computer assisted pronunciation teaching (capt)...

ComputerAssistedPronunciationTeaching(CAPT)andPedagogy:ImprovingEFLLearners’PronunciationUsing

ClearPronunciation2 Software

HooshangKhoshsimaAssociateProfessor,ChabaharMaritimeUniversity

[email protected]

AminSaedLecturer,ChabaharMaritimeUniversity

[email protected]

SaeidMoradiM.A.Student,ChabaharMaritimeUniversity

[email protected]

AbstractThisstudyexaminedtheimpactofClearPronunciation2 softwareonteachingEnglishsuprasegmentalfeatures,focusingonstress,rhythmand intonation.Inparticular,thesoftwarecoversfivetopicsinrelationtosuprasegmentalfeaturesincludingconsonantcluster,word stress,connected speech, sentence stressand intonation.Seven IranianEFL learnersparticipated in this study.The study lasted for sixweeksandboth theteacher and the software were involved in teaching suprasegmental features. Tomeasurethelearners’pronunciationandtheirdegreeofprogressforbothpre-testandpost-test,thesoftwareitselfwasused.Thesoftwarehastheabilitytogeneratereportand score on learners’ performance at the end of any activity. So, the analysis oflearners’performancewasbasedon the software reportson theirperformance.Theresultsof thestudyshowed that the learnershada significant levelofprogress inallaspectsofsuprasegmental features.They learnedsuprasegmental featureseffectivelyandtheexercisesofthesoftwarewerehelpfulforthem.Theresultsprovideempiricalevidenceson thevalueofusingClearPronunciation2 software for teachingEnglishpronunciation.Thissoftwareand themethodologyused in thisstudyyieldpromisingresultsforthefieldoflanguageteachingandcanprovideinspiringresultsinfuture.Keywords: Clear Pronunciation 2 Software, Iranian EFL Learners, Pronunciation,SuprasegmentalFeatures

Received:July2015; Accepted:December2016

IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol9,No1,2017

98

1.Introduction

Pronunciationisnolongera neglectedpartoflanguagelearningcoursesandallwho work in this field realize “its essential roles in oral communication,listener’sperceptionandspeaker’s identity”(Liu,2008,p.9).Maybe itseemstoostrange,butifwehavea preciselookattherolesofpronunciationweseethelargeeffectsofitonmanyaspectsofourlife.Ithasmanycentralrolesbothinourpersonaland social life.The roles suchaspromotingour social statusand rhetoric, power ofwords and covering of our lacks andweaknesses.Asindividuals, we create our personality via our speaking and show ourdependencetoa socialgroupina society.Pronunciationasanimportantaspectof speaking ability can influence social status of speakers, especially non-natives, inESL context.Good and excellent pronunciation creates a strongsense of identity for learner in the community of target language, but poorpronunciationleadstothelossofidentity.AsArslan(2013)concluded“innon-nativeEFL settings,poorpronunciation skillsmay result in failure in spokencommunication”(p.191).

Mostofthetoday’sdebatesinteachingpronunciationareon‘intelligibilityprinciple’ inpronunciation. Intelligibility isdefinedashowmuch the speakerspeech isunderstandableandcomprehensibleby the listener.It is incontrastwith ‘nativeness principle’ which is defined as the degree of similarity ordifferencesbetweenNNSsaccentwithNSsaccent.Inotherwords,intelligibilityfocuses on understandability of our speech, but nativeness focuses on thedegreeofsimilarityofNNSsaccentwithNSsaccent.Themoreintelligiblethepronunciationofthespeakeris,themorecomprehensibleandunderstandableit is for the listeners.That iswhymany scholars in recentyears takegrantedintelligibilityofpronunciationinsteadofnativeness,native/likepronunciation,inteachingEnglishpronunciation.Thus,inpronunciationteachingclassrooms,

ComputerAssistedPronunciationTeaching…

99

intelligibility of learner speech is considered as a key element inmaking acommunicationmoremeaningfuland successful.However, focusingmoreonintelligibilityinpronunciationdoesnotdiscounttheimportanceofnativeness,andwhatisimportantisthatnativenessshouldberegardedasthemaintoolinacquiringintelligibilityinspeech.

Teachersandresearchersduringrecentyearshavetriedtoexperimentnewmethods and techniques for teaching of language. Computer AssistedLanguageLearning (CALL) isoneof these remarkablemethodswhichdrawthemostattentionstoitself.Alsoinlinewiththegrowingdemandsandneedsof learners and learners to more effective and updated methods ofpronunciation learning in recent years, a new trend has emerged which isknownasComputerAssistedPronunciationTeaching(CAPT).Itcomestothescene tohelp learners tohavea moreeffectivewayof learningpronunciationrules.GrowinginterestsoflearnerstowardusingcomputersinlearningforeignlanguagessuchasEnglishlanguage,leadsmanyteacherstousecomputerasapartoftheircurriculum.Inresponsetosuchdemandsmanyprogramdesignersare trying to design effective programs to help learners in reinforcing theirknowledge of pronunciation and helping teachers to have a better teachingpronunciationmaterials.

However, in spite of recent development in designing CAPT programs,manycountriesstilldonotusesuchtechnologiesforteachingpronunciationintheir curriculum.Unfortunately,using computerprograms isnotyetpopularand pervasive for teaching pronunciation in language classroom in Iran(Pirasteh, 2014) and there is a great distance between the degree of usingcomputerprogramsinclassroomandwhatisexpectedtouse.Thishappensinasituationwhereinrecentyears,wearefacingwitha largenumberofresearchprojects done on efficiency of using computer in teaching pronunciation in


100

Iranian classrooms (Pourkhoni, et al., 2013; Mehrpour, et al., 2016). Theschoolsand institutescoulduse theseprojectsand try to incorporate them intheirpronunciationclassrooms.

However, there are some limitations for teaching pronunciation intraditional classrooms in Iran.Although speaking is themain goal ofmanylearners,andpronunciation isan importantpartof it, teachingpronunciationhas no place in Iranian classrooms (Pirasteh, 2014). Thesemay havemanyreasons such as complexity and difficulty of task of pronunciation teachingespecially suprasegmental features of pronunciation and little knowledge ofIranian teacher toward pronunciation components (Abdolmaleki& Mohebi,2014).Suprasegmentalfeaturesarethose“aspectsofpronunciationthataffectmore thanone sound segment, suchas stress, intonation,and rhythmor themusicalaspectsofpronunciation”(Celce-Murciaetal.,1996).

Inaddition,Iranianlearnershavelittleornoaccesstoorganizedmaterialsandtextbooksforlearningpronunciation.AsHayati(2010)statedtheEnglishtextbooks used in Iranian High Schools suffer from shortcomings in thesequenceofpresentationofmaterials, textselection,pronunciationexercises,etc.Although in recent yearsmaterial designers have used a more updatedmaterials in their books, yet because of these shortcomings, teachingpronunciationhasnopreciseplaceinIranianclassrooms.

Also,therearetwovariablesinteachingpronunciationwhichcreatesomelimitationsinIranianclassrooms.Thesearetimeordurationofinstructionandfrequencyof instruction.As traditionalmethodologyof language teaching inIranpaidlittleattentiontospeakingability,lesstimehasbeendedicatedtotheteachingpronunciation(Shooshtari,etal.,2013;Rafiee& Purfallah,2014)andit seemsundesirable toexpectdevelopment inpronunciationof learners.Ontheotherside,bydevotinglittletimetopronunciationinstruction,wewitnessa


101

decreaseinthenumbersofpracticesandactivitiesinclassrooms.Asa result,itisclearthatwhymostoftheIranianEFLlearnersshownlittleimprovementintheir pronunciation in recent years. For Iranian EFL learners to have aneffective communication, learning pronunciation is an important issue.Intelligibility of their speaking depends largely on their pronunciation.LearningEnglishpronunciationhelpsthemimprovetheirproficiencyandtobeunderstood by native speakers. Pronunciation learning also reinforce theirlisteningabilityandhelpsthemunderstandnativespeakers.Maybeonewayofencouraging learners for learning pronunciation is the use of computer inteachingpronunciation.

In recent years, field of language teaching especially pronunciationteachingundergonegreat changes indevelopingnew computerprograms forpronunciation teaching. These programs by providing new techniques andauthentic environment andmaterials are trying to help language learners inlearningpronunciation.Therefore,inlinewiththerecentdevelopments,inthisstudy we aim to integrate an instructional computer software, ClearPronunciation2, intotheIranianEFLclassroomforteachingpronunciation.Itis a suitable software for Intermediate toAdvanced learnersofEnglishwhowant to improve the suprasegmental, speech-level aspects of theirpronunciation – both receptive and productive. This program helps themrecognize and accurately produce word stress, sentence stress, consonantclusters, connected speechand intonation.The focusofour studywillbeonteaching suprasegmental features of pronunciation. These features have adirectrelationshipwithintelligiblyinNNSsspeechandlearningthesefeaturesismoreusefulincountrieswhereEnglishistaughtasa foreignlanguage.Thisstudyaimstoinvestigatethefollowingquestion:


102

Does integration ofClear Pronunciation 2 software have any significantimpactonIranianintermediateEFLlearners’prosodicfeatures?

2.LiteratureReview

Theway that language teachingapproaches treatedpronunciation instructionhasconstantlychangedinrecentyears.Ithasbeendiscountedinsomemethodsand inothers; ithasbeenemphasizedas themainpartof theirmethods.AsKetabiandSaeb,(2015,p.182)said,“ithasbeeneitherelevatedtothehigheststature by somemethods and approaches, such as the ReformMovement,ALMandOralApproach,orhasbeenassignedthebackseat inthe languageclassroom, as has been the case with GTM, the Direct Method, and theNaturalisticApproaches”.Instabilityofpositionofpronunciationduringtheseyearstakethegreatstokeonpronunciationandyetithasnoclearandprecisemethodology in curriculum.These sudden changes toward thepronunciationteachingputthepositionofpronunciationindanger.

Reviewing thehistoryofpronunciationshowsthe inadequacyofattentiontopronunciation teaching in language teaching fieldsandbyreferring to itas“the lost ring of the chain” (Moghaddam, et al., 2012), and “the neglectedorphanof second-languageacquisition studies” (Deng,etal.,2009)endorsedon its exclusion in language curriculum. This inattention to pronunciationteachingcaused itto lagbehindotherskills.Thismaybetheresultof lackingappropriate materials, and methodologies for teaching and learningpronunciation.

2.1.ComputerAssistedLanguageLearning(CALL)

Rapid developments in information technologies have influenced education,and thus they have led to alteration in the structure and implementation of


103

education (Donmus, 2010). In recent years appeal for using CALL in theprocessoflanguagelearningandteachingincreasedandmanyresearchersaretryingtointegratethesetechnologiesintothesystemoflanguagelearningandcapturethebestandthemosteffectivewaysofimprovinglearner’sproficiency.RegardingthisfactmanyresearchersstressedtheimportanceofCALLanditsadvantages.CALL uses computer technology as an aid in the presentation,reinforcement, and assessment ofmaterial to be learned (Delcloque, 2000).CALL technologies canprovide learnerswith independent and collaborativelearning environments; learners can reduce stress and enhance their self-instruction and self-confidence through games and communicative activities(Lai,2006).AsGorjianetal.(2013,p.35)said“ThephilosophyofCALLputsa strangeemphasisonstudent-centeredlessonsthatallowthelearnerstolearntheirownusingstructuredand/orunstructuredinteractivelesson”.

Byraisingteachersandlearners’awarenesstowardadvantagesofCALLinlanguagelearningandadvancementinlanguagelearningtechnologiesinrecentyears, the field of language learning sees a growing positive attitude towardusing these technologies in classrooms.As Jahromi& Salimi (2013, p. 163)stressed,“Understandingofuser(learnersand/orteachers)attitudesfacilitatesthecreationofappropriateCALLapplicationsandmore fine-grainedCALLtheories”. In their study of Iranian students and teachers attitude towardCALL, they found that both teachers and students have a positive attitudetoward using computer in language teaching. In addition, they found thatteachershavemore competence in computer-related issues.Thismaybe theresultofteachers’informationaboutthesubjectsmatterrelatedtotheirfieldoflanguage teaching and also their skill in recognizing the different aspects ofthese technologies which are more effective to be use in the process oflanguageteaching.AsanadditionalexampleRafieea,AllahverdiandPurfallah


104

(2014) conducted a study on the perceptions of Iranian junior high schoolteachers toward using computer in the process of language learning. TheresultsofthestudyshowedthepositiveattitudeofstudentstowardusingCALLin curriculum and they showed a high interest in CALL programs. Otherstudies in Iran also found the positive attitude of participants toward usingcomputerinimprovingthequalityofinstruction(suchasKhany& Ghoreyshi,2013).

2.2.Computer-AssistedPronunciationTeaching(CAPT)

For teaching pronunciation, there are varieties of different software, whichcover all aspects of pronunciation skill. As an important parts of CALLpedagogy,CAPThada greatdevelopmentother thanother skills,andmanynew programswere devisedwhich aimed tomake the task of pronunciationteachingeasier.Theseprogramscreatea newformofcontextwitha numberofpracticesandopportunities for learners ina narrowand small spacewhich isnotboundedtothetimeandpresenceofinstructor.AsThomson& Derwing,(2014) stated“a strongappealofCAPT is itsability toprovide learnerswithmorepracticethantheycannormallyaccessina traditionalprogram”(p.336).Usingcomputer in languageteaching improve learnerautonomyand increasetheirself-esteem.Therefore,asNerietal.(2002)stressed“byprovidinga stressfreeenvironment,CAPTencourageslearnerstopracticeattheirownpace,andaccessnearlyunlimitedinput”.AlsoasLaRocca,(1994)pointedout“digitizedpronunciation softwarepackagesaffordhigh-quality soundandvideoclipsofspeakers, which gives the learner the opportunity to look at articulatorymovements that are used in producing sounds”. Thus, by comparing theirperformance toa model in theprogram, learnerscanbecomeawareof their


105

strengthsandweaknesses.Therefore,manyresearchersandscholarsinrecentyearstriedtoprovetheefficiencyoftheseprogramsinpronunciationteaching.

Forexample,Chen(2014)studiedtheeffectofMyETsoftwareforteachingpronunciationtocollegestudentsinTaiwan.AsMyETisanonlinesoftwareinthisstudystudentshadaccesstothesoftwarebothinandoutoftheclassroom.Theresultofthestudyrevealedthatstudentsprogressedintheirpronunciationand even though in some cases students preferred traditional classroominstruction, the tendency ofmost of the students toward using software inclassroom instruction increased.AlsoGorjian et al. (2013) in an attempt inhelping Iranian university students to acquire prosodic features of Englishlanguagesuchasstressand intonationbyusingPraatsoftware found that the“learners that practiced stress and intonation throughCALL approachweremore successful than the students who were taught through traditionalmethod”(p.34).Inaddition,AbuSeileek(2007)ina studyforteachingstresstoadvanceEFL learnersofEnglishbyusingMoutonInteractiveIntroductiontoPhoneticsandPhonologysoftwarefoundthatthestudents’abilityinperceivingand producing correct stress pattern in words, phrases, and sentencesimproved.

In another studyTanner& Landon (2009) examined the effect of usingCuedPronunciationReadings(CPRs)softwareon intermediateESL learnersofEnglishinUS.Thestudyaimedatlearningsuprasegmentalfeaturessuchaspausing,wordstress,andsentence-final intonation.The learners in thisstudyshouldworkedwiththesoftwareina self-directedformandtheteacherhadnointerference in their learning.The result of the study showed the significanteffectsofthissoftwareonlearners’perceptionsofpausingandwordstressandcontrolledproductionofstress.Alsoinsomecases,researchersdidnotfindanyimprovement in using CALL in teaching pronunciation. For example Liu


106

(2008) in his study of examining the effect of Pronunciation Power 2, acommercial language learning program, on ESL learners in US found nosignificant improvement in comparison with traditional instruction ofpronunciation.Hisresearchwasthereplicationofa studybySeferoğlu(2005)studywhichhasexaminedtheimprovementoflearners’pronunciationbyusingofthesamesoftware.Hefounda differentresultfroma samestudy.

Ina studyKhoii& Aghabeig (2009) studied theeffectsofRosettaStonesoftware on listening comprehension of IranianEFL learners.The result oftheir study showed that the students listening comprehension improve afterusingthissoftware.Theymentionedsomeotheradvantagesofusingcomputersoftware in teaching pronunciation such as increasing learners’ motivation,providing learners with authentic material and environment and reducinglearner dependency to the teacher. In another study Luo (2014) used acomputer-assistedpronunciation training (CAPT) technique to combineoralreadingwithpeerreviewtoimprovepronunciationofTaiwaneseEnglishmajorstudents.Inthisstudystudentsfirstgivena shortpassagewiththerecordingofthe text had read by a native speaker. After listening and practicing therecordings,thestudentsrecordtheirvoicesandcomparethemwiththenativespeakerone.Alsotherewasanonlinediscussionboardwhichstudentssharedtheir recordings and discussed on their classmates’ recordings andperformance. The result showed the superiority of using this technique inreducing learners’ problems in learning pronunciation. Many other studiesconductedon theefficiencyofusing computer software in teachingdifferentaspectsofpronunciation.Butwhat is important is that themajorityof thesestudiesat theendof their study stressed the importantand theefficiencyofCALLinteachingpronunciation.


107

3.Methodology3.1.Participants

Theparticipantsof thestudyweresevenEFL learnersatChabaharMaritimeUniversity,Iran.Theyhadvariousfieldsofstudyandhadanagerangeof18to26years.Allof themwerenon-native speakersofEnglishandbasedonpre-researchinterviewtheirEnglishproficiencywasaboutintermediatelevel.Mostof theparticipantshadaccess to computerandhad theirown computerandalmostallofthemuseiteveryday.Inthisstudy,mostoftheparticipantsusedcomputerbetween4 to9 andmore than9 years.Therefore, theyhadenoughproficiencyinusingcomputer.ThishelpedresearcherstofocusmoreonhowtouseClearPronunciation2 softwarethanhowtousecomputer.Theparticipantsalso asked about their previous experiences of using computer for languagelearning. Although some of them (only 2 of them) had worked with somecommercial programs, such as Tell Me More, Rosetta Stone, and othersexperiences were limited to listening and watching of audios and videos intraditionalclassroomsininstitutes.

3.2.Materials

In this study, Clear Pronunciation 2 software that is commercial languagelearning software is used. The software teaches English languagepronunciation. It is designed for teaching prosodic features of Englishpronunciation.Thefeaturesofthissoftwareareasfollow:

Content: Itcoversfivekeysuprasegmentalelementofpronunciation:wordstress, consonant clusters, sentence stress, connected speech and intonation.Eachunits contain five separate topics.Alsoeach topic includesat least fiveactivities,which in summakinga totalof125exercises. In this software first


108

teacherintroduceseachunitthrougha videoandafterthateachlearnerworksonexercisespreparedforlearningthetopic.

Progress features and printing: The software progress function generatereports on completing any activitywith score, time duration, average scorescompared with all learners and also relative performance of learners indifferent units.On completing any activity learners could have a record andprintingofactivitiesandtheirperformances.

Dialectversion:ThestudentshavetheoptionstousethreeEnglishdialectsas:BritishEnglish,NorthAmericanEnglishandAustralianEnglish.

3.3.Procedure

At first, a TOFLE proficiency test was administered for 34 learners and 7learnerswere selectedamong them.After that, researchershadan interviewwith selected participants and they were asked about their computerproficiency and their experiences of using computer programs for languagelearning.Somepersonalinformationalsowasaskedfromtheparticipants.AlsobyusingClearPronunciation2 software,a writtenpre-testwasadministeredtoassesstheirknowledgeofpronunciation(prosodicfeatures).Thisstudy lastedforsixweeksandsevenEFLlearnersparticipatedinthisstudy.Theyreceived6-hourinstructionbyteacherforthreesessionsina week.Afterinstructionbythe teacher, they worked with the software and practiced related exercises.Theyalsohadaccesstothesoftwareintheirownlaptops,andthishelpedthemtoworkwith the softwarewhenever andwherever theywanted. In addition,they had access to their teacher in these six weeks and received feedbackswheneverneeded.Ineverysession,theteachercheckedlearnersprogressandsolvetheirproblemwiththesoftware.


109

Asmentionedbefore,theaimofthestudywasnottoreplacethesoftwarewith the classroom instruction, but itwas to integrate this software into thenatural process of classroom instruction. It means that teachers besidesteachingpronunciationwithtraditionalmethodsofpronunciationteachingusecomputer software in theprocessof classroom.So, at thebeginningof eachsession the teacher taught an introduction of what are known as prosodicfeatures of pronunciation, stress, rhythm and intonation to the participants,andafterthattheyworkedtheexercisesprovidedinthesoftware.Theteachertaught theseaspectsbasedon theorderand sequencesof the software.Thissimultaneous way of teaching both by the teacher and the software helpedlearnerstoconfirmwhattheylearntbytheteacher.Thissimultaneousteachingbothby teacherandby the softwarehelped learners to learn suprasegmentalfeaturesmore effectively.This also helped to avoid the omission of teacherroles in the process classroom and obtain better results.During this projectteachernotonly taught requiredmaterials to the learners,alsogave learnerseffective feedbacks on their performance and taught them toworkwith thesoftwareandcompletetheexercises.Thispursuitofteacherhelpedlearnerstoretain and preserve theirmotivation during the course. The data collectedusinga writtenpre-testatthebeginningofthestudyandtheirprogressscoresattheendofthestudy.Boththeirpre-testandpost-testscoreswereobtainedthrough the software. Asmentioned before the software has the ability togenerate reporton learnerperformance.Soour finalassessmentof learners’performanceswasbasedonscoresobtainedfromthesoftware.

4.ResultsoftheStudy

Participants’performanceswereanalyzedbasedontheirscoresobtainedatendofthecourse.Afterteachingeachunitbytheteacher,learnersworkedwiththe


110

software and practiced related exercises. In the software, first the teacherthroughvideointroducestheunits.Thenunitsarebrokendoneintofivetopics.Each topic, in turn, include fiveactivitieswhich in summakea totalofmorethan 125 exercises.After completing each exercise, the software generate areport of learner performancewhich shown in percent (%). Preparing finalreportoflearnerperformanceisanotheradvantageofthissoftware,whichnotonlyhelpsteachersinknowingthewholeperformanceoflearners,andineachsession,butalsomakes iteasy for researchers toanalyze theperformanceoflearners.Soouranalysisof learnersperformanceswerebasedon theirscoresobtained at the end of the course. The following tables show, in turn, theperformanceof learners inconsonantclusters,wordstress,connectedspeech,sentencestressandintonationwereanalyzed.

ConsonantClusters

Table1 showstheperformanceof learners inconsonantclusters.Theverticalaxisshowstheaveragescoresofparticipantsinpercent(%)andthehorizontalaxis showsparticipantsnameby (S).The consonant clusters contain5 topicswhichareas follow:1.Consonantsounds2.Clustersat thestartofa word3.Clustersstartingwith/s/4.Clustersattheendofa word5.Consonantclustersand grammar. The average scores of these five topics, in sum, gave us theaverage score of consonant clusters unit. The comparison of learnersperformances in pre-test and post-test shows that the average scores ofparticipants in post-test increased in comparison with their pre-test. As anexample S 6 learner got 33 % in pre-test but in post-test he has maderemarkable progress and obtained 91 % in post-test. Also, other learnersshowedanacceptableprogressattheendofthecourseinthisunit.


111

Figure1.AverageScoresofLearnersinConsonantClusters

ThedegreeoftheirprogressshowsthatinthisunitthelowestscoreisforS5 learnerwith43% andthehighestscoreisforS4learnerwith60%.Inotherwords,learners’performancesfallbetween43to60% inthisunit.Bydegreeofprogressforeachlearnerwemeanthatwhatpercent(%)ourparticipantshadprogress incomparisonwith theirpre-test.As indicatedalmostallof learnershadprogress in learning consonant clusters,but thedegreeof theirprogressaredifferent.ForexampletheS1participantgotthescoreof22% inpre-testand at the end of the study got the score of 78% in post-test. The totalperformanceoflearnershowsthattheparticipantshada significantprogressinconsonantclusterunitandexercisesofthesoftwarewerehelpfulandeffectiveforthem.

WordStress

Table2 showslearners’performancesinwordstressunit.Inthisunitwehave5topics including:1.Recognizingstress inwords2.Stresspatterns3.Un-stresssyllables4.Stress in two syllableswords5.Suffix thataffectword stress. The

22 2230 25 25

3323

78 7988 85

68

9181

0

20

40

60

80

100

S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S 7

Aver

age

Scor

es(%

)

Learners Pre-Test Post-Test


112

sumofthescoresofthesetopicsgaveusaveragescoreofwordstressunit.Asindicated in table2 learnersperformance inpost-test increase in comparisonwith theirpre-test.Mostof theparticipantshadprogress in thisunitandgotbetter grades inpost-test.Their levelsofprogress aredifferent and someofthem had better performance in comparison with other participants. Forexample, S 3 learner got 23 % in pre-test, but in post-test had a betterperformance and got 92 % in this unit. The rest of learners also had anacceptableprogressincomparisonwiththeirpre-test.

Figure2.AverageScoresofLearnersinWordStressUnit

TheirdegreeofprogressrevealedthatthelowestscoreandprogressisforS2 learnerby39% andhighestscoreisforS 3 learnerwith69%.Inotherwords,theparticipants’performances fallbetween39% and69% in thisunit.Thesumoftheperformanceoflearnersshowa highdegreeofprogressinthisunit.Thisshowsthatexercisesandactivitiesprovided intheClearPronunciation2softwarewerehelpful and effective for learners, and learnershad significantandacceptableprogressinwordstressunit.

20 22 23 20 15 20 22

75

61

92

60 62

8778

0102030405060708090

100

S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S 7

Aver

age

Scor

es(%

)



113

ConnectedSpeech

Thenextunitwhichisoneofthemostimportantcomponentsofpronunciationwhichhelp learners tobeproficient inEnglish language isconnectedspeech.Thisunitcompromise5 topicsasfollow:1.Shortforms2.Joiningtoa vowel 3.Joining consonants 4.Words ending in /t/ or /d/ and 5.Disappearing sounds.Thesumofthescoreofthese5 topicsgaveustheaveragescoresofparticipantsinthisunitwhichisshownintable3.Inthisunitparticipantstriedtolearnhowtoconnectwordsina sentenceandasabovetitlesshowtheaimofthisunitistomake learnerspeechsimilar to thenativeaccent.Forexample in joining toavoweltopictheparticipantslearnhowtojoina consonantattheendofa wordto a vowel at the start of a word or in short forms topic they learnt how toshortenthe‘goingto’,‘getto’,‘wantto’andsoon.The table3 showslearnersperformance in pre-test and post-test.As seen in this table learners had abetterperformance inpost-test than theirpre-testandgotbettergrades.ForexampleS 3 got25% inpre-testand85 % inpost-testwhich showsa highdegreeofprogressforthislearner.

Figure3.AverageScoresofLearnersinConnectedSpeechUnit

22 20 25 2515

3525

8174

8571 67

80 80

0

20

40

60

80

100

S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S 7

Aver

age

Scor

es(%

)



114

ThelowestprogressamongparticipantsisforS 6 learnerbyobtainingthelowestnumberof45% andthehighestprogressisforS 3 learnerwith60% inthisunit.Ofcourse,by lowestprogress itdoesnotmean that thisparticipanthad no progress. But, in other words his progress was not satisfactory andacceptable.Anothercase isS 5 learnerwhogot lowscore(20%) inpre-test,but in post-test by focusingmore on activities of the program improved hisperformanceandgot67% attheendofthestudy.Althoughitwasnota veryhighscoreincomparisonwithotherlearners’scores,fortheresearchersitwasan acceptable progress in comparisonwith his pre-test score. This situationhappened formost of the learners and by analyzing of the degree of theirprogress in comparison with their pre-test scores we see that they had asignificantlevelofprogressanditseemsthattheexercisesandactivitiesofthesoftware were helpful for them. In sum, the final average progress ofparticipants issatisfactoryandacceptable, though theyhaddifferent levelsofprogress.Theimportantpointisthatallofthelearnershadsignificantlevelofprogressinthisunitandfortunatelytheexercisesandactivitiesofthesoftwareinthisunitwereeffectiveandhelpfulforlearners.

SentenceStress

Likeotherunits, theperformanceof learners insentencestressunitshows intable 4 with details. This feature known as one of the important prosodicfeature of pronunciation which our participants practiced 25 activities andexercises for learning it in this software. As said table 4 shows the exactperformanceoflearnersinpre-testandpost-testinthisunit.Averagescoresoflearnersinthisunitobtainedfromsumofthelearnersperformancein5 topicswhich are as follow: 1. Recognizing sentence stress 2. Un-stress words insentences 3. Stress and theword ‘be’ 4. Stress and the auxiliary verb and 5.


115

Sentence stress and emphasis. Learnersby completingof these exercisesgottheiraveragescoresinthisunit.Asshowninthistable,allofthelearnershadacceptable progress in this unit. Although they had not a satisfactoryperformances inpre-test, in thepost-testafter receivingenough feedbackbythe teacher and the software their performance improved and got bettergrades.Forexample,S 6 learnergot20%inpre-test,butduringtheproject,heworked hard, improved his performance, and at the end of study got 82%,whichassessedasanacceptablegradeforthislearner.

Figure4.AverageScoresofLearnersinSentenceStressUnit

The degree of their progress in comparison with their pre-test scoresindicate that the lowest scoreobtainedbyS 2 participantwith42% and thebestandthehighestscoreisforS 3 participantwith71%.Inotherwords,thisparticipanthad71% progressincomparisonwithhispre-testwhichwas23%.Ofcourse the importantpoint is thatallof learnershadprogress in thisunit.Some of them had a better performance than other learners. For examplebasedon learnersscoresS3,S4 learnershadacceptableperformancethanS1,S2 learners.Insum theperformancesof learners in thisunitwereacceptablefortheresearchersandtheyhada significantlevelofprogressafterthecourse.

1826 23 20 15 20 20

62 68

9478

6582 75

020406080

100

S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S 7

Aver

age

Scor

es(%

)



116

Intonation

Asdefinedbefore, intonation is thepatternsofupsanddownsofyourvoiceand pitch on and after the focus words which is usually at the end of thesentences. In this software intonation unit contain 5 topics as follow:1.Recognizing intonation 2. Standard intonation 3. Intonation for emphasis4. Clarifying information and 5. Expressing attitude. The average score ofintonation for each learner obtained from the sum of the scores of these 5topics. The participants in this unit learned when and how and in whatsituations change the pitch (ups and downs) of their voices to convey theirintendedmeaning to the listener. The table 5 Shows their performances oflearners in pre-test and post-test.A small glace on performance of learnersshowsthatallofthelearnershada betterperformanceintheirpost-test.AsanexampleS 3 participantgota lowscorebeforestartingofusing thesoftware,butheimprovehisperformanceduringthecourseandgotthescoreof91% attheendof studywhich isa highandgoodperformance.The situation is thesame forotherparticipantsandallof them totallyhadprogress in theirpost-test.

Figure5.AverageScoresofLearnersinIntonationUnit

28 25 25 25 25 30 30

74 7891

75 7486 80

0

20

40

60

80

100

S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S 7

Aver

age

Scor

es(%

)



117

Thedegreeoftheirprogressincomparisonwiththeirpre-testindicatesthatthelowestscoreisforS 1 learnerthatgot46% andS 3 learnerwhogot66% attheendof studyobtains thehighest score. Itmeans thathewas66% betterthanhisownperformance inpre-test. In sum theperformanceof learners inthisunitassessedasacceptableandtheyhada significantprogressinlearningintonation patterns. It seems that the exercises of this unitwere helpful forthemandtheylearnedintonationpatternseffectively.

TotalPerformanceofLearnersinPre-TestandPost-Test

The last table presented in this chapter is table 6 which shows the totalperformanceoflearnersinpre-testandpost-test.Boththeirpre-testandpost-test are compared. By pre-test and post-test wemean the performance oflearners in 5 units of the software.Their performance in these 5 unitswerecalculatedandshowedastheirfinalscoresinpre-testandpost-test.Asseenallof learnershad an acceptableprogress in thisproject.This shows that allofthem learned suprasegmental features effectively and the software exerciseshad significant influenceon improvementof learner’sEnglishpronunciation.Inotherwords,theyimprovedtheirconsonantclusters,wordstress,connectedspeech,sentencestressandintonationtoa higherlevel.\

Figure6.TotalPerformanceofLearnersinPre-testvs.Post-test

22 23 25 23 2028 24

74 7290

74 6885 80

0

20

40

60

80

100

S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S 7

Aver

age

Scor

es(%

)



118

5.DiscussionandConclusion

ThegoalofthisstudywastoexaminetheapplicationofClearPronunciation2softwareinimprovingpronunciationofIranianintermediateEFLlearners.Inparticular, this study attempted to teach prosodic features of pronunciation,stress,intonation,andrhythmtoIranianlearners.Theresearchquestionofthisstudywas;doesClearPronunciation2 softwarehaveanysignificantimpactonIranian intermediate EFL learner’s pronunciation? In this study, a mixedmethodologywas examined andboth the teacherandClearPronunciation2softwarewereengagedinteachingpronunciation.Tothisaim,firstteacherhada generalintroductionofeachtopicandafterthat,thelearnersworkwiththesoftware.Inthesoftware, first, theteacher,explaining throughvideo foreachtopic,introducedtheunitsandafterthat,learnerspracticedtheexercisesofthesoftware.Theinterestingpointisthatthelearnersworkmorewiththesoftwarethanwithteacherandtheroleofteacherwastoproviderequiredfeedbackforthelearnersduringthecourse.

Theresultsofthestudyshowedthatthelearners’pronunciationimprovedsignificantly after sixweeks ofworkingwith the software.They had enoughtime toworkwith thesoftwareandhad thischance toworkwith itwheneverandwhenevertheywanted.Inaddition,theresultsandthefeedbacksprovidedby the softwareallowed them tohaveaccess to theirperformancesandworkmore on their weaknesses to improve their pronunciation skill. As table6indicates, all of learners had progress in their total performance and theirpronunciationimprovedsignificantly.Moreprecisely,theyhadimprovementintheir consonant clusters,word stress, connected speech, sentence stress andintonation.Insum,theirpronunciationsignificantlyimprovedandtheexercisesof thesoftwarewerehelpfulandeffective for them.So thenullhypothesisofthe first research question is rejected. This highlights the importance of


119

transition from traditionalmethods of pronunciation teaching tomore newways of pronunciation teaching such as computer assisted pronunciationteaching and using other computer technologies.As said before because ofinefficiency of traditional methods of pronunciation teaching, one way ofimprovingitisusingcomputertechnologiestomeetthelearners’needs.AsLai(2006) state “when the learning environment is ineffective or fails tomeetstudents’ needs, incorporating instructional technology such as computer-assistedlanguagelearning(CALL),intotheclassroomexperiencemayimprovethe process”. Also Lacina (2004) believed that recent advances in CALLenvironmentenabledlearnerstoconstructmeaningina moreeffectiveway.

The findings of present study are in linewith previous studies on usingcomputerforteachingpronunciation(Chen,2014;Gorjianetal.2013;Tanner& Landon, 2009;Graff, 2006). For exampleAbuSeileek (2007) in his studyexamined theeffectof theMoutonInteractiveIntroduction toPhoneticsandPhonology softwareonSaudiEFL learnersonperceptionandproductionofcorrect stress patterns. The aim of his study was to use a communicativeapproachtoteachrightstresspatterns.Asa result,hefoundthatthelearner’sperceptionandproductionof stresspatterns inwords,phrasesand sentencesimprovedsignificantly.Moreover, theresultsof thecurrentstudysupport thefindings of Verdugo (2006) which studied the effect of ASR software onintonationofEFLlearners.Attheendofthestudyhefoundthatthequalityoftheirintonationincreasedandtheirperceptiontowardintonationincreased.

Also this study showed that teaching suprasegmental featureshave greatimpactonlearner’sperceptionandproductionoftheirownandnativespeakerspeech. Many scholars emphasized the important role of suprasegmentalfeatures in speech and believed that such errors hinder the assessment oflearnerstowardtargetlanguagespeech(Kangetal.,2010;Leeetal.,2015).As


120

Jenkins (2002) asserts, teaching suprasegmental features ismore importantthan segmental ones and achieving communicative competence inpronunciation is only possible by acquiring of suprasegmental features thanlearning segmental features (Jenkins, 2002). Some part of suprasegmentalfeatures should be emphasized more than other parts. For example stresspatterns of English which are the most important part of suprasegmentalfeatureshasa directrelationshipwithintelligibilityofourspeech.Learningthisfeature can improve learner competence in “how to place correct stress insentencesinEnglishtoachieveintelligibilityinEnglish”(Arslan,2013,p.185).Thisintelligibilitycanbeseeninbothperceptionandproductionofourspeech.Failureineachonewilldecreasetheintelligibilityofourspeech.

An important problem in our traditional classroom is that “learnersfrequentlyseemnotto“hear”thetargetpronunciationevenwhenitismodeledby their teachers, instead continuing with their original, incorrectpronunciation”(Reed& Michaud,2011).Ourstudyshowedthatthissoftwareis more efficient in modeling of target language speech for the learners,somethingwhich isunique inEFLcontext.InEFLcontextbecauseof lackofnativeEnglish teacher,using suchprograms canbeveryhelpful for learners.Theseprograms canplay the roleofnative speaker speechandasmodel forlearnertohelpthemtoanalyzeandassesstargetlanguagespeechandacquireright pronunciation patterns.AsHuffman (2011) stated “expanding existenttechnologies to include features thatofferadditionalvisual support (throughvideo of interlocutors) and written textual support (through simultaneousaccess to online dictionaries, pronunciation guides or translators)maymakethedevicesmoreappealingto instructorsand learnersforuse insynchronouscommunication”. Improving the quality of CALL programs result inimprovementoflearnerproficiency.Thisalsobalancesthetaskofteacherand


121

change the direction of current pronunciation classroom to a more learner-centeredone.

Oneofthemainproblemswhichishighlightedinintroductionofthisstudywas the problem of any organized materials and textbooks for teachingpronunciationinIran.ThisandthesameprogramslikeClearPronunciation2cansolve theproblemour teachers inhavinganorganizedandwell-designedmaterialsforteachingpronunciation.Becauseofexistenceofenoughspaceinthese programs, there is almost no limitation in numbers ofmaterials andactivities implemented in it. Another problems which is mentioned in ourintroductionwerethelackofenoughtimeforpracticeandalsothefrequencyof instruction.For the firstproblem, learners in this studyhad access to thesoftwarewheneverandwherevertheyneededandtheirinstructiondidnotlimitto the classroom time.This helped them toworkwith the software in timeswhen theyhad enough tendency andmotivation anddoesnotwork in timeswhentheyaretiredorimpatient.

Another problem is that teachers in the classroom in Iran do not haveenoughtimetoteachandworkwiththeirstudentsandtheclasstimeinmostofthecasesdirectedina teacher-centeredformandteachersonlyteachmaterialsanddonothavetimetopracticeenoughexercises.Thislackofenoughtimeforpractice is harmful for learners and in such circumstances learner does notlearnmaterialsina meaningfulway.Fortunately,inthissoftware,thelearnershad enough time and chanceofpracticingwith a numberof exerciseswhichhelped learners to acquire pronunciation components in an interactive andmeaningful way. This enhanced the chance of learning in comparison withclassroom instruction inIran.Asa result, insucha circumstancewhere thereare enough meaningful exercises and enough time for practice, it seemsdesirabletoexpectenoughimprovementinlearner’spronunciation.


122

InEFLcontextwherethelearnershavelittleaccesstoauthenticmaterialscomputerprogramscanbethebestchoiceforimprovingoftheirpronunciationskill.TheCALLprogramsoffermanychancesforthelearnerstoworkontheirweaknesses and improve their proficiency in target language.Also by usingthese technologies they can assess their performance in pronunciationcomponents and recognize their errors and weaknesses and improve theirintelligibility in target language. However both teachers and learners canbenefit from these technologies to improve their teaching and learninglanguageskills.Thisstudymayberegardedasa goodsampleofhowprosodicfeaturesofpronunciationcanbetaughtinanEFLcontextsuchasIran.

ReferencesAbdolmaleki,M.,& Mohebi,H.(2014).A Diagnostic-remedialSurveyofIranian

EFL Teachers’ Knowledge and Practice of Suprasegmental PronunciationFeatures.Procedia- SocialandBehavioralSciences,98, 36–43.

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2007). Computer-assisted pronunciation instruction as aneffectivemeansforteachingstress.JALTCALLJournal,3(1-2),3-14.

Arslan, R. Ș. (2013). Enhancing Non-Native Prospective English LanguageTeachers’ Competency in Sentential Stress Patterns in English, PamukkaleUniversity.JournalofEducation, 34(II),183-195.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin J. M. (1996). Teachingpronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of otherlanguages.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Chen, A. H. (2014). The effects of employing MYET on college students’pronunciationskillstraininginTaiwan.IJBRITISH, 1(3),43-53.

Delcloque, P. (2000). History of CALL. Retrieved November 20, 2008, fromhttp://www.history-of-call.org/.


123

Deng, J.,Holtby,A.,Howden-Weaver, L.,Nessim,L.,Nicholas,B.,Nickle,K.,Pannekoek,C.,Stephan,S.,Sun,M. (2009).Englishpronunciationresearch:The neglected orphan ofUtopianGoals | 35 Selected Papers from the 1st

Annual Conference on Pronunciation in Second Language Learning andTeaching second language acquisition studies. Prairie Metropolis CentreWorkingPaperSeries,WP05-09,Edmonton,AB.

Donmus,V. (2010). The use of social networks in educational computer-gamebasedforeignlanguagelearning.Procedia- SocialandBehavioralSciences, 9,1497-1503.

Gorjian,B.,Hayati,A.,& Pourkhoni,P.(2013).UsingPraatsoftwareinteachingprosodicfeaturestoEFLlearners.Procedia- SocialandBehavioralSciences,84, 34–40.

Graff,M. (2006).A studyofRosettaStone’seffectivenesson improvingEnglishpronunciation (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State UniversityDominguezHills.

Hayati,M. (2010).Noteson teachingEnglishpronunciation toEFL learners:Acaseof Iranianhigh school students.EnglishLanguageTeaching, 3(4), 121-126.

Huffman,S.(2011).Usingmobiletechnologies forsynchronousCMC todevelopL2oralproficiency.In.J.Levis& K.LeVelle(Eds.).Proceedingsof the2ndPronunciationinSecondLanguageLearningandTeachingConference,Sept.2010.(pp.122-129),Ames,IA:IowaStateUniversity.

Jahromi,S.A.F.,& Salimi,F.(2013).Exploringthehumanelementofcomputer-assisted language learning:AnIraniancontext.ComputerAssistedLanguageLearning, 26(2),158-176.

Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researchedpronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. AppliedLinguistics, 23(1),83-103.doi:10.1093/applin/23.1.83.


124

Kang,O.,Rubin,D.O.N.,& Pickering,L. (2010).Suprasegmentalmeasuresofaccentednessand judgmentsof language learnerproficiency inoralEnglish.TheModernLanguageJournal, 94, 554–566.

Ketabi, S., & Saeb, F. (2015). Pronunciation teaching: Past and present.InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics& EnglishLiterature, 4(5),182-189.

Khany,R.,& Ghoreyshi,M. (2013). IranianEFL teachers’ familiarity, attitudesand willingness towards different internet tools and their applications.EuropeanOnlineJournalofNaturalandSocialSciences, 2(2),612-621.

Khoii,R.,& Aghabeig,M.(2009).Computersoftwareandtheimprovementoftheelementary EFL students’ listening comprehension. Journal of TeachingEnglishasa ForeignLanguageandLiterature, 1(2),89-101.

Lacina, J. (2004). Promoting language acquisitions: Technology and Englishlanguagelearners.ChildhoodEducation,81(2),113-115.

Lai, C. (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer technology insecond languageacquisition.National Journal forPublishingandMentoringDoctoralStudentResearch, 3(1),1-6.

LaRocca, S. (1994).Exploiting strengths and avoidingweaknesses in the use ofspeechrecognitionforlanguagelearning.CALICOJournal, 12(1),102-105.

Liu,Y.(2008).Theeffectivenessofintegratingcommercialpronunciationsoftwareinto an ESL pronunciation class. (Master of Arts), Iowa State University.(11716).

Luo, B. (2014). Evaluating a computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT)technique for efficient classroom instruction. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning,1-26.

Neri,A.,Cucchiarini,C.,Strik,H.,& Boves,L.(2002).Thepedagogy-technologyinterface in computer assisted pronunciation training. Computer AssistedLanguageLearning, 15(5),441-467.


125

Pirasteh, P. (2014). The effectiveness of computer-assisted language learning(CALL)onlearninggrammarbyIranianEFLlearners.Procedia- SocialandBehavioralSciences, 98,1422–1427.

Rafiee,S.J.,& Purfallah,S.A.(2014).Perceptionsofjuniorhighschoolteacherstoward computer assisted language learning (CALL) within the context ofAzarbayjan provinces. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences, 98, 1445–1453.

Reed, M. & Michaud, C. (2011). An integrated approach to pronunciation:Listeningcomprehensionandintelligibilityintheoryandpractice.In.J.Levis& K. LeVelle (Eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Pronunciation in SecondLanguageLearningandTeachingConference,Sept.2010.(pp.95-104),Ames,IA:IowaStateUniversity.

Mehrpour, S., AlaviShoushtari, S., & HaghighatNezhadShirazi, P. (2016).Computer-AssistedPronunciationTraining:TheEffectofIntegratingAccentReductionSoftwareonIranianEFLLearner’Pronunciation.CALL-EJ,17(1),97-112.

Rafieea,S. J.,AllahverdiPurfallah,S. (2014).Perceptionsof JuniorHigh schoolTeachers towardComputerAssistedLanguageLearning(CALL)Within theContextofAzarbayjanProvinces.Procedia - SocialandBehavioralSciences,98,1445–1453.

Seferolu,G.(2005).Improvingstudents’pronunciation throughaccentreductionsoftware.BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology, 36(2),303–316.

Shooshtari, et al. (2013).A Call forTeachingPronunciation in IranianSchools.International Journal ofAcademic Research in Progressive Education andDevelopment, 2(1), 454-465.

Tanner, M. W., & Landon, M. M. (2009). The Effects of Computer-AssistedPronunciationReadingonESLLearners’UseofPausing,Stress,Intonation,andOveralComprehinsibility. LanguageLearning& Technology, 13(3),51–65.


126

Thomson,R.I.,& Derwing,T.M.(2014).TheEffectivenessofL2PronunciationInstruction:ANarrativeReview.AppliedLinguistics, 36(3),326–344.

Verdugo,D. (2006).A studyof intonationawarenessand learning innon-nativespeakersofEnglish.LanguageAwareness,15(3),141–159.

computer assisted pronunciation teaching (capt)...

Documents