Previous Studies on Explicit Form-Focused Instruction

Different explicit pronunciation techniques were examined to enhance L2 learners’ production skill, such as repetition practice, phonetic or orthographic transcriptions, and types of corrective feedback, including verbal, written and computer-mediated feedback (e.g. Kartushina, Hervais-Adelman, Frauenfelder, & Golestani, 2015; Levis & Pickering, 2004; Peltola, Tamminen, Alku, & Peltola, 2015; Sisinni, d’Apolito, Fivela, & Grimaldi, 2016; Tateishi, 2013). Other techniques were used to examine the effects of perceptual training on L2 speech perception and the extent of its influence on L2 speech production (e.g. Bradlow, Akahane-Yamada, Pisoni, & Tohkura, 1999; Hardison, 2003; Iverson, Hazan, & Bannister, 2005;

Krzonowski, Ferragne, & Pellegrino, 2015; Lambacher, Martens, Kakehi, Marasinghe, & Molholt, 2005; Lengeris & Nicolaidis, 2014; Wong, 2013). Although these studies yielded noteworthy results in favour of explicit perception and production phonetic training, they focused on learning difficult sound features under strict laboratory

settings. Many of these techniques have been quite inaccessible, and, as a result, might have been of little practical value to pronunciation teaching and in particular to the classroom activities of language teachers.

Research in teaching pronunciation in actual classrooms is gaining little attention. Such lack of attention to L2 perception and production teaching has resulted in an inadequate understanding of the application of pronunciation training in L2 classrooms. Specifically, there is a need for more pedagogical studies in L2 speech perception and production teaching and learning, along with techniques for incorporating different modern methods into practical classroom instruction (Lambacher, 1999; Lee & Lyster, 2016b; Saito & Lyster, 2012a).

Among effective form-focused activities identified and discussed in previous research, particular techniques that are directly relevant to the current study are discussed in this section, including explicit isolated form-focused instruction and corrective feedback (i.e., “responses to learner utterances containing an error” (Ellis, 2006, p. 28)). The very few quasi-experimental studies that focused particularly on teaching segmentals and conducted in a range of classroom settings emphasised the effectiveness of these two techniques on learners’ development of speech perception and production in L2.

The most frequently cited study on form-focused segmental and suprasegmental English pronunciation instruction was conducted by Derwing, Munro, and Wiebe (1998). In their study, speech samples were collected before and after specific treatments from 48 English learners, who were divided into three groups. The aim of their study was to compare the outcomes of three different scopes of content in pronunciation classes. The first group received segmental form-focused instruction

focusing on individual sounds and syllables, the second group received suprasegmental form-focused instruction focusing on stress, intonation, and rhythm and the third group received no specific pronunciation instruction and attended regular skills-based English classes. In the three groups, the focus was on both perceptive and productive skills. The training was for 11 weeks, 20 minutes per week. The rating of learners’ speech was based on comprehensibility, accentedness, and fluency. The results showed that the segmental group improved significantly more than the other two groups in the level of accentedness, while both the segmental and suprasegmental groups improved

significantly in the level of comprehensibility.

Although the results of this study can be used to the benefit of form-focused segmental and suprasegmental instruction, it was impractical to compare two methods that have two different objectives in pronunciation teaching. Teachers use a specific teaching approach based on learners’ needs. Using form-focused instruction in teaching segmental and suprasegmental features is helpful in improving learners’ accents and comprehensibility. However, it is difficult to choose and focus on one scope of content in pronunciation because its effectiveness was confirmed, while learners have

weaknesses in other aspects of pronunciation. Another issue is the rating scale, which was based on accentedness, fluency and comprehensibility. Rating learners based on these three aspects, especially accentedness, is difficult and is subject to individual opinions, because a group cannot agree on a decision about what an accurate English accent from L2 learners looks like (Derwing & Munro, 1997).

Saito and Lyster (2012a) were the first to investigate the role of form-focused instruction with corrective feedback in classroom pronunciation learning. Their study aimed at examining the development of the English /ɹ/ by 65 Japanese learners of

English after receiving form-focused instruction with and without corrective feedback. To this end, participants were divided into three groups and received four hours of pronunciation training, one hour per day. The control group (n=11) received pronunciation instruction but without the form-focused method. The second group (experimental 1, n=29) received form-focused instruction with corrective feedback. The third group (experimental 2, n=25) received form-focused instruction without

corrective feedback. The form-focused instruction for the experimental 1 and 2 groups included 38 minimally paired words, in which English /ɹ/ appeared in various positions, italicised and highlighted in red to help learners notice the target feature. The instructor in experimental group 1 was asked to recast learners’ mispronunciation or unclear pronunciation of /ɹ/, while experimental group 2 did not receive recasts on their mispronunciation.

Three pre-and post-tests were administered, each requiring an audio recording of participants pronouncing the sound /ɹ/. The tests were word-reading, sentence-reading and picture-description. After analysing learners’ pronunciation, the results showed that experimental groups 1 and 2 outperformed the control group significantly.

Furthermore, experimental group 1, who received corrective feedback, improved significantly more than experimental group 2, who did not receive any feedback.

This study of Saito and Lyster (2012a) took a first step in investigating form- focused instruction in classroom settings and provided noteworthy results, indicating that form-focused instruction with corrective feedback can make a positive difference and help L2 learners improve their intelligibility. Saito and Lyster have continued investigating this subject, and their studies have confirmed the impact of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on developing L2 perceptive and production skills

(Gooch et al., 2016; Lee & Lyster, 2016a, 2016b, 2017; Lyster, 2004a, 2004b, 2007; Saito, 2007, 2011a, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2015; Yang & Lyster, 2010).

Researchers believed that corrective feedback is a crucial element in production training (Gordon, Darcy, & Ewert, 2012; Kartushina et al., 2015; Lyster, 2004a; Su & Tian, 2016). The ongoing interest in the role of corrective feedback in developing learners’ understanding of L2 features has led to the investigation of different types of feedback. Sheen and Ellis (2011) noted different types of oral feedback, including on- line feedback (i.e., the feedback is provided immediately following the learner’s error) and off-line feedback (i.e., the feedback is withheld until the learners’ communicative event has finished). They also mentioned that feedback can be input-providing (i.e., give a correction to the learner) or output-prompting (i.e., help the learner to elicit a correction). Furthermore, oral feedback also can be explicit (i.e., when the teacher corrects the learner’s error) or implicit (i.e., when the teacher requests clarification for the learner’s error). Each type has specific strategies, and the definitions of these different types are provided next, based on Sheen and Ellis (2011), Ranta and Lyster (2007) and Lyster, Saito, and Sato (2013).

Input-providing feedback has two strategies: implicit and explicit. The implicit input-providing feedback includes conversation recasts (i.e., reformulating the learner’s response in order to resolve a communication problem). The explicit input-providing feedback includes didactic recasts (i.e., reformulating and correcting the learner’s response, even if there is no communication problem), explicit correction only (i.e., correcting the learner’s errors directly) and explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation (i.e., correcting the learner’s errors directly and providing a metalinguistic explanation).

Output-prompting feedback also has two strategies: implicit and explicit. The implicit output-prompting feedback includes repetition (i.e., repeating the learner’s utterance without mentioning the error) and clarification requests (i.e., drawing the learner’s attention to an error by asking for clarification). The explicit output-

prompting feedback includes a metalinguistic clue (i.e., eliciting a correction from the learner by providing a brief metalinguistic explanation), elicitation (i.e., eliciting a correction verbally from the learner by, for instance, a prompting question) and paralinguistic signal (i.e., eliciting a correction from the learner non-verbally).

The current study employs form-focused instruction and corrective feedback, following studies that showed positive outcomes in aiding L2 learners to develop perceptive and productive skills. Previous studies that showed that corrective feedback was beneficial in teaching pronunciation used different strategies, such as recasts (Gooch et al., 2016; Lyster, 2004a; Saito, 2013a; Saito & Lyster, 2012b), repetition (Bradlow, Pisoni, Akahane-Yamada, & Tohkura, 1997; Dlaska & Krekeler, 2013) and multiple types of feedback (Chu, 2011; Suzuki, 2005). The process of receiving and producing feedback in those studies involves a direct interaction between L2 learners and their teachers. Another type of corrective feedback can be found in computer- assisted programs. The next section focuses on using computers in L2 teaching and discusses previous studies that tested the efficacy of exploiting speech analysis tools in receiving immediate feedback in the field of teaching pronunciation.