Evaluation of personal interviews

Eleven students agreed to come to an interview, which lasted about ten minutes. The general guidelines for this interview can be found in chapter 6.4. In order to make the participants feel at ease and to enable them to talk freely about their opinions, the inter- views were conducted in German, the L1 of most students. Only one interview was, by the special request of the student, conducted in English. All interviews took place at the English Department of the University of Vienna in May and June 2012. All students in- terviewed had participated in the questionnaire survey and so had had time to think about the questions. Students’ answers were recorded and then transcribed in their original form. Thus, colloquialisms or signs of hesitation have not been erased in the transcription, and were not taken into account in the analysis. The analysis of the inter- views follows the pointers given by Kvale (2007: 104ff.) and Cohen et al. (2007: 483ff.) (cf. chapter 6.4) and was structured like that of the semi-open questions (Q24 and Q25). First, the complete response of a student was split up and grouped according to pre-defined categories and the summarised content of the actual statements was then assigned to the category in question (table 14).

Evaluation of personal interviews 1) General view on pronunciation

Pronunciation needs to be emphasized more in Austria. (3)*

Transcription makes it easier to learn pronunciation. (1)

2) Reasons for considering pronunciation to be (not) important

PPOCS helps me to pay more attention to accurate pronunciation. (7) Good pronunciation is a part of language learning. (5)

Good pronunciation enhances communication. (4) I want to be a teacher. (2)

3) Factors of motivation

The feedback in the language laboratory. (8) Repetition and listening. (5)

I want to sound like a native speaker. (4) Laboratory work is fun. (3)

Laboratory work is individual work. (3)

The laboratory does not cause embarrassment. (2) My personal wish to be good. (2)

I want to talk to native speakers. (1)

The laboratory work is pedagogically structured. (1) The laboratory work is practical. (1)

Evaluation of personal interviews 4) Factors of demotivation

Inconsistent feedback by teacher/tutor. (3)

There is not enough time for pronunciation work. (3) Boredom. (2)

Language lab material inappropriate. (1) Persistent L1 influence. (2)

Linguistic theory background. (1)

Insecurities when deciding on an accent. (1) Classroom setting, air-conditioner set too cold. (1)

5) Learner needs

Focus on one standard model of pronunciation. (4) Conversational practice. (3)

Written feedback to take home. (2) Awareness raising. (2)

Take home version of the sound files from the lab. (1) Transcription practice. (1)

Drill work. (1)

6) Additional comments

Pronunciation training should begin earlier than university. (3) Best would be speaking to a native speaker. (1)

Received pronunciation is questionable. (1) *Numbers show frequency of occurrence. Table 14: Evaluation of personal interviews.

The personal interviews showed results that were very similar to those of the question- naire study (cf. chapter 7.2). Still, some points mentioned by the students may serve as valuable additional information. Above all, the students feel encouraged by the feedback they received from their tutor in the course of the language laboratory work. Students acknowledge that the tutor’s feedback is the crucial motivation aspect. Most interview- ees feel that their level of awareness has increased considerably since they started PPOCS classes. A point that had not been explicitly addressed in the questionnaire, but came up in half of the interviews, was the view that good pronunciation must be part of language learning and that it should be seen as a prerequisite for a professional L2 ca- reer. Moreover, some students expressed their wish to concentrate on one standard form of English pronunciation. One student, however, questioned RP as a model, but was not able to argue for a different approach to the matter. Others mentioned that they would thoroughly attempt to sound like a native speaker.

Beside the discussion regarding the teaching models used, the large majority of those interviewed said that the PPOCS classes made them pay more attention to the accu- racy of their pronunciation. Moreover, some students argued that pronunciation instruc- tion should begin at an earlier level than at university. In other words, they felt unhappy about not having received more English pronunciation education during their school years. Some students wanted a take-home version of the feedback provided by the tu- tor (at the moment, mostly given in oral form). One student also wished to receive a copy of the sound files used in the language laboratory in order to do additional work at home.

In the interviews, it became clear once again (cf. chapter 7.2) that students princi- pally like to “listen and repeat” in the language laboratory, provided that they receive the necessary feedback from their tutor. What demotivates them is inconsistent and poor feedback given by some tutors and also the fact that they sometimes feel they run out of time before they have finished practising. Boredom in the language laboratory was also mentioned as a problem, mainly because of the waiting periods that develop due to the fact that some students need more feedback than others. Some students argued that it was really demotivating that they did not manage to overcome their L1 influences in English as fast as they wished. One student complained of the complicating presence of linguistic theoretical elements in the course, explaining that at his former university it played no such role.

Dieses Sprachtheoretische, was in Innsbruck gar nicht gemacht wird, das ist halt für mich immer sehr demotivierend. Wenn dann so Sachen kommen wie weak forms, transkribieren, stress etc, das haben wir [in Innsbruck, Anm.] in der Theorie nie gemacht. Für mich ist das immer sehr schwer, weil ich das einfach aus dem Gefühl heraus gemacht habe. [...]

$ $ $ $ $ (cf. Transcription in the appendix, 134ff.)

Obviously, the student feels demotivated by the necessity of linguistic background knowledge in practical phonetics that may have been neglected at Innsbruck University. Generally, however, the training of such features as the above mentioned weak forms and stress have been frequently listed among students’ learner needs and not as de- motivating factor. The rest of the interviews present a picture that is similar to the find-

ings of the questionnaire survey (cf. chapter 7.2). More students, however, explicitly put emphasis on the need for learning one standard model of English pronunciation, be it Received Pronunciation or General American. Again, some students asked for more conversational practice as early as the stage of PPOCS 1 and others wanted to receive more written feedback from their tutors to take home with them for closer study.