handy:

Corrective feedback takes the form of responses to learner utterances thatcontain error The responses can consist of (a) an indication that an error hasbeen committed, (b) provision of the correct target language form, or (c)metalinguistic information about the nature of the error, or any combination ofthese (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006, p.340)

Ellis et al (2006) provides a clear picture of TCF that the researcher wants tomention First, it is oral corrective feedback, not written corrective feedback, which isprovided by the teacher Second, TCF can be simple, involving only one correctivestrategy, or complex, involving a number of corrective moves The followingexample shows that the teacher uses two corrective feedback strategies,

which will be clarified in the next section, in an attempt to make the student generate

a repair himself

Student: My mother bought me a new pair of shoes /suː/ on my fifteenth birthday.Teacher: She bought you a new pair of… (Elicitation)

Student: Yes, a new pair of shoes /suː/…

Teacher: A new pair of shoes /ʃuːz/… really? (Recast)

Student: Ah yes, a new pair of shoes /ʃuːz/…

I.8.2 Types of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback

Lyster and Ranta (1997) carried out a study in several French immersionclassrooms in Montreal The subjects were at primary level and their first languagewas English The researchers audio-taped four teachers whose lessons weretranscribed These transcriptions provided database for their analyses After that, sixmain corrective feedback types, which later have widely been accepted by manystudies, were explored

Explicit correction means explicit provision of the correct form At the same time, the teacher clearly indicates that what the student said was incorrect and provides the correct form Sometimes the wrong form is identified along with the provision of the correct form in the teacher’s turn

E.g Student: Her shirt /sɜːt/ is very dirty (Phonological error)

Teacher: No, you should say /ʃɜːt/ not /sɜːt/

Student: /ʃɜːt/…

Recast involves the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of the student’s utterance minus the error This type of corrective feedback is implicit because

the error is not clearly indicated by phrases like you should say or you mean

In other words, the teacher merely provides the correct form without directly

pointing out the student’s error

E.g Student: Her shop /sɒp/ is very crowded (Phonological error)

19

Teacher: Yes, her /ʃɒp/ is very crowded Where’s her /ʃɒp/?

Student: Her /sɒp/, ah, /ʃɒp/ is on Hue Street

Clarification request is used in the form of questions like Pardon? and Sorry?

to indicate that the learner’s utterance is not comprehensible Unlike explicit

correction and recast, this type of corrective feedback refers to the problems ofcomprehensibility

E.g Student: They boarded a ship /sɪp/ bound for India (Phonological error)

Teacher: Pardon?

Student: They boarded a /ʃɪp/ bound for India

Metalinguistic feedback consists of either comments or information about howthe student’s utterance is well-formed but the correct form is not explicitly provided It focuses on the nature of the error but attempts to elicit the

information from the student

E.g Student: They boarded a ship /sɪp/ bound for India (Phonological error)

Teacher: Do we say /sɪp/?

Student: No, /ʃɪp/

Elicitation refers to the technique used to directly elicit the correct form from the student The teacher can strategically pause to allow the student to fill in the blank in his/her utterance with the correct form Moreover, the teacher can

directly ask the student to reformulate his/her utterance by saying Say it again.

E.g Student: They boarded a ship /sɪp/ bound for India (Phonological error)

Teacher: They boarded the…

Student: … /ʃɪp/ bound for India

Repetition refers to the teacher’s repetition of the student’s error In most cases, the teacher adjusts his/her intonation in order to draw the student’s attention to the error.

E.g Student: They boarded a ship /sɪp/ bound for India (Phonological error)

Teacher: /sɪp/? (rising tone)Student: /ʃɪp/

Lyster and Ranta’s research (1997) serves as a fundamental work inidentifying different types of TCF in L2/FL classrooms Based on it, many studieshave been conducted to examine which types of TCF are effective in improvingL2/FL learning This issue is of great importance as it helps researchers answer the

question How should errors be treated? Once certain types of TCF are proved to be

more effective than the others, advices can be given to teachers in order to facilitatethe process of error correction and better L2/FL learning There is also research workdone in this trend but the six TCF types are grouped under antagonistic categories:

explicit and implicit.

I.9 Teacher’s Explicit Corrective Feedback

There is a popular classification of TCF types, which is based on theimplicitness or explicitness of a certain TCF strategy Let’s consider a situation when

a learner says, “Her shirt /sɜːt/ is very dirty” If the response is “No, you shouldsay /ʃɜːt/, not /sɜːt/”, it is called Explicit Corrective Feedback If the teacher says,

“Yes, her shop /ʃɒp/ is very crowded”, her response is called Implicit CorrectiveFeedback It can be seen that in the case of Explicit Corrective Feedback, there is anovert indication that an error has been committed whereas in Implicit CorrectiveFeedback, the error is not directly shown According to Carroll and Swain (1993) and

Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006), Teacher’s Explicit Corrective Feedback is often operationalized as explicit correction or metalinguistic feedback while Teacher’s Implicit Corrective Feedback (TICF) often takes the form of

21

recasts Clarification request, elicitation and repetition also fall into the category of TICF Metalinguistic feedback facilitates students’ self-repairs while error correction provides learners with correct reformulations and exemplars of the target

features In this study, the focus is on metalinguistic feedback as the researcher

agrees with Swain (1985) who places an importance on students’ modified outputrather than input (his viewpoint will be elaborated in section I.10.1) Furthermore, itshould be noticed that the term TECF and metalinguistic feedback can be used

interchangeably in this paper

Kenworthy (1987, p.1) comments:

If you’ve never seen a lime before you may think it is an unripe lemonbecause that is the nearest equivalent of the fruits you are familiar with Youmay continue in your misperception until you actually eat one or untilsomeone points out the difference to you (Kenworthy, 1987, p.1)

In his opinion, students’ pronunciation mistakes may be fossilized if they donot receive any corrective feedback from their teacher Therefore, it is suggested thatTCF plays an important role in L2/FL development Considering this classification ofTCF, a question arises as to whether or not learners perceive the function of a certainTCF type as a correction when it is given explicitly/implicitly (Ding, 2012) InLoewen & Philp (2006, as cited in Ding, 2012), because of its implicitness, thecorrective intention of recast may not be easily noticed by learners The followingexample indicates that the learner is likely to take the teacher’s recast as aconfirmation of what he/she said rather than a correction of his/her erroneousutterance Loewen & Philp (2006, as cited in Ding, 2012) argues that the teacher’srecast is not effective in helping learners notice the gap between their interlanguageand the target form, consequently leading to NO student reformulation not to mentionstudent-generated repair In contrast, the corrective intention of TECF is more salient

as it directly draws the learner’s attention to his pronunciation error

E.g Student: Her shop /sɒp/ is near my house on Hue street (Phonological error)Teacher: I see, her /ʃɒp/ is near your house… (Recast)

Student: Yes, and her /sɒp/ is very crowded

However, there still exists another school of thought about TECF Bearingsome doubt in mind about the effectiveness of TECF, Tornberg (2005, as cited inLange, 2009) opines that TECF not only inhibits the students while communicatingbut also makes them uncomfortable If learners make a lot of pronunciation mistakes,TECF may intimidate their confidence in speaking Furthermore, Lange (2009), whoalso feels uncertain about the positive impact of TECF, argues that the utilization ofthis feedback type is time-consuming because the teacher has to wait long forstudents’ self-generated output.

In fact, despite causing a lot of controversy, this classification of TCF hasbeen of great interest to many researchers who are concerned about the role of inputand output in L2 learning as well as the cognitive roles that TCF plays As the presentstudy deals with TECF, in the next section, theoretical and empirical background thathave boosted the research on TECF will be addressed in detail

I.10 Theoretical and Empirical Background on TECF

I.10.1 Theoretical Background on TECF

There has aroused much research in the role of input and output in L2/FLacquisition Krashen (1985) proposes the Input Hypothesis, which puts primaryimportance on the comprehensible input that language learners are exposed to.According to him, acquisition occurs when learners understand input containingstructures beyond the students’ current level of competence This means input candirectly affect L2/FL learning Meanwhile, the Output Hypothesis is proposed bySwain (1985) based on her observation of the teaching and learning activities inFrench immersion classrooms The students in these classrooms were observed tohave little difficulty in comprehending the teachers’ instruction; nevertheless, theirproduction was often lack of accuracy As a result, she claims that theComprehensible Input of Krashen (1985) alone was not sufficient for thedevelopment of learners’ language acquisition In her opinion, the production ofoutput in response to input is necessary for further language development In other

23

words, Swain’s emphasis is on the role of modified output, which, according to her,

is important and necessary for L2 mastery Swain (1995) also recommended the use

of TCF because it stimulates learners to make more accurate and target-like output.Considering error correction and metalinguistic feedback, it is only metalinguisticfeedback that can stimulate learners to make more accurate and target-like output,creating opportunities for them to do output practices

Furthermore, the manner in which metalinguistic feedback contributes to thecognitive process of learners can support the theoretical claim that it plays animportant role in facilitating the acquisition of new linguistic features According toLyster (2004), the cognitive mechanism of L2/FL learning is described as aninformation-processing model, which refers to a gradual change from declarative toprocedural knowledge (Anderson, 1983, as cited in Ding, 2012) Declarativeknowledge refers to the knowledge of the language system while proceduralknowledge refers to the knowledge about how to perform language accuracy,including language comprehension and production As regards language acquisition,there exist two types: (1) acquisition as the internalization of new forms, and (2)acquisition as an increase in control over forms that have already been internalized(Ellis, 1997, as cited in Ding, 2012) Therefore, it can be understood that the first type

of language acquisition means the “acquisition of new declarative knowledge” andthe second type means “the transition from declarative knowledge to proceduralknowledge” (Ding, 2012) Based on Lyster’s view (2004), it may be inferred thatmetalinguistic feedback which elicits target-like output can increase learners’ controlover the already-internalized declarative knowledge, which promotes the transitionfrom declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge Thus, TECF is supposed toplay an important part in the cognitive process of L2/FL learning; however, thisnotion stills need support from empirical studies which examine the effect of TECF

in facilitating L2/FL learning process

I.10.2 Empirical Background on TECF

Driven by the theoretical concerns discussed above, the effectiveness of TECFhas become the subject of intensive inquiry The majority of previous studiesaddressing this issue were conducted within an experimental or quasi-experimentalframework, by providing TECF and TICF as different treatments to different researchgroups, comparing the learning outcomes of these groups on a pre-test-post-test basisand attributing better learning outcomes to either TECF or TICF The advantage ofthis research design lies in the great accuracy it can bring about when examining theeffects of TCF

There are a number of classroom studies that reported the advantage of TECF

in helping learners achieve better learning outcomes on selected target linguisticfeatures Spada and Lightbown (1993) demonstrated that TECF increased linguisticaccuracy Most importantly, their results were maintained in a delay test five weeksafter the treatment Hence, it can be seen that the effect of TECF can still be present

in the long term In White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta (1991), the performance oflearners receiving TECF with those who did not receive this treatment was compared.The result showed that the experimental group exposed to TECF showed a higherlevel of linguistic accuracy than the control group Furthermore, there were twostudies conducted in 2004 showing the same results One was carried out by Lyster(2004) and the other by Rosa and Leow (2004) With regard to the design of twostudies, the subjects were divided into three groups: (1) TICF in the form of recasts,(2) TECF, and (3) no TCF In Lyster (2004), the group receiving TECF outperformedthe group exposed to recasts Both of the experimental groups outperformed thecontrol group In Rosa and Leow (2004), the same result was produced Hence, theaforementioned studies demonstrate that TECF may be of pedagogical value (Ellis,Loewen & Erlam, 2006) Additionally, TECF is shown to be more effective thanTICF (Carroll & Swan, 1993; Lyster, 2004; Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006)

25

Though the above-mentioned studies do not specifically addresspronunciation, their results are of great importance to pronunciation teaching Theyseem to suggest that the most effective TCF type can facilitate the acquisition oflinguistic features If these results are taken into account in the case of pronunciation,there are reasons to believe that TECF will be an effective TCF type forpronunciation too.

I.11 Research Gap

As a matter of fact, in Vietnam, a number of studies have been carried out toinvestigate the problems or difficulties that Vietnamese learners have in certainaspects of English pronunciation However, the cause-effect relationship betweenTECF and Vietnamese learners’ pronunciation is still a rather unexplored researcharea More specifically, little has been attempted to explore the cause-effectrelationship between TECF and non-English major students’ pronunciation at DAV.Additionally, there is little domestic research on this issue conducted within anexperimental or quasi-experimental framework

Furthermore, according to Ding (2012), human behavior under study in socialresearch is not “mechanistic” In her opinion, a social phenomenon like TECF can beunderstood if the human participants’ opinions, reactions, etc are taken into account

It can be seen that little attention has been paid to experimental learners’ opinionsabout TECF they received, leaving a research gap in this area As a result, furtherresearch in this direction is required

To address this major gap, the researcher has carried out a study on the impact

of TECF on non-English major students’ pronunciation at DAV, the methodology ofwhich will be elaborated in the coming chapter

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY

The following chapter will depict in detail the methodology of this researchpaper It includes the information about the context of the study, the study design, theselection of main participants, the procedures as well as the instruments for datacollection and analysis

II.1 Context of the Study

The study was conducted at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, which islocated at 69 Chua Lang Street, Dong Da, Hanoi For the 2013-2014 academic year,the academy took in 450 undergraduate students in six disciplines of InternationalRelations, International Law, International Economics, International Communication,English and French, and 60 college students in International Relations For students

of Group A1 and D1, the standard point of enrollment in six disciplines ranged from

22 to 23.5 Thus, they can be assumed to have a certain threshold proficiency ofEnglish

On average, freshmen and sophomores spend about nine hours per week onlearning English, which is divided into four sessions Each session lasts for 135minutes and only focuses on one English skill

Generally, students at DAV are divided into two major groups, namely,English majors and non-English majors English majors refer to students who enroll

in the discipline of English and non-English majors are from five disciplines ofInternational Relations, International Laws, International Economics andInternational Communication Both groups have to complete an English foundationcourse in the first three semesters In the fourth semester, there is a difference in thelearning programs of two groups English majors have sessions of Phonetics,Grammar, Pragmatics, etc Meanwhile, non-English majors participate in the ESPprograms

27

With regard to speaking skills, the teaching materials for non-English majorfreshmen are two books Let’s Talk 2 (used in the first semester) and Let’s Talk 3(used in the second semester) These books include a variety of interesting andinnovative topics that encourage students to develop their oral communication skills.

In Let’s Talk 2, an intermediate text, topics include relationships, jobs, sports andgames, travel and transportation, the environment, arts and entertainment, and humor

In Let’s Talk 3, a high-intermediate text, topics are related to communication, law,superstition, education, technology, etc There are review puzzles after every fourunits in order to help students recycle key vocabulary Activities are accompanied byfull-color photographs and illustrations Nevertheless, it is noticed that there is noroom for teaching pronunciation in the two books

It cannot be certain that students who sail through the university examinationfor group A1 and D1 are good at English pronunciation because the English test theytake is in the form of a written one Furthermore, as mentioned in the first chapter,many non-English major freshmen at DAV are observed to make a lot ofpronunciation mistakes when speaking; meanwhile, the teaching materials skip theEnglish pronunciation part Therefore, it is necessary to improve their currentsituation of learning English in general and English pronunciation in particular

II.2 Study Design

To start with, there are some problems that the researcher had to take intoconsideration before choosing an appropriate design for this study:

First, random assignment to different groups is not always possible as it can bedone in a true experimental research In fact, it might be troublesome to ask for themixture of different classes for the research purposes in a disciplined context as myacademy In fact, in education settings, the freedom of the researcher to manipulateand control the conditions under which the research is conducted is often restricted(Seliger and Shohamy, 1989) The administrators are generally