1. The Effects of Explicit Instruction in
Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL
Students’ Intelligibility Using Reading
Aloud
Seminario de Titulación para optar al Título de Profesor
de Inglés
Licenciado en Educación
Maximiliano Fernando Ayala Pozo
Profesor Guía: Mg. Luis G. Vera V.
Valparaíso, Chile
2013

2. Background of the Study
Statement of the Problem
Statement of Purpose
General and Specific Objectives
Researching Questions
Hypotheses

3. Statement of the Problem
Various studies (Derwing & Munro, 2003; Centeno,
2001; Saito, 2011; Ventakagiri and Levis, 2007) show
that explicit pronunciation instruction is beneficial
for language learners.
However, according to Derwing et al (2005), “not
much less research has been carried out on L2
pronunciation than no other skills such as grammar
and vocabulary.” (p. 380).
In sum, there is an absence of pronunciation
research and explicit pronunciation instruction in
the language class, especially at a local level.

4. Statement of Purpose
To do an eight session pedagogical intervention that
serves as a guide for teaching pronunciation.
To provide the necessary knowledge for future
studies related to explicit pronunciation instruction.

5. General and Specific Objectives
General Objective:
 To determine if explicit instruction using the reading
aloud task increases the level of intelligibility in
Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students.
Specific Objectives:
 To conduct eight explicit pronunciation instruction
sessions.
 To compare students’ initial levels of intelligibility with
the final ones.
 To apply tests to measure the levels of intelligibility.

6. Researching Questions
Does an eight session pedagogical intervention on
explicit pronunciation teaching increase the level of
intelligibility in Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL
students?
Is reading aloud a useful technique for measuring
Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students’
intelligibility?

7. Hypotheses
An eight session pedagogical intervention on explicit
pronunciation teaching using the reading aloud task
increases the level of intelligibility in Elementary-toIntermediate EFL students.
Reading aloud is a useful technique for measuring
Elementary-to-Intermediate EFL students’
intelligibility.

8. Theoretical Framework
Defining Intelligibility.
The Teaching of Pronunciation:
 The Problem with the Pronunciation Component.
The Controversy between Explicit and Implicit
Instruction.
Explicit Instruction and Metaphonological
Awareness.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Using RA.
What Model of English Should Be Taught?

9. Defining Intelligibility
A variety of definitions and explanations are offered by
many authors (Derwing & Munro, 2005; Celce-Murcia,
2010; Kenworthy, 1987, among others)
Kenworthy, 1987: the more words a listener identifies from
a speaker, the more intelligible that speaker is (even if the
speaker has an accent.)
Celce-Murcia, 2010: intelligibility is not a lack of accent
but an accent that does not distract the listener.
Derwing & Munro, 2005: Native like pronunciation is
difficult (if not impossible) to achieve.
Abercrombie, 1949: Ss need no more than an intelligible
pronunciation.
Kenworthy, 1987: Intelligibility as a realistic goal.

10. The Teaching of Pronunciation
The Problem with the Pronunciation Component
(Kelly, 2001):
 Teachers admit they lack the necessary knowledge.
 Learners show considerable enthusiasm on
pronunciation.
 There is an interest on pronunciation on both sides.
However, it is often neglected.
 Because of this situation, one of the aims of this
study is to provide the necessary knowledge for
language teachers.

11. Explicit VS. Implicit
A topic that has been dealt by many authors.
Implicit:
 Students discover the grammar point by themselves.
Explicit:
 The teacher gives the grammar explanation.
A lot of studies have been carried out (Green and
Karlheinz, 1992; McCandless and Winitz, 1986; Scott,
1989; Seliger, 1975, etc.).
However, these studies are not conclusive. When one
appears supporting implicit instruction, another one
appears supporting explicit instruction.

12. Explicit Instruction and
Metaphonological Awareness
Explicit: Rules first, examples later.
Derwing et al, 2005: students benefit from learning
explicitly, that means, making differences between
sounds and their own productions.
Explicit instruction helps develop metaphonological
awareness (conscious knowledge of phonetics.)
(Ventakagiri and Levis, 2007.).
Ventakagiri and Levis, 2007: 14 tasks to measure
students’ phonetic knowledge. Better results!
Centeno, 2001: Similar study. 60% of the participants
got better results.

13. Advantages and Disadvantages of
Using RA
Advantages
Disadvantages
1. Focus on the form language and
the mechanics of the L2.
1. Dull and boring. Anxiety
provoking. Demotivating.
2. Association of word and sound.
2. Little room for comprehension.
3. Awareness of prosodic features
3. It slows reading speed.
4. Opportunities for practice and
feedback.
4. It does not help in spontaneous
speech.
5. Day-to-day activities:
instructions, modeling, news, etc.
5. Focus on English spelling = more
errors.
6. Development of reading fluency.
6. Not a skill many people need.
7. Applying phonetics knowledge.
7. It is difficult even for NS.

14. What Model of English Should Be
Taught?
No need to answer this question. Ss may need to
learn ESL, EFL, EIL, etc.
However, participants are part of an English
Pedagogy course of studies.
Gimson, 2008: Amalgam English.
Amalgam English: Am. Eng. + Br. Engl., among other
variations NNSs use.
Amalgam English was used since Ss may need a
variation that includes either Am. or Br. English.

15. Operational Framework
 Design
 The Participants
 Demographic Information about the Participants.
 Data Collection Procedure.
 Instrumentation.
 Description of the Pedagogical Intervention.
 Data Analysis Procedure.
 Results of the Participants’ Performance.

16. Methodology
Design:
 Quasi Experimental research.
 Quantitative approach.
 An intelligibility rubric was used.
Participants:
 20 English pedagogy students from UPLA (a lot of
input!)
 All Chileans.
 Previously organized by the institution.
 The intervention was not part of their course of studies.

17. Methodology
Demographic Information:
 Collected in the institution.
 15 women, 5 men. 20 people in total.
 Ages ranged between 21 to 25 years old.
Data Collection Procedure:
 Information about the intervention.
 Ss were recorded (pretest).
 Judges used an intelligibility rubric.
 Once the course finished, Ss were recorded again
(posttest).

18. Methodology
Instrumentation
 RA task, intelligibility rubric (Gerhiser and Wrenn,
2007.).
Why?
 Equivalent stretches of speech can be judged.
 Reading comprehension and lack of nature of the text?
Not this case!
 Reading comprehension is not measured.
 Teachers need it for many situations.
 RA was used as a first-step measuring technique.

19. Elements of Speech
Consonants: Does the speaker have repeated
problems with any consonants or clusters?
Vowels: Do vowel sounds negatively affect
intelligibility?
Syllables and Grammatical Endings:
-s endings (Americans, relationships)
-d endings (considered, appreciated)
Word stress: Does stress fall on the appropriate
syllable?
Rhythm and Intonation: Does the speaker speak in a
natural rhythm? Or does language sound abrupt or
choppy? Is every word given the same stress?
Focus and Special Emphasis: Does the speaker use
emphatic stress to indicate key words, contrasts (not
only/all), etc.?
Intonation/Pitch: Does tone rise and fall in the
appropriate places? Or, does it sound monotone?
Thought Groups and Linking: Does the speaker
pause at commas and other appropriate places?
Delivery (rate of speech, loudness): Does the speaker
speak too loudly or quietly, too fast, or too slow?
Number of Errors

20. Methodology
Description of the Pedagogical Intervention:
 Session I: pretest and presentation of the course.
 Session II: vowels, consonants, and diphthongs.
 Session III: strong and weak syllables.
 Session IV: strong and weak forms.
 Session V: linking sounds and sentence stress.
 Session VI: emphasis and assimilation.
 Session VII: rhythm and intonation.
 Session VIII: end of intervention, posttest.

21. Methodology
Data Analysis Procedure:
 A board of judges analyzed the recordings (3 NSs, and 2
NN teachers of English.)
 Intelligibility rubric.
 Salient mistakes and errors were counted.

22. Results
Consonants
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Consonants
Pretest
Posttest

23. Results
Vowels
9.2
9
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
Vowels
Pretest
Posttest

24. Results
Syllables and Grammatical Endings:
9
8
7
6
5
Pretest
4
Posttest
3
2
1
0
Syllables and Grammatical Endings

25. Results
Word Stress
12
10
8
6
Pretest
Posttest
4
2
0
Word Stress

26. Results
Rhythm and Intonation
35
30
25
20
Pretest
15
Posttest
10
5
0
Rhythm and Intonation

27. Results
Focus and Special Emphasis
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Pretest
0.4
Posttest
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Focus and Special Emphasis

28. Results
Intonation/Pitch
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
Pretest
2
Posttest
1.5
1
0.5
0
Intonation/Pitch

29. Results
Thought Groups and Linking
3.5
3
2.5
2
Pretest
1.5
Posttest
1
0.5
0
Thought Groups and Linking

30. Results
Delivery
2.5
2
1.5
Pretest
Posttest
1
0.5
0
Delivery

32. General Conclusions
An explicit instruction intervention increases the
level of intelligibility of Elementary-to-Intermediate
EFL students when reading aloud.
RA is a difficult technique to use when its purpose is
not clear in the EFL classroom.
Explicit instruction helps students get the chance to
learn the necessary tips to become more intelligible
in oral situations and explain these features (novice
teachers need it!)

33. Limitations of the Study
Eight sessions were planned. However, more sessions
would have been carried out in order to cover more
contents.
The use of RA along with spontaneous speech.
Little control on the variable of improvement of the
participants (they previously received a lot of input)

34. Pedagogical Implications
Explicit instruction increases the levels of intelligibility.
Teachers should explain pronunciation explicitly to
adults.
RA should be used for pronunciation purposes, not to
measure reading comprehension.
Teachers could use RA when the semester has just begun
in order to measure their students’ intelligibility and
intervene.
The implementation of this technique should be at least
used for formative assessment.

35. Thank You for Your Attention!