Teachers’ Views on Teaching English Pronunciation

Linköping Universitet | Department of Culture & Society

Linköpings universitet | Institutionen för kultur och samhälle

Thesis 2, 15 credits | Secondary School Teachers’ Programme (upper secondary) - English

Produktionsuppsats, 15 hp | Ämneslärarprogrammet (gymnasieskolan) - Engelska

Spring Term 2021

Vårterminen 2021

Teachers’ Views on Teaching English Pronunciation – A Phenomenographic Study of Upper-secondary

Teachers’ Views and Reported Practices

Lärares syn på uttalsundervisning i engelska

– En fenomenografisk studie av gymnasielärares uppfattningar och uttalade praktik Axel Tegnered

Jonas Rentner

Supervisor/Handledare: Nigel Musk

Examiner/Examinator: Michael Smith

Linköping University/Linköpings universitet SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

013-28 10 00, www.liu.se

English

Institutionen för kultur och samhälle

Department of Culture and Society

581 83 LINKÖPING

Seminariedatum

Seminar date

2021-06-09

Ämne Subject Språk Language Rapporttyp Type of Report

Engelska

English

Engelska

English

Examensarbete 2 (produktion)

Thesis 2

Title (in English)

Teachers’ Views on Teaching English Pronunciation: A Phenomenographic Study of Upper-secondary

Teachers’ Views and Reported Practices

Titel (svensk översättning)

Lärares syn på uttalsundervisning i Engelska – En fenomenografisk studie av gymnasielärares uppfattningar

och uttalade praktik

Författare Authors

Axel Tegnered & Jonas Rentner

Sammanfattning Summary (in English)

This study investigates Swedish upper-secondary teachers’ views and reported practices regarding

pronunciation instruction in the English-as-a-foreign-language classroom. It adopts a mixed-method

design, analysing qualitative data collected from a focus-group interview (N=4) and quantitative data

collected from an online survey (N=54).

To investigate the views and reported practices of teachers, the following research questions were posed:

1. What are the views and attitudes of English teachers in the Swedish upper-secondary school

regarding pronunciation and pronunciation instruction?

2. How do English teachers in the Swedish upper-secondary school describe their own practices in

pronunciation instruction?

Results indicate that teachers generally value comprehensibility as the most important aim of

pronunciation instruction. However, a native-like accent still seems to be highly valued, and nativeness

norms still seem to affect teachers’ views and practices to some extent. Finally, our findings indicate that

teachers spend very little time on pronunciation teaching in general, and they highlight that other aspects

of language instruction are more important.

Nyckelord Keywords

English pronunciation, pronunciation instruction, pronunciation teaching, teachers’ views on pronunciation,

English as a foreign language, language instruction, language skills, intelligibility, comprehensibility,

nativeness, pronunciation model

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

1.1 Aims & Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………... 2 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………………………….… 2

2.1 Historical Background to Pronunciation Research …………………………………………………………………….. 2 2.2 Pronunciation Models ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 4 2.3 Teacher Beliefs regarding Pronunciation Instruction …………………………………………………………….....… 5 2.4 The Effects of and on Pronunciation ……………………………………………………………………………………..…. 6

3. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………...... 7 3.1 Nature of the Data ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....… 7 3.2 Participants ……………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………....... 8 3.3 Gathering Data & Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………………………………........ 9

3.3.1 Focus Group ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…... 9 3.3.2 Self-completion Questionnaire ……………………………………………………………………...…….……….. 10

3.4 Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………..…… 11 3.5 Problems Encountered …………………………………………………………………………………………….……………... 13

4. RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..…. 14 4.1 The Importance of Comprehensibility ……………………………………………………………………..…………..…. 14

4.1.1 Comprehensibility over Accuracy ……………………………………………………………………………..….. 15 4.1.2 Correction for Comprehension …………………………………………………………………..……………..…. 16 4.1.3 Dismissal of Nativeness Norms …………………………………………………………………..……………….... 18

4.2 Consistency ……………………………………………………………..…………………………………………..……………..… 20 4.2.1 The Importance of Consistency ………………………………………………………………...……………….... 20 4.2.2 Consistency for “Better” Students ………………………………………………………………...…………….… 23

4.3 Encouraging a Willingness to Speak ……………………………………………………………………..……………..…… 25 4.4 The Importance of Teaching Pronunciation ………………………………………………………………………..…… 27

4.4.1 Pronunciation Deprioritised ………………………………………………………………….…………………..…. 28 4.4.2 Pronunciation Deemed Important ……………………………………………………….………………….….… 32 4.4.3 Correlation between Pronunciation and General Language Proficiency ….…………………..…… 34

5. DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 35 5.1 Teachers’ Views on Pronunciation and Pronunciation Instruction ………………………………………….… 36 5.2 Teachers’ Reported Practices concerning Pronunciation Instruction ……………………………………….… 38 5.3 Pedagogical Implications ………………………..………………………..…………………………………………………..... 40 5.4 Final Conclusion ………………………………….............……………………………………………………………………... 41 5.5 Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..... 42 5.6 Suggestions for Further Research ………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 43

LIST OF REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..… 44 APPENDIX 1 - Interview Guide …………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 47 APPENDIX 2 - Survey Responses ………………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 48 APPENDIX 3 - Letter of Consent ……………………………………………………………………………………………………... 58 APPENDIX 4 - Self Evaluation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 60

1

1. Introduction Since the arrival of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the late 1970s,

pronunciation instruction has been a relatively neglected area of language teaching and

research (Brinton 2016: 257). However, since the turn of the century, research on

pronunciation teaching has seen an upsurge (ibid.: 258) and is now the focus of many

language acquisition researchers, even though many people still associate the term

pronunciation instruction simply with the practice of accent reduction (ibid.: 259).

Furthermore, pronunciation has been subjected to a focus shift from teaching pronunciation

as a way of striving for a native-like accent to aiming for intelligibility and

comprehensibility.

When investigating views held by teachers, it is essential to first establish what the syllabus

requires from teachers on the subject in question. Not only is the syllabus important in and of

itself, but it might also affect teachers’ views and practices since it is one of the most

important regulatory documents that a teacher has to take into consideration. Passages in the

syllabus regarding pronunciation are sparse, however, and there are no clear indications

regarding which pronunciation model is suitable or what the focus of pronunciation teaching

is. Instead, the main aim of English for upper-secondary school in Sweden is for learners to

acquire the ability to use written and spoken language for communicative purposes, and to

participate in world-wide cultural contexts where English is used (Skolverket 2019).

Although the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) also stipulate that learners

of English should “be given the opportunity to develop correctness [...] in speech and

writing” (Skolverket 2019), it remains unclear what “correctness” refers to and to what extent

teachers should focus on teaching pronunciation in the English classroom.

Because of the uncertainty regarding how much time and energy should be devoted to

specific aspects of English teaching, such as pronunciation, there is also reason to believe that

this could have an effect on language teachers’ views on the matter. Indeed, not having

specific instructions on the priorities of English teaching opens the door for individual

interpretation and several different ways of applying the English syllabus in reality. Thus, it is

relevant, not to say essential, to look into how teachers of English perceive the importance of

pronunciation instruction. While this has been investigated in a number of countries,

including Sweden’s close neighbour Finland (Tergujeff 2013), this is a matter of inquiry that

has yet to be thoroughly investigated in Sweden, which sets the scene for present study.

2

In this thesis, we investigate the views of upper-secondary English teachers active in Sweden

regarding pronunciation and pronunciation teaching by combining qualitative data from a

focus-group interview conducted with four active teachers and quantitative data from an

online survey (N=54). The qualitative part of the present study takes a phenomenographic

approach, which allows us to investigate individuals’ views and attitudes towards a certain

phenomenon. Our results show that while teachers generally prioritise comprehensibility and

communication in the classroom, they still often use native-speaking models to achieve that

goal, and still value speaking with a native-like accent to some extent.

1.1 Aims & Research Questions

The aim of the present study is to investigate teachers’ views on pronunciation, focusing both

on views on pronunciation in general and reported practices of teaching pronunciation to

students. To guide our investigation, the two following research questions were adopted:

● What are the views and attitudes of English teachers in the Swedish upper-secondary

school regarding pronunciation and pronunciation instruction?

● How do English teachers in the Swedish upper-secondary school describe their own

practices in pronunciation instruction?

2. Theoretical Background

In this chapter, we establish a theoretical background to pronunciation instruction. We begin

by presenting a historical account of pronunciation instruction followed by a summary of

where it stands today. After that, some relevant terms and previous research on pronunciation

models are presented. Then, we present studies investigating the views held by teachers on

the matter. As is evident in this section, many international studies have investigated

teachers’ views on English pronunciation, although none has been conducted in a Swedish

setting. Lastly, we describe a few studies looking into the effects of pronunciation instruction.

2.1 Historical Background to Pronunciation Research

Even though pronunciation has been a major concern of language learners for centuries, it

was not until the 1960s that it became extensively researched (Thomson & Derwing 2015:

326). Before then, however, pronunciation played a significant role in the era of

3

Audiolingualism in the 1950s. As a method, Audiolingualism focused on speaking a foreign

language accurately rather than fluently by adopting a behavioristic approach using mimicry

and pattern drills to achieve an accent as close to a native speaker as possible (Ketabi & Saeb

2015: 183). During the 1960s, however, behaviorism lost its status in language instruction

while the cognitive approach and Chomsky’s theory of Generative grammar became

increasingly accepted as the norm (ibid.). Accordingly, pronunciation lost its relevance, while

grammar became an increasingly important aspect of language learning (ibid).

In the 1970s, approaches such as the Natural Approach and Total Physical Response

emphasised the importance of listening comprehension, thus marginalising pronunciation as

an irrelevant aspect of language learning. During this era, Communicative Language

Teaching (CLT), a method focusing on communication and comprehensibility also gained

popularity (Ketabi & Saeb 2015: 183). Since communication was the main focus of CLT,

pronunciation was still deemed unimportant (Levis 2005: 369), and even considered harmful

for students’ self-confidence (Ketabi & Saeb 2015: 183).

During the 1990s and 2000s, research on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and English as an

International Language (EIL) gained momentum. At the forefront of this movement was

Jennifer Jenkins, who established the Lingua Franca Core (Deterding 2013: 7) and argued

that intelligibility rather than nativeness should be at the heart of pronunciation research and

instruction (Jenkins 1998). Thus, it seems that pronunciation has seen a renewed interest.

Indeed, in a 2015 meta study covering 75 pronunciation studies, Thomson and Derwing come

to the conclusion that, as opposed to the trend over the previous 50 years or so,

“[p]ronunciation instruction is no longer a neglected domain of second language teaching and

research” (2015: 339). In correlation with Jenkins’ ideas above, Thomson and Derwing argue

that the findings in contemporary research seem to indicate that striving for a native-like

accent is redundant, and that pronunciation instruction should focus on achieving

comprehensibility rather than “accent reduction” (ibid.: 335). This leads us onto the topic of

pronunciation models, covered in the next section.

4

2.2 Pronunciation Models

As regards pronunciation models, there are two major schools of thought: the Nativeness

Principle and the Intelligibility Principle. The former conveys the message that the ultimate

goal for a learner of English is to achieve a native-like accent, while the latter establishes

intelligibility or comprehensibility as sufficient aims for learners (Levis 2005: 370).

Intelligibility refers to how well a speaker’s pronunciation is understood, while

comprehensibility refers to the listener’s subjective judgment of how easily understandable

an utterance is (Brinton 2016: 259). For the purposes of this study, we treat these terms

synonymously. Investigating research on the matter, it is clear that for the past 20 years or so,

the trend has been moving away from native norms and towards intelligibility norms.

One influential proponent of intelligibility norms is Jenkins, who argues that achieving a

native-like accent “is neither a desirable nor, in fact, a likely outcome” (1998: 124), clearly

indicating a disapproval of nativeness norms. Similarly, Thomson and Derwing make some

relevant observations in a meta study from 2015, which largely support a move towards

intelligibility norms. The authors argue that “native-like pronunciation is an unrealistic goal,

but that improved intelligibility and comprehensibility are achievable” (ibid.: 335).

Furthermore, the findings of the study show that learners can improve their comprehensibility

without improving their accent and, vice versa, that an improvement to their accent does not

necessarily result in improved comprehensibility. These findings all add up to the authors’

conclusion that the logical progression for pronunciation instruction is to focus on

intelligibility and not on nativeness (ibid.: 338). In support of this conclusion, Derwing &

Munro argue that there is no research clearly indicating “a link between pronunciation

instruction and the elimination of a foreign accent” (2005: 384).

However, as a final remark, it is worth mentioning that Jenkins (1998) makes a distinction

between goals for learners and goals for teachers. While the author argues that learners do not

need to take native models into consideration, teachers do. This is, she argues, because

teachers must be “points of reference and models for guidance” and because local varieties

would otherwise diverge and lose their mutual intelligibility (ibid.: 124). As such, we argue

that there is still a case to be made for nativeness norms, but it is important to consider to

whom they should be applied, and to what extent.

5

2.3 Teacher Beliefs regarding Pronunciation Instruction

Over the years, several studies have investigated teachers’ attitudes to pronunciation teaching

in the English-language classroom, although no clear-cut picture is given by the studies

examined. Some studies indicate that teachers are generally positive towards pronunciation

instruction; for instance, the Hong Kong-based teachers participating in Bai & Yuan’s study

from 2019 consider pronunciation instruction to facilitate other aspects of language

acquisition such as “vocabulary development” along with “communication in daily life, [...]

self-confidence and motivation” (2019: 137). Similarly, Uzun and Ay, who investigated the

attitudes of Turkish pre-service teachers regarding views on pronunciation teaching and

learning, found that a majority deemed pronunciation teaching to be essential (2018: 123). In

accordance with Bai and Yuan’s study, Uzun and Ay also found that teachers (pre-service

teachers in this case) believed there to be a connection between pronunciation and other

elements of language acquisition, for instance listening comprehension (ibid.: 124). However,

despite that teachers in the study were generally positive to pronunciation teaching, results

also suggest that they were generally unsure of how to approach pronunciation instruction in

the classroom (ibid.). Another study investigating teachers’ uncertainty in pronunciation

instruction was conducted by Macdonald in 2002. In his study, Australian teachers reluctant

to teach pronunciation in English-as-a-second-language classrooms were chosen to

participate in an interview-based study. Macdonald found that one of the reasons for teachers

being reluctant to teach pronunciation had to do with uncertainty of how to teach it, partially

because of lacking instructions in their school curricula (2002: 6). Additionally, Macdonald

explains that teachers rarely devote time to pronunciation instruction unless they are unable

to understand students, treating pronunciation instruction as an “add-on” when it is

considered necessary (ibid.: 8).

Other studies have investigated how teachers teach pronunciation, often making a distinction

between teaching it explicitly (directing learners’ attention to specific pronunciation features

or devoting time to specifically teaching pronunciation) and implicitly (including it in other

classroom activities designed for other purposes). Generally, teachers in the studies examined

for the present study seem to lean towards an implicit teaching strategy when teaching

pronunciation. For instance, in her Finnish 2013 dissertation, Tergujeff draws the conclusion

that “communicative activities that explicitly focus on pronunciation are rare() [but that]

implicit training is offered in the form of general oral skills exercises” (2013: 57).

Furthermore, Tergujeff explains that teachers sometimes chose a pragmatic approach and

6

corrected their students in order to avoid communication breakdown (2012: 606; one of the

studies used for her 2013 dissertation). When teachers did focus on explicit pronunciation

teaching, it was mostly “teacher-centered” and focused on imitation exercises, for instance

(ibid.). Similarly, a study by Üstünbas in Turkey presents findings that suggest that teachers

in that study had a tendency to teach pronunciation implicitly (2018: 81).

Moving on, previous research reveals that English teachers submit to nativeness norms

regarding pronunciation. Moradkhani and Asakereh (2018), for example, investigate Iranian

teachers’ perception of pronunciation norms. Using the inner, outer and expanding circle of

English (dividing countries according to whether they speak English as a first language, as an

official language, or as a foreign language), Moradkhani and Asakereh establish that the

teachers participating in the study prefer the English spoken by native speakers as a

pedagogical model (2018: 9). Using the same circle model, Cecen & Serdar Tuluce (2019)

find that Turkish pre-service teachers tend to use a native speaking model as a benchmark to

which they compare non-native speech (ibid.: 130). Furthermore, participants in the study

attribute higher status to inner-circle English (ibid.). Along the same lines, Karakas (2017)

found that most teachers participating in his study had “normative perceptions of good

English” referring to correctness and nativeness as key concepts for good English (ibid.:

494). Finally, Tergujeff’s Finnish survey study (2012) reveals that teachers mostly have a

traditional pronunciation model, using Received pronunciation (RP) as a target model.

2.4 The Effects of and on Pronunciation

In this section, we describe previous research pertaining to the effects of and on

pronunciation. The effects of pronunciation refers to how pronunciation haseffects on the

comprehensibility of the speaker. The effects on pronunciation, on the other hand, refers to

how pronunciation instruction has an effects the pronunciation of the speaker in various

regards.

To begin with, Hahn’s (2004) study investigating American first-semester students’

comprehension of accented speech and Field’s (2005) study investigating British native and

non-native listeners’ comprehension show that incorrect stress placement in non-native

speech negatively affects the comprehensibility of the speaker. In fact, Field’s findings

suggest that incorrect stress placement negatively influences both native and non-native

7

listeners’ comprehension (2005: 413), indicating that intonation is important regardless of

whom the speaker is communicating with. Finally, Hahn (2004: 218) reaches the conclusion

that the results from her study show that pronunciation instruction is a significant part of

teaching English.

3. Methodology

In this chapter we present the nature of the data collected for the present study, along with an

account of the participants, ethical considerations, gathering and analysis of data and finally a

presentation of problems encountered. This thesis is a phenomenographic mixed-method

study, where we have collected data both from a self-administrated questionnaire, where

teachers of English (N=54) filled out a form containing claims responded to on a five-degree

scale, and a focus-group interview where upper-secondary school teachers (N=4) discussed

the topic of present thesis with the help of a list of questions and scenarios. The data analysis

was performed inductively, meaning that we analysed the data without preconceived ideas or

theories that guided our investigation, but rather drew our conclusions based on themes we

could discern.

3.1 Nature of the Data

The data of present study consists in part of a self-administrated questionnaire responded to

by 54 teachers active in the Swedish school system. The survey was created using Google

Forms and was administered to closed groups on Facebook devoted to English-teacher topics.

All respondents teach English in secondary or upper-secondary school, and 88.7% of them

were at the time of participation certified teachers of English.

The second part of our mixed-method design consists of gathering data through a semi-

structured focus-group interview. According to Bryman, focus-group interviews give the

opportunity to investigate “why people feel the way they do” (2015: 502) and generate

responses that could be more “interesting than the sometimes predictable question-followed-

by-answer approach of conventional interviews” (ibid.). To increase participants’

involvement in the focus-group conversation, which is essential according to Morgan (2008:

4), the questions were constructed to be as open as possible (see appendix 1 for the complete

interview guide) often beginning with ‘how’ questions followed up by ‘why’, as is

recommended by David and Sutton (2011: 265).

8

The group interview itself was conducted online via ‘Zoom’, a video and audio conference

application. Thus, geographical boundaries could easily be overcome, andparticipants could

fit the scheduled meeting into their daily routine more easily (Bryman 2015: 518). During the

interview itself, we introduced ourselves and the purpose of the study, and provided

information about participation and consent. We chose to take a passive role in the

conversation (ibid.: 506), turning off both our microphones and cameras, which gave the

participants the freedom to discuss the questions in the order and manner they wanted.

Naturally, we were listening closely to the conversation, ready to contribute if the flow of

conversation haltered, but luckily this was never the case. The audio and video of the focus-

group conversation was recorded, and the 59-minute-and-13-second video was later

transcribed as text.

3.2 Participants

The participants of this study consist of two sets: 54 teachers who responded to an online

survey, and four teachers who participated in a focus-group interview. Beginning with the

former, the teachers who responded to the survey are members of three different Facebook

groups for teachers of English in Sweden. One advantage of online surveys is that they

remove any geographical restrictions (Bryman 2015: 235), which is shown by the wide range

of origin of our participants: from Malmö in the south to Luleå in the north. Furthermore, the

teachers vary in age, with 57% of respondents being 20-40 years old and 43% being 41 or

older. Teacher experience varied as well; of all 54 respondents, 28% reported having worked

as a teacher less than three years, while 39% reported having worked as a teacher for eleven

years or more.

The participants in the focus group consist of four teachers of English from two different

schools. Two teachers, henceforth called Catherine and Anton (fictitious names), work

closely together at a large upper-secondary school in the south of Sweden. Catherine has been

a teacher of English for more than 20 years, although she has only been certified to teach it

since 2014. Anton has been a certified teacher of English for six and a half years. The other

two teachers, henceforth called Lena and Malin, work at another large upper-secondary

school in the south of Sweden. Lena has been a certified teacher of English for 24 years,

while Malin has been a certified teacher in other subjects for a year but is still studying to

acquire her degree in English. We opted to have a combination of participants knowing each

9

other from before and being completely new to each other. This combination is based on the

discussion on the topic by Kitzinger and Barbour, who highlight that there is a strength in

pre-existing groups since that is an established context “in which ideas are formed and

decisions made” (2011: 9). At the same time, the authors argue that there is a “‘polluting’ and

‘inhibiting’ effect of existing relations between group members” (ibid.). In an attempt to

access the strengths of both options, we therefore opted for a combination. Finally, we also

wanted to include teachers of various experience to allow for voices from various stages of

the teaching profession to be heard. As Kitzinger and Barbour state, “differences between

participants are often illuminating” (2011: 8).

3.3 Gathering Data & Ethical Considerations

In this section, we account for our data collection process. We begin by describing the data

collected through a focus-group interview with four teachers via an online meeting. Next, we

describe the data gathered through a self-completion questionnaire. Throughout our

descriptions below, we also highlight the ethical considerations taken in each phase of our

data collection process.

3.3.1 Focus Group

A focus-group setting was chosen in favour of individual interviews, given that focus groups

give the participants the possibility to argue and challenge each other’s views, possibly

resulting in a more realistic account of what the participants actually think (Bryman 2015:

502). Second, having teachers engage in meaningful conversation about a topic creates the

possibility of one perspective building on another, which in turn deepens the conversation

and creates nuance to the subject matter (Edley & Litosseliti 2010: 166-7). Of course, there is

a risk that focus-group participants might affect each other’s opinions creating unwanted bias

(Morgan 2008: 3), but considering that the interviewer might exert a large influence on the

interviewee in the case of a one-to-one sitting (ibid.), that risk is considered acceptable.

Furthermore, the changing of views through social interaction is also an interesting

phenomenon to investigate, and might be well worth taking into account in a study such as

this (Kitzinger & Barbour 2011: 6).

Before the group interview started, all participants were informed that participation was

voluntary, and that they had the option to withdraw their consent at any time during or after

the interview (Vetenskapsrådet 2017). Additionally, participants were informed that the

10

information they shared would be treated confidentially, and that any information revealing

their identity would be changed or removed from the transcription (ibid.). Furthermore, the

participants were informed that the interview was going to be recorded and gave their consent

to this and the information accounted for above by signing a written form of consent (see

appendix 3).

To give the participants the option to prepare for the interview, and to make sure that they

were comfortable with the subject, participants received a document containing the interview

guide a few days prior to the interview. During the interview, the aim was to be as

unobtrusive as possible, making the conversation more free and dynamic, which according to

Kitzinger and Barbour might prove to yield “better data” (2011: 13). We chose to record both

video and audio, as video recordings might provide “additional information” (Kitzinger &

Barbour 2011: 14) and give us visual aid when it is unclear who is speaking or when body

language is used to express an utterance.

3.3.2 Self-completion Questionnaire

A self-completion questionnaire was used in conjunction with the focus-group interview in

order to broaden our perspective and achieve more generalisable results (David & Sutton

2011: 33). Indeed, triangulation, the process of using multiple types of data collection for a

single body of research, is a common practice in the social sciences (ibid.: 95). The choice of

a questionnaire mainly had to do with convenience and time limitations as respondents may

complete it when they choose to (Bryman 2015: 222). We chose to use Google Forms as a

tool to create our survey. First, the application is readily available and free to use, making the

process easy and quick. Second, Google Forms lets us view the responses in auto-generated

graphs and visual statistics, as well as letting us view independent responses at a glance..

The survey itself was divided into five different sections, and participants had to respond to

all items to be able to submit it. In the first section, respondents provided some personal

information, such as years active as a teacher and in what region and school level they work.

The first section also had information about consent to participate in the study, which the

informants had to agree to in order to participate. In the second part, participants responded to

statements concerning pronunciation in the classroom by using a 5-point Likert scale (1

correlating to “strongly disagree” and 5 correlating to “strongly agree”). In the third section,

respondents were asked to grade the importance of different aspects of teaching English, such

11

as pronunciation, grammar and listening comprehension, by ranking them from 1 to 7, where

1 was the most important and 7 the least important. After that, respondents were asked to

provide information about their preferred pronunciation model as regards themselves and

their students, receiving options such as “General American” and “Received Pronunciation”,

while also getting the option to add their own alternative. Finally, respondents were asked

how much time they currently devote to pronunciation instruction and how much time they

would like to devote to it. All data collected was done so anonymously, and respondents were

explicitly informed that their responses would not be used for any other purpose than for

present study.

As we only received 20 responses, we chose to broaden the survey to more teacher groups.

After broadening the survey to two additional groups and reminding group members from the

first, we ended up with 54 responses. Out of those 54 responses, 42 came from teachers

teaching at least part-time at upper-secondary level (a few also taught part-time at Komvux

adult education). Due to the Covid-19 pandemic currently active in Sweden, we chose not to

physically visit schools and hand out questionnaires but opted for online distribution only.

3.4 Data Analysis

In this section, we account for the methods and theoretical framework used to analyse the

collected data. First, we present the theoretical framework for analysing the data. The

approach selected for the analysis of the focus group is phenomenography, which is an

approach suitable for describing the phenomena experienced by people (Dahlgren &

Johansson 2009: 122). The approach seeks to distil the differences (and similarities) of

human experience, thus taking the constructionist stance that reality is something subjective

that is experienced (Brinkkjær & Høyen 2013: 59).

Before our phenomenographic analysis took place, we produced a rough transcription of the

focus-group interview. Independently, we listened carefully to the transcription and wrote

down what was said. In order to preserve confidentiality, all participants were given fictitious

names (Malin, Catherine, Lena and Anton). From here, we assigned a specific part of the

recording to each of us, to prevent us from transcribing the same thing twice. After that, we

looked at the transcription as a whole and decided on which transcription conventions to use.

12

To make it visible when speakers hesitated or did a retake, each interrupted or unfinished

word was marked with a hyphen “-“.As is visible in the previous example, words emphasised

by a speaker were marked with an underlining (read). When a speaker switched to Swedish,

those utterances were italicised. When two speakers’ utterances had no discernible time gap,

this was marked with “=”, as is suggested by Ochs (1979: 63). Furthermore, we used double

brackets “(())” to indicate non-verbal actions such as hand movement or laughter (Broth,

Musk & Persson 2020) and square brackets with three dots “[...]” to indicate that some parts

of an utterance have been omitted when deemed irrelevant for the analysis. Finally, we used

periods to indicate pauses in speech, marking pauses shorter than one second with one period

“.”, pauses between one to two seconds with two periods “..” and pauses longer than two

seconds with three periods “…”. We opted for a detailed transcription in our extracts in an

attempt to be as transparent as possible and give the reader a chance to fully grasp what was

said and how.

When analysing our data from the focus-group, we proceeded according to the steps

suggested by Dahlgren & Johansson (2009). First, after the initial step of transcribing, we

acquainted ourselves with the data by reading it together from start to finish, writing notes

about passages that seemed interesting. During this step, we discussed how passages could

potentially be correlated with previous research on teachers’ perceptions of pronunciation

teaching. Second, we condensed the text (ibid.: 128) and chose passages that seemed to be

representative of the dialogue as a whole. To get a sense of order and structure, we organised

the chosen passages into preliminary groups, based on whether the passages seemed similar,

which provided a starting point for step four - grouping. This step was further combined with

steps five (articulating the categories) and six (naming the categories) as we felt that these

steps went hand in hand (we found it simpler to categorise passages if we could articulate the

similarities while also creating names of the categories used for categorisation). Finally,

following step seven, the contrastive phase (ibid.: 130), we read the passages again to see

whether they seemed to fit into more than one category. If so, we made new distinctions as to

the boundaries of the different categories created, which resulted in a few of our categories

being combined into a larger one.

As responses to the questionnaire were gathered through Google Forms, much of the work of

compiling responses was already done for us, as the application organised the results in

simple graphs. When we had closed the survey to further responses, we began by extracting

13

the results to an Excel spreadsheet in order to analyse the data further. Since our research

questions are focused on the views of upper-secondary school teachers, we began by

investigating whether the responses differed between those teachers and the twelve teachers

who reported working with other levels. However, our analysis showed that responses

between the groups were almost identical. In fact, regarding mean values on the survey items,

the difference was only 0.04, indicating that there were no discernible differences in opinions

between the groups. Hence, we decided to keep all responses for the final analysis. Next, we

analysed the results of the survey and compared them with our analysis of the focus-group

interview.

3.5 Problems Encountered

In the process of gathering and analysing our data, we encountered a few issues that require

attention. To begin with, the focus-group interview had to be conducted through an online

meeting, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.. Bryman argues that interaction in online meetings

is not as fluent and spontaneous as is the case in face-to-face meetings (2015: 519). However,

considering that the teachers involved in the focus group had been working with online-

meeting tools for over a year at the time of recording, our assessment is still that the

conversation was fluent. Furthermore, the decreased spontaneity could have allowed the

participants to create longer and more developed utterances, which could be seen as a

strength as well.

Among others, Kitzinger and Barbour (2011) discuss the appropriate number of focus groups

for a study such as this. While they state that studies use everything from “three to [...] over

fifty” groups (ibid.: 7), we only used one. Indeed, Kitzinger and Barbour mention that “[t]he

appropriate number of focus groups will depend on [...] the range of people you wish to

include and, of course, time and resource limitations'' (2011: 7). In our case, time and

resource limitations had a crucial effect on the number of focus groups we were able to

assemble for this thesis. Because of the pandemic, no teachers were available for group

meetings in a physical environment, and the restricted time available for this thesis made it

difficult to arrange more than one online meeting.

Another problem we encountered was the difficulty in finding four teachers for the focus

group that were all certified teachers. To this effect, we chose to include a teacher in the

focus group who was not a certified teacher of English. She did, however, have a teacher’s

14

degree in other upper-secondary school subjects and was well on her way to acquiring her

English degree.

Moving on to the survey, one consideration is that it would have benefitted the analysis had

we constructed the questionnaire after completion of the focus-group interview. This would

have allowed us to construct the survey items based on the findings from the focus group,

thus perhaps leading to more correlating findings. Other issues mainly concern the number of

participants. As we have mentioned before, the total number of responses is 54, which has to

be considered a relatively low number. However, given that there seems to be a clear

consensus on most of the survey items, we still feel that the data gathered is valid and

reliable. Another issue encountered concerns the school levels in which the teachers work.

The aim of present study is to examine upper-secondary school teachers’ views and opinions,

but 12 out of 54 respondents reported working in secondary school. As discussed above,

however, we decided to keep these responses as well, as there were no discernible differences

between the groups’ responses. A final remark is that item number 22 of our survey, which

asked participants to rank different aspects of English teaching from one to seven, seemed to

be difficult to decipher. Several respondents marked more than one aspect as their number

one priority and did not use the full scale. It is evident that the instructions for this particular

survey item should have been clearer.

4. Results

This chapter accounts for the findings of the focus-group interview in conjunction with

findings from our online survey and is divided into four major themes. The different themes

are then divided further into different categories.

4.1 The Importance of Comprehensibility

In this section, we present findings pertaining to teachers’ views on the importance of

comprehensibility. First, we present results regarding teachers’ tendency to prioritise

comprehensibility over accuracy. Secondly, we discuss the reasoning behind making a

correction when a student mispronounces a word, before finally presenting findings

highlighting a dismissal of nativeness norms, which could be seen as an extended emphasis

on prioritising comprehension.

15

4.1.1 Comprehensibility over Accuracy

When the teachers in our focus group discussed the first question in the interview guide “In

general, what do you consider to be good pronunciation?”, they quickly related the question

to their students’ abilities in a classroom environment. Generally, the group came to the

conclusion that good pronunciation is when students have the ability to make themselves

understood. For instance, Malin agrees with Lena and says “I think good pronunciation is

when I can understand them”, which is a statement that is generally representative for the

whole group. Catherine explains that she values a communicative ability over having a

perfect accent: “it’s more important that they- they can communicate and that we can

understand them rather than having a- a perfect pronunciation or a specific accent”. Anton

agrees, and emphasises the importance of successful communication: “I mean . uh as long as

they- . the students can . communicate [...] I don’t really . uh .. think it's that important that

you sound American or English or . Australian or whatever”. Here, Anton explicitly says that

a specific model for pronunciation is something he deems not to be that important.

These findings align with the results of the questionnaire. First, a majority of the teachers

disagree or strongly disagree with item #12, figure 1, The aim of learning English

pronunciation is to achieve a native-like accent. Similarly, the vast majority agree or strongly

agree with item 13, figure 2, Acquiring an intelligible (förståelig) pronunciation is the goal

for a learner of English. The responses to these comparable statements seem to indicate a

consensus among teachers that learning pronunciation should emphasise developing

comprehensibility rather than the pursuit of a native-like accent. Similarly, 95 % of

respondents agree or strongly agree with item 14, When students communicate with each

other, maintaining the flow of conversation is more important than correcting pronunciation,

further indicating a preference among teachers for comprehensibility over accuracy.

16

Figure 1 Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree


4.1.2 Correction for Comprehension

When discussing in what types of situations the teachers in our focus group would correct a

mispronounced utterance, they further emphasise comprehensibility. Towards the end of the

interview guide three specific scenarios are provided, prompting teachers to discuss what

they would do in a certain situation if a student makes a pronunciation error. When discussing

how they would act if a student mispronounced a word while reading a text that the whole

class has in front of them, the discussion is directed towards a comprehensibility perspective.

An illuminating example of this is uttered by Anton: “I mean if- if there is a student who-

who reads a text and . really stumbles on a word like saying com . for . table and- and I would

probably go oh you mean comfortable . right so just to help them . eh going forward”. Here,

Anton makes a point of correcting a student not to maintain a certain speaking model, but to

maintain fluency and avoid misunderstandings. At the same time, by correcting the student

17

and supplying the correct pronunciation, Anton is effectively providing a model when doing

so. Similarly, Lena states that she corrects pronunciation “when [she] feel[s] it’s needed to

avoid misunderstandings”, adding that she does not specifically devote time to teaching

pronunciation: “I don’t have you know a theme either”. “A theme”, here, refers to devoting

time to explicit pronunciation instruction. The same point of view can be found in an

utterance by Malin when discussing correcting students in different scenarios: “I would ..

especially if it’s important for continued con- uh like understanding of the text”.

Shifting focus to the questionnaire results, a few items are relevant for this theme. As a

starting point, it is important to note that the responding teachers do not consider

pronunciation errors to be a major issue in the classroom. Looking at item 20, figure 3,

Pronunciation errors by my students hinder communication in the classroom, responses point

towards a view among teachers that this rarely is the case. Thus, while some teachers at times

experience issues with students’ pronunciation errors, findings indicate that these are rare

occasions for most teachers.

Figure 3 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Moving on to item 14 of the survey, When students communicate with each other,

maintaining the flow of conversation is more important than correcting pronunciation, 95%

of teachers agree or strongly agree. At the same time, responses to item 16, figure 4, tell us

that teachers do, in fact, correct their students’ pronunciation at times. As such, one possible

interpretation is that teachers tend to allow for a communicative flow, as long as errors do not

impede said communication.

18


4.1.3 Dismissal of Nativeness Norms

In conjunction with discussing communication and comprehensibility as some of the most

important factors regarding pronunciation, a different point of view emerges, especially from

Malin and to some extent Catherine. Talking about pronunciation models in the classroom, a

sort of aversion to native speaking models is apparent, which goes in line with the idea of

prioritising comprehension over speaking using a specific model. In particular, the teachers in

question are opposed to the traditional emphasis on Received Pronunciation (RP). To

exemplify this, Malin says “we don’t want them to learn English to- to be able to talk with

some posh Brits . we want them to be able to communicate with someone who also . is

speaking English as a second language . most likely”. While the use of the noun phrase

“some posh Brits” indicates an aversion to teaching a specific model, it also perhaps suggests

a reaction to the way Malin perceives English to have been taught in school in the past. This

view that teaching English with RP is outdated is further emphasised when she says “we will

see this . old . view of English being . proper pronunciation being a- a specific thing . that

will . disintegrate more and more I think” and “we don’t need to impress that little spot of . of

British people with perfect R P pronunciation”. These utterances combined reveal a view that

Malin thinks that the status of RP is something that English education today should distance

itself from. Expressing herself more diplomatically, Catherine agrees with this view, offering

a more historical perspective based on her own experience as a student:

Extract 1 - Catherine

the world’s changing and it’s not really now . focus on being . on teaching British as it

was when I . went to school . uh because that was the only thing . the proper way of

19

speaking English . eh now it’s definitely more about communicating with others that . uh

also . eh . has another . eh first language . eh and you need to be able to communicate ..

regardless of wha- how you speak English . you just speak English

In extract 1, it is evident how Catherine perceives teaching English with a British

pronunciation model as something of the past, in contrast to what is important today, namely

the ability to communicate with others. While this discussion is ongoing, Lena also gives her

perspective on this: “yeah and it’s a leftover from you know colonial . eh . era and how you .

eh . have power over people . and how language can be that power”. Thus, we are given a

clear picture of how native-speaker models, especially RP in this case, are viewed as

outdated.

The results from the survey largely correspond with those from the focus group, as the

respondents show a similar dismissal of nativeness norms. First, 96% of teachers agree or

strongly agree with item 6, It is OK if English language learners speak English with a non-

native accent. Accordingly, 80% of the teachers disagree or strongly disagree with item 8,

English language learners should eradicate all traces of their foreign accents, while 67%

disagree or strongly disagree with item 12, The aim of learning English pronunciation is to

achieve a native-like accent. The findings from these three items all indicate that there is a

consensus among modern-day teachers that the end goal for a language learner is not

necessarily a native-like accent. Correspondingly, 85% of participants respond in item 24 that

they aim for their students to speak “without a particular model”. However, when it comes to

item 7, figure 5, Native-speaker accents should be used as a benchmark (måttstock) for

evaluating language learners’ pronunciation, the respondents are less decisive. One reason

for this rather sprawling result might be that it is difficult to see what a benchmark for

pronunciation should be if not a native-speaker accent.

20


4.2 Consistency

In this section, we begin by pointing to findings which indicate that there are split opinions

on the importance of consistency in pronunciation. Next, we highlight some findings which

seem to argue that consistency is seen as a matter for “better” students. Note that we define

consistency in this context as a student choosing a certain model and persisting in using the

pronunciation features of said model.

4.2.1 The Importance of Consistency

Although the focus-group teachers generally agree that comprehensibility is the most

important aspect of English pronunciation, another theme is also apparent in their discussion:

the aim for students to stay consistent when using a specific accent when they speak. An

example to illustrate this point is given by Anton below:

Extract 2 - Anton

I don’t demand really uh . a specific accent or anything like that but I- I think there is ... it

might be good uh if the students are consistent if they . they don’t need to choose eh .

either one but I think it’s good if they try to be consistent [...] if they start . uh . off by

speaking . American English then I . would like them to . uhm . continue with that

Here, we see that Anton expresses two different views. On the one hand, he informs the

others of not demanding a specific accent from his students, going in line with the theme

presented in 4.1.1. At the same time, however, he explains that he likes his students to be

consistent whenever choosing a model of pronunciation. Given that he uses “but” twice

21

between the utterances, we can interpret that he sees a contradiction between them. In

response to this, Catherine agrees to some extent, although with reservations about the

difficulty achieving that goal: “I agree with you that it’s . maybe the preferable .. what we

should- what I prefer but I think that’s really difficult [...] to get to that in the classroom”.

Lena also agrees with what Anton and Catherine say: “I agree with you . both eh and what

you said Anton about being consistent I also . eh make comments on that for example in their

. eh feedback or their feedforward . eh that I want them to be consistent”. Much later in the

conversation, a similar exchange of ideas occurs again, where Anton explicitly utters that he

wants his students to be consistent: “Just for the record [...] I think it’s a- a very good thing

to- to be consistent ((all laugh)) . when it comes to . uh . accents ((laughs))” whereby

Catherine answers:


I do agree the- there and I do understand m- that maybe that’s a good thing to- to do at the

university when they teach us English as well that we should keep to . eh . well kind of .

at least . some kind of self knowledge or whatever you call that eh to know what- what

you . prefer and what you . eh because that might . make it easier to teach

Here, Catherine discusses the practice of university teachers urging university students to

choose a pronunciation model, and she reflects on whether that practice could be useful as an

upper-secondary teacher. Again, we see that Catherine agrees with Anton to some extent, but

here a hedged response from Catherine is also visible, when she says “maybe that’s a good

thing” and “well kind of at least some kind of self knowledge”. This indicates that while

Catherine agrees, she still has reservations to what extent she would want to implement the

‘university model’ in her own classroom.

Although Anton, Catherine and Lena seem to reach some consensus, the group as a whole

does not. Malin, who teaches lower-level students at “IM-programmet” (preparatory

education for upper-secondary level), provides a different perspective on students’

pronunciation consistency:

Extract 4 - Malin

I put very little . eh .. eh me myself I- I mix . like crazy . American and British English

because I was taught British . but my major . source of developing my language is uh TV

and films . and that’s mostly done in American English . so uh . as a thanks to that . I go

22

like this all the time ((doing mixing motion with hands)) . and I expect my students to do

that too

Here, Malin explains how her own spoken English has developed from different sources apart

from formal education, and how that has resulted in a “mix” of different accents. She also

explains how she expects her students to do the same, thereby indicating that being consistent

is not very important to her. Thus, we can see that the teachers in our focus group generally

have a tendency to strive for ‘consistency’ in their students’ pronunciation, but that the group

does not entirely agree on the matter.

Examining the results from the questionnaire, there are no distinctly correlating findings on

the theme of consistency compared to the focus-group data. However, looking at item 23,

figure 6, and item 24, pertaining to the teachers’ pronunciation models for themselves and

their students, we make some relevant observations. Beginning with item 23, My

pronunciation model (when I speak) is:, most teachers report speaking with an American or

British accent, while 22% respond that they have “no particular model”, and the remaining

13% report having some other model (e.g. mid-Atlantic English, which could be compared to

Malin’s statement in extract 4). These findings indicate that a majority of teachers submit to

some kind of native model, whether it is GA, RP or some other variety.

blue = General American

red = Received Pronunciation

orange = no particular model

Figure 6

In contrast, looking at item 24, I aim for my students to speak:, 85% of teachers respond

“without a particular model”. These findings combined show that teachers tend to have a

clear pronunciation model for themselves but they do not necessarily apply that model to

their students. On the other hand, 11% of respondents opted to supply their own response in

23

free text, where they indicate some sort of aim for consistency in responding to item 24. For

example, one participant wrote: “As long as they stay consistent I let them choose freely”. As

such, the findings from the focus group and the survey combined suggest that there is a

general consensus that students do not need to choose a certain model, but if they do,

consistency is valued by some teachers.

4.2.2 Consistency for “Better” Students

Continually focusing on the focus-group teachers’ perspectives on staying consistent, we can

observe that the teachers report devoting more time on staying consistent with students they

deem to be ‘better’, or have a generally higher level of interest in English. To exemplify this,

Lena says:

Extract 5 - Lena

I want them to be consistent especially maybe I think the . eh . the students that I

recognise or I feel are more interested in being more consistent ((all nod)) [Catherine:

mm] [...] I sort of . have higher demands or you know . on the the maybe the better

students that . show interest so . well I see that your- you- your spelling is British or hear

that you’re British . you wanna stay in that . uh I can uh- I can help you you know guide

you

In this extract, we can observe that Lena reports on having “higher demands” on “the better

students”, where she offers them help to “stay in that”, that is, pertaining to a certain accent

(British in this case). Furthermore, it is worth noting that Lena also mentions spelling as a

component of consistency. In doing so, she frames consistency as not only being a matter of

sticking to one variety of spoken English, but also being consistent between spoken and

written language. The matter of consistency in speech can also be seen in other parts of the

same discussion, where Lena and Catherine are discussing the matter:

Extract 6 - Catherine & Lena

Catherine: and with the background that many of our students . eh have because I don’t

think that they have even thought about it . many of them . eh do I want to speak with a

certain accent they- they just . they’re trying to learn English to . to . be able to .

communicate or I hope that’s . mm or they are just trying- learning- spe- tea- learning

English because they have to ((laughter)) because we make them

[...]

Lena: well if you talk about better students but you know maybe . the students with

higher grades or another type of interest in their English . I think I have that conversation

with them

24

Here, Catherine gives the perspective that perhaps students who generally are at a lower level

have not considered the possibility of speaking “with a certain accent”, a possible reason

being that the students are learning English for communicative purposes or because they are

forced by their teachers to learn English. Thus, her utterance suggests that she thinks that

spending time on lower-level students is deprioritised because students work with other more

urgent things. The same reasoning can be found in an utterance by Malin: “my students are

often on a . way lower leve- level than that . so . uhm . when I can understand them . I . uhm I

will tick that off as . great pronunciation ((laughs))”. This suggests that Malin perceives an

understandable pronunciation as sufficient because she cannot expect more from her students.

Also note that the laugh that follows “great pronunciation” could indicate that she does not

really perceive their pronunciation to be “great”, but that she uses that hyperbole jokingly.

Thus, regarding students on a “way lower level”, it seems that Malin settles on

comprehension. This is later responded to by Anton, who acknowledges the struggle of

having ‘weaker’ students : “yeah . exactly I think we struggle with the same . uh . I don’t

know . type of students ((laughs))”. To sum up, it seems that the teachers’ general perception

is that the importance of staying consistent as regards pronunciation is more important when

teaching or guiding students performing on a generally higher level.

In relation to the focus-group findings above, we can contemplate the results from items 6

and 12 in the survey. Regarding item 6, It is OK if English language learners speak English

with a non-native accent, as many as 82% of teachers strongly agree with this statement.

However, looking at item 12, figure 7, , The aim of learning English pronunciation is to

achieve a native-like accent, responses are less conclusive. In connection to the results from

the focus group, then, one possible interpretation of these findings is that teachers generally

consider a non-native accent to be okay, but some still regard a native accent as the ultimate

target. However, the results from the survey differ from the focus-group data in that they do

not allow us to draw any conclusions regarding whether focusing on consistency is related to

the students’ general language proficiency.

25


4.3 Encouraging a Willingness to Speak

When discussing pronunciation and oral participation in the classroom, the teachers in our

focus group bring up the issue of students’ willingness to communicate. The discussion

revolves partly around having an open “classroom climate” that allows for mistakes to be

made regarding pronunciation, and partly around having the courage to speak and

encouraging students to speak despite them not having “a perfect pronunciation”. As an

example, Malin describes how she puts a lot of focus on encouraging her students to speak,

while disregarding pronunciation altogether: “the focus goes to just . good job . you go . oh

you did great . an- and then pronunciation is just . not a- not the- . the important issue at all

because . just to get them to stand there is- is hard enough”. Indeed, promoting courage to

speak is something that seems important to the group in general. Lena gives a number of

utterances on this topic. Here, she responds to Anton and Catherine who are discussing “good

and better pronunciation”:

Extract 7 - Lena

I agree with you . of course there are . eh but sometimes also if the student is . eh they have a

really- they are- they have a courage to actually talk . that’s better than . the fact that the English is

better or worse cause sometimes it’s better that they actually talk [...] I prefer that they actually

dare . eh than sit quietly . ehm . so I think the best is to have that climate in your classroom that

they dare to talk even though they don’t have the perfect pronunciation or the perfect accent

Here, Lena explains that she prioritises having an open classroom “climate” that encourages

student participation, thus showing the ambition to create a willingness to speak among her

students. Creating this open classroom environment also includes mutual respect among

students themselves, something that Catherine brings up as an important issue:

26


there’s never a moment I get as angry as when they . do not respect each other in the classroom

when someone else is speaking . eh because I think it’s really important that they . feel that they

have the . that they are comfortable enough doing it whether or not they’re- they . ha- are good at

English so to speak

In extract 8 above, Catherine explains how she gets deeply frustrated if students disrespect

each other, and she emphasises how important it is to have her students be comfortable,

regardless of their level of English. In another instance in the group discussion, Catherine

makes a point correlating to the above, and discusses how feedback and correction also are

relevant in creating an open classroom climate:


cause I mean it’s all about how you tell them . you can tell them oh that’s wrong don’t say that or

you can tell them . do you mean . eh is this what you’re trying to say . eh so it’s all about how you-

how you . communicate with them of course . in order to make it ... comfortable in classroom

Extract 9 shows how Catherine argues that the way in which teachers correct students has an

effect on students’ comfort. Similarly, Lena gives an example of how she uses correction to

avoid embarrassment: “if you have someone presenting . eh let’s say they present Australia or

New Zealand and they- and they start talking about James Cock . that’s not so fun so then I

[...] correct them even though it’s in the class cause just to avoid embarrassment”. In

conclusion, the teachers in our focus group seem to agree that having an open classroom

climate where students dare to speak and make mistakes is prioritised over correct

pronunciation.

When analysing the survey data, there are several corresponding results on the theme of

willingness to speak. Looking at item 9, figure 8, of the survey, An English language

learner’s poor pronunciation influences his/her willingness to communicate, a slight majority

of teachers agree. Although the responses are distributed over the entire scale on the item in

question, these findings indicate that most teachers acknowledge that having poor

pronunciation might cause students to avoid speaking in class.

27


Also mentioned in 4.1.2, survey item 20, figure 3, Pronunciation errors by my students

hinder communication in the classroom, is significant regarding the theme of willingness to

speak as well. In fact, only 6% of teachers report “often” experiencing that pronunciation

errors hinder communication. As such, these findings are somewhat contradictory, seeing as

teachers seem to think that students with poor pronunciation are less likely to participate in

communication, but they do not think that pronunciation errors hinder communication. An

interpretation of this discrepancy is that teachers think that having poor pronunciation might

affect willingness to communicate in general, while making a few phonetic or intonational

errors does not impede the classroom communication.

4.4 The Importance of Teaching Pronunciation

In this final section, we discuss teachers’ views on the importance of teaching pronunciation.

We also look into what the teachers in our focus group report doing when they do devote

time to pronunciation. Generally, the focus group is divided on this matter, as Catherine and

Anton claim to deprioritise pronunciation (although Catherine gives examples when she

includes it in her teaching) while Malin and Lena claim to devote a fair amount of time on it.

Lastly, in this section, we discuss teachers’ perceived ideas of the correlation between good

pronunciation and general language proficiency.

28

4.4.1 Pronunciation Deprioritised

As previously mentioned, Catherine and Anton are the teachers most prone to regard

pronunciation as something not worth spending much time on. Here, an example of Anton’s

reasoning is provided:

Extract 10 - Anton

I think that uh if . uh, we .. uh were given you know . a lot more time . uhm . then I would love to

teach more abou- oh you know . talk about . pronunciation more . but there are other things that

are mo- . that I feel . are more important than . uh . pronunciation

While Anton acknowledges that he would like to spend time on teaching pronunciation, he

feels that other aspects of English are more important. The same reasoning can be found in

Catherine’s statement below:


I feel that my students have . other problems that I prioritise . before . eh working with the

pronunciation . ehh . so I think that . ehm . it’s . of course important but on my part I think that I .

do not find it as important as many other aspects . ehh in- in teaching English

In extract 11, Even if Catherine considers other aspects of English teaching to be more

important than pronunciation, she later reports using it as a way of providing feedback when

students make pronunciation mistakes: “I mention it and we talk about it . uhm . and I can

react to certain things if they are very . if they m- mispronounce . eh . words . a lot or often .

eh but I do very little . specific teaching”. As is evident in the extracts above, Catherine finds

pronunciation to be important, but only to a certain extent, and for certain purposes. It

appears that she interprets the question of spending time on pronunciation in class as a

question of whether or not they plan lessons with the main purpose or focus being

pronunciation, which she reports not doing. Thus, it appears that Catherine does not regard

her ad-hoc pronunciation instruction as “specific” pronunciation teaching. This sets the scene

for a passage where Anton and Catherine jokingly point out how absurd it would be to do just

that:

Extract 12 - Anton and Catherine

Anton: you don’t have a specific theme ((laughs)) pronunciation theme

Catherine: these weeks ((big hand gestures)) we are-

All: ((laughter))

29

Anton: these coming eight weeks ((laughs))

Catherine: ((laughs)) no . no no

Anton: tongue twisters

Judging by the general laughter, we can see how the exchange in extract 12 is done in a

joking manner. Anton ironically asks if Catherine does not have a specific “theme” where she

teaches pronunciation, and they dismiss the possibility of devoting explicit time to

pronunciation as an eight-week series of lessons where students practice “tongue twisters”.

Accordingly, the stance of Catherine and Anton is that pronunciation is deemed as a part of

English that should only be brought up if it is necessary.

Proceeding with the data from the questionnaire, several survey items correspond with the

focus-group findings indicating that pronunciation is deprioritised among teachers. While

most teachers agree that pronunciation is important (see item 2, figure 9, and item 3, figure

10, below), 70% of teachers do not agree with item 4: Learning to pronounce well is the most

important part of learning a language. As such, the general consensus seems to be that

pronunciation is valued by most teachers but that other aspects of English teaching are more

important.


30


In fact, when asked to rank different aspects of English teaching (survey item 22), only 3 out

of 54 teachers mark pronunciation as the most important, which is the lowest number of all

the covered teaching aspects (grammar, pronunciation, written proficiency, listening

comprehension, vocabulary, speech fluency, reading comprehension). Although responses on

the item are otherwise relatively evenly distributed over the entire scale, the mean value of

pronunciation (= 4.1) indicates that it is ranked the lowest of all options. To continue,

teachers report to rarely focus explicitly on pronunciation (see item 17, figure 11 below), and

a majority of teachers never or rarely plan pronunciation-focused lessons (see item 19, figure

12 below).


31


Finally, responses to item 25, figure 13, and item 26, figure 14 suggest that teachers do not

spend a significant amount of time on pronunciation and, even though some teachers indicate

wanting to spend more time, most seem to be content with the time allocation.

Figure 13

32

Figure 14

4.4.2 Pronunciation Deemed Important

Contrasting with Catherine and Anton’s views in 4.4.1, Lena and Malin give several

examples of having quite different views on the importance of teaching pronunciation. A

reason for this could be that they report teaching students of lower language proficiency in

preparatory programmes, which in turn requires that they spend more time on pronunciation,

as it is necessary to achieve comprehensibility. In Malin’s case, this is perhaps most obvious

when examining the response that she gives directly after the joking passage about specific

pronunciation themes and tongue twisters which we present in extract 12 (4.4.1). After that

very passage, Malin responds:

Extract 13 - Malin

we have been working with . tongue twisters and we have been working on . the sound and we

have been working on silent e and- becau- the . especially silent e they have great difficulty with

not grasping that you don’t say move e . uh if you mean move . uh . so . I actually have to work

with that . and we do . quite regularly

Thus, one possible interpretation is that Malin considers pronunciation to be more

important because of her students’ potentially lacking skill to make themselves

understood, as silent e is not typically an issue for upper-secondary-English students.

Continuing, the same reasoning as Malin gives above can be observed by Lena in

extract 14, where she exemplifies how she teaches pronunciation as a repeat-after-me

exercise when it is needed for continued understanding:

33

Extract 14 - Lena

when I see there is a- . eh . something that’s complicated for a lot of them . or misunderstandings I

always bring that up and sometimes you know we have this . eh . where we read out loud together

in the class like a choir . or whatever we do so . I think I touch it when I feel it’s . needed to avoid

misunderstandings

The same type of repeat-after-me exercises are used by Malin, who says that “whenever we

encounter new words we make sure we practice it out loud in the class . eh .. the . homework

for the week is always we go through that . everyone read after me come on let’s do these- .

this word”. Thus, both Malin and Lena give examples of using the Audiolingual approach to

explicitly teach pronunciation with their classes in a group setting. Furthermore, both Lena

and Malin explain how they set aside time to teach pronunciation to individual students. For

example, in extract 15, Lena discusses how she offers individual help to students “that are

struggling” by recording herself reading manuscripts written for presentations:

Extract 15 - Lena

I always offer them . uhm let’s say they have written a sort of a manuscript for their presentation .

I offer them to come practice with me so we can actually . eh practice pronunciation so and

sometimes eh . I read their manuscript . and we record it so they can listen to it again and again at

home

After this utterance, Malin (extract 16) replies that she frequently does something similar,

referring to teaching students individually:

Extract 16 - Malin

I do that too I set aside quite a lot of time to be able to . take them out one at a time . uh . and sit

down with them . outside of the classroom to let them- I read for them and they read to me and-

and . uh . to practice with them [...] when they . repeatedly read it with me and I- and I correct

them and I say ah you remember we talked about this so . uh yeah one-on-one . uhm . teaching is-

is very . crucial in- at this .. in this aspect

In extract 16, we see how Malin clearly reports giving students an explicit model of

pronunciation, taking time in individual pedagogical conversations to directly correct

students when they produce an erroneous utterance. Additionally, she devotes time to directly

comparing her own English to the English produced by her students, emphasising how one-

on-one teaching is an important part of helping her students develop their pronunciation.

Given that Malin’s stance on teaching a specific model is that it is unnecessary as long as

students make themselves understood, a possible conclusion is that Malin performs these

kinds of one-on-one settings to strive for students’ comprehensibility.

34

4.4.3 Correlation between Pronunciation and General Language Proficiency

Finally, we present findings pertaining to teachers’ perception that having good pronunciation

correlates with general English-language proficiency. The reasoning behind this theme is that

there is an interesting observation to be made regarding, on the one hand, teachers’ partial

reluctance to teach pronunciation and provide a clear pronunciation model for their students,

and on the other hand, a perceived idea that having good pronunciation correlates with other

language skills. To give an example of the reasoning behind this, Catherine argues the

following:


if they have . eh this natural ((makes quotation marks with hands)) . eh pronunciation . nh . they-

they . ehm . they seem comfortable speaking English . that’s often a- a better pronunciation than-

than if they- they are . uncomfortable or maybe if they have . ehm . a general lower level of

English . eh that’s often noticeable in their speech I think .. so of course there’s good and better”

Here, Catherine makes a clear connection between students’ pronunciation and general

language proficiency, and she explains how pronunciation is not an isolated skill that is

separated from other language skills, but rather how a lack of language skills is often visible

in students’ speech. The same reasoning is visible among the other teachers in the focus

group. Here, Anton makes a statement that is similar to Catherine’s whereby Lena, Malin and

Catherine all agree:

Extract 18 - Anton, Lena, Malin and Catherine

Anton: But I mean a student who speaks . perfect received pronunciation . is probably going to

have you know . uh . is probably good at . uh . other things as well . so it goes hand in hand

((Lena, Malin and Catherine nod))

Lena: exactly

Malin: definitely

Here, it is interesting to note that Anton uses the phrase “perfect received pronunciation”

rather than, say, “really good pronunciation” or “completely comprehensive pronunciation”,

indicating that he attributes a high level of language proficiency to speaking using a native

model. It is also interesting to note how Lena, Malin and Catherine agree to this statement by

nodding (not mentioning the reaffirming utterances by Lena and Malin), showing that this

perception is accepted as something true. Thus, we can see that previously uttered statements

35

about good pronunciation only having to do with making oneself understood could be

debated.

Proceeding with the survey, one particular item provides data on the correlation between

pronunciation and proficiency. Looking at item 15, figure 15, Having good pronunciation

benefits the students in other activities, such as listening comprehension, responses paint a

relatively clear picture of general agreement. Just as in the focus group, teachers here seem to

believe that there is some sort of correlation between good pronunciation and proficiency in

other aspects of English.


In conclusion, results point towards a tendency among teachers to emphasise

comprehensibility over nativeness, and that teachers aim to create an open classroom climate

in order to encourage a willingness to speak. However, teachers also seem to value nativeness

norms, given that they strive for their “better” students to be consistent in following a native-

speaking model, even though nativeness norms are partially deemed outdated.

5. Discussion

In this section, we discuss our findings in relation to our research questions. We begin by

answering our first research question regarding teachers’ views. Next, we answer our second

research question, covering teachers’ reported practices in pronunciation instruction. After

making some final conclusions, we discuss the pedagogical implications of the present study

36

and finally address some limitations of the study and make some suggestions for further

research.

5.1 Teachers’ Views on Pronunciation and Pronunciation Instruction

One of the most apparent themes in the data of this study is that teachers acknowledge

comprehensibility as the main objective when it comes to speaking English. As is evident in

section 4.1.1 of the results above, all focus-group teachers report that comprehensibility is a

matter of greater importance than following a specific pronunciation model, which is in line

with the questionnaire findings as well. One reason for teachers’ reluctance to demand a

certain model for their students seems to be that teachers do not want to enforce strict rules

on what is correct or incorrect when it comes to pronunciation, but rather let the students

speak freely, thus encouraging a willingness to speak. This will be discussed further in

section 5.2 below. Another reason why teachers do not demand a specific model seems to be

that they consider nativeness norms to be irrelevant and to some extent outdated (as presented

in 4.1.3). In fact, our survey results show that four out of five teachers do not think that

language learners should eradicate their foreign accent. Furthermore, the focus-group

teachers are especially critical of the past emphasis on RP in Swedish schools, with Malin

explaining that we are not learning English for the sake of communicating with “some posh

Brits”. Rather, teachers emphasise the ability to communicate with other non-native speakers,

thus emphasising an EIL or ELF focus.

This expressed focus on comprehensibility correlates with recent research on the

effectiveness of pronunciation instruction. As presented in our background section, Jenkins

(1998), Derwing and Munro (2005) and Thomson and Derwing (2015) all emphasise that a

native-like accent is an unattainable goal for learners, and that pronunciation instruction

should have comprehensibility and intelligibility as the “new” focal points (Jenkins presented

her article in 1998, after all). However, while the teachers’ attention to comprehensibility

corresponds with research on the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction, these findings do

not equate with previous research on teachers’ views on pronunciation. For example, the

teachers involved in Moradkhani and Asakereh’s (2018) Iranian study seem to prefer having

a native-speaking model as a pedagogical goal for their students. Similarly, Karakas (2017)

and Cecen and Serdar Tuluce (2019) find that the Turkish pre-service teachers in their studies

tend to emphasise nativeness norms in terms of pronunciation. While these studies were all

37

conducted in a Middle Eastern setting, the views presented are in no way unique for this

region. In fact, Tergujeff’s (2012) study investigating Finnish teachers’ preferred

pronunciation model shows that teachers often use RP as their pronunciation model, and that

they too tend to have traditional nativeness norms. Thus, our findings suggest a contrast

between views held by Swedish teachers and teachers in many other countries when it comes

to preferences on pronunciation models.

However, while teachers report that their main concern is comprehensibility, the data

gathered for the present study indicates that there is still a focus on nativeness norms. In our

results, we present findings highlighting some teachers’ emphasis on consistency in

pronunciation, which refers to students choosing a certain model and using it consistently.

Moreover, our results show that while teachers do not demand that students follow specific

native-speaker models, they seem to find few alternatives to native-speaker accents as

benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation. Thus, it appears that teachers’ views are not strictly

focused on comprehensibility; there are values and uncertainties which point to the fact that

nativeness norms continue to affect the views of teachers. Furthermore, while almost all

teachers suggest that they aim for their students to speak without a particular model in mind,

they clearly report a self-imposed demand for a native-like accent regarding their own

pronunciation. This could be seen as a contradiction in light of the ELF (English as a Lingua

Franca) and EIL (English as an International Language) values shown by teachers previously,

as it might seem irrational that teachers follow native-speaker accents, while students do not.

However, these findings are in line with Jenkins’ (1998: 124) proposition that teachers are

required to mimic native-speaker accents more closely than their students since teachers’

pronunciation will be a guiding light for the students.

The above-mentioned findings on consistency and nativeness norms correlate more closely

with previous research on teachers’ views, in which teachers have expressed normative views

on the topic of pronunciation. However, it is important to acknowledge that the views of the

teachers in our study are not as decisively normative as those found in the study by Cecen

and Serdar Tuluce (2019), for example. While their results suggest that teachers strongly

prefer using native-speaker models as a benchmark for evaluating pronunciation, the teachers

in the present study are uncertain.

38

Finally, teachers’ views and attitudes seem to be affected by the level of the students

concerned. As we have covered in our results, the teachers in our focus group work with

students at different levels, both in terms of proficiency and educational stage, and they

highlight that these differences affect what they can expect from their students. In short, our

findings suggest that teachers consider the aim for a native-like accent to be a concern for the

“better” students, while “weaker” students should first focus on comprehensibility.

5.2 Teachers’ Reported Practices concerning Pronunciation Instruction

When answering our second research question, “How do English teachers in the Swedish

upper-secondary school describe their own practices in pronunciation instruction?”, we want

to note that it is not self-evident where the line should be drawn between teachers’ views and

their reported practices. Indeed, when teachers discuss their views, thoughts on practices are

often brought up in order to provide examples or to motivate that view. At the same time,

reported practices are often supported by certain perspectives or attitudes.

Naturally, the area of assessment and student feedback is a central aspect for discussing

teachers’ reported practices. Generally, we see that teachers report correcting their students

for different purposes in different situations. For instance, our results show that two major

reasons for correcting students are to prevent misunderstandings and to promote

comprehension. As Lena puts it, correction is done when it is needed “to avoid

misunderstandings”, while Anton reports correcting a student if that student “really stumbles

on a word”. Thus, it seems that teachers do not stop students to address points of

pronunciation as long as communication is maintained and misunderstandings are avoided.

The responses to our survey seem to correlate with this analysis; generally, teachers think that

maintaining the flow of conversation is more important than correcting pronunciation (see

4.1.2).

The approach taken by teachers to correct students’ pronunciation errors mainly when they

hinder communication goes well in line with the CLT approach (Ketabi & Saeb 2015;

Thomson and Derwing 2015). As mentioned in section 2.1, the main goal of pronunciation

teaching today is to strive for comprehensibility, which the teachers of our study do to a large

extent. This idea also goes in line with what the Swedish National Agency for Education

(Skolverket) stipulates as the main area of English teaching in schools, namely to develop

39

skills to use English communicatively in different situations and for different purposes

(Skolverket 2019). That being said, however, we have also collected data suggesting that

teachers sometimes provide feedback to their students for purposes having to do with using a

model of pronunciation consistently. Even though this practice is not reported by all the

teachers in our focus group, this still indicates that teachers’ practices in pronunciation

instruction are diverse and do not simply focus on issues of comprehensibility alone.

As discussed in section 5.1, it seems that teachers’ views on pronunciation are affected by

their perceptions of students’ language proficiency. This also applies to their practices, where

teachers seem to alter the form of correction, whether to promote comprehension or to

promote consistency, based on their perceptions of students’ language levels. Thus, we can

observe that certain influences from nativeness norms still remain in schools today, although

promoting comprehension is reported as the most common reason for providing feedback. In

line with our results, Levis (2005) points out that native norms continue to affect the practices

of teachers, something which is clearly visible in our data. Even though a nativeness norm is

mostly visible when the teachers of our focus group discuss “better” students, it does indicate

that nativeness norms could be seen as an ultimate target for language learners, a conclusion

that also finds support in our survey data.

The tendency to provide students with feedback to promote comprehensibility also correlates

with how the teachers of our focus group report approaching pronunciation in their

classrooms on a more general level. Malin and Lena, who report teaching students with a

relatively low level of language proficiency, report that they do spend time on explicitly

teaching pronunciation, partially by using repeat-after-me exercises and, in Lena’s case, even

recording her own voice to help students practice pronunciation at home. Additionally, Malin

reports working extensively with individual students, reading texts that she then lets students

read themselves with the intent to focus on specific features of pronunciation. These imitation

exercises, which are related to the Audiolingual approach, seem to still play an active role in

English classrooms today. Tergujeff has found similar results in her observational study from

2012, where teachers mainly focused on explicit pronunciation instruction by using teacher-

centered imitation exercises (2012: 606).

Giving quite a different view of their practices, Catherine and Anton, who only teach students

at upper-secondary level, paint a picture of not devoting lesson time on teaching specific

40

features of pronunciation, but that they instead bring them up ad-hoc if students make

mistakes that hinder communication. The two teachers point out that they would like to spend

more time on pronunciation had they been given more time, but they prioritise other aspects

of English instruction. Thus, we can observe that the general approach to teaching

pronunciation seems to depend, at least partially, on the perceived ideas of students’ needs. If

students generally have a low level of language proficiency, pronunciation instruction is

given more time , whereas it is given less time if teachers deem learners to be

comprehensible. These results could be compared with Macdonald’s (2002), which show that

teachers who are reluctant to teach pronunciation only do so as an add-on when it is

considered necessary (ibid.: 8).

Another theme of teachers’ reported practices, which is also deeply connected to their views

and attitudes, is promoting students’ willingness to speak. This theme is also connected to

teachers reporting that they mainly correct pronunciation errors to promote comprehension,

as correcting pronunciation to promote, for instance, a native-like model could result in

learners avoiding speaking altogether in fear of saying things incorrectly. In fact, this type of

reasoning seems to be a major contributing factor to choosing to correct students only if

intelligibility is at risk of being compromised. For example, this is done by recasting

students’ erroneous utterances and by helping students pronounce words correctly in order to

avoid embarrassment. In conclusion, our results indicate that teachers believe that promoting

oral participation and creating an open environment where students develop a willingness to

speak are crucial aspects of pronunciation instruction.

5.3 Pedagogical Implications

In our own experience as students of English, pronunciation instruction has been sparse

throughout our years in upper-secondary education, and most of our pronunciation ‘abilities’

have been acquired from activities outside the school environment. It is not until we reached

university level that issues of pronunciation and the aspect of different varieties of English

were brought to our attention academically. This observation is what initially led us into the

area of pronunciation research. After conducting the present study, we see that the lack of

explicit pronunciation instruction in upper-secondary education largely seems to be evident

still to this day, and that the pronunciation that is taught in school is often done so as an add-

on when pronunciation errors occur. Given that the English-language education in Swedish

41

schools mainly revolves around comprehensibility and intelligibility, and given that certain

types of explicit pronunciation instruction have proven to increase those aspects of spoken

English (e.g. Derwing, Munro & Wiebe 1998), one implication that can be made from this

study is that English instruction in Swedish schools should consider devoting more time to

teaching pronunciation explicitly, and not only address the issue as comprehensibility issues

arise.

Although comprehensibility and intelligibility seem to be the main goals of teachers studied

in this thesis, we still see that native-speaker ideals still partially exist in English classrooms

today. As research suggests that achieving a native-like level of pronunciation is almost

impossible for a non-native speaker of English (Thomson & Derwing 2015: 335), another

pedagogical implication of this study is that teachers of English should continue down the

path of disregarding nativeness standards as an ultimate goal for learners of English. Even if

English instruction is well on its way to achieving that goal, native-speaking norms still play

a major role in Swedish schools today, and as future teachers of English, we think that

nativeness should no longer serve as a benchmark to which students’ pronunciation is

measured. Consequently, since teachers still need to evaluate their students’ pronunciation

development, it might be a good idea to establish a clear international-English benchmark

against which pronunciation could be assessed. As a starting point, the Swedish National

Agency for Education (Skolverket) could be more explicit on pronunciation goals for upper-

secondary students than is the case today, by creating clear criteria of EIL-oriented standards

to strive for. In general, the syllabus needs to cover aspects of pronunciation so that teachers

have clear guidelines to follow when it comes to how pronunciation should be taught.

5.4 Final Conclusion

In conclusion, we argue that the findings of the present study have implications both for the

field of pronunciation research as well as for pronunciation instruction in EFL settings.

While research conducted in other parts of the world indicate that teachers generally

emphasise that learners should strive for a native-like accent, the teachers in the present

study emphasise comprehensibility over nativeness in general.However, nativeness norms

continue to have an effect on teachers’ views on what constitutes good pronunciation and

what the aim of pronunciation instruction is. Thus, comprehensibility could be seen as a

threshold which all learners must cross, but once a learner has crossed that threshold (i.e.

42

once a learner’s pronunciation is comprehensible), a native-like accent is valued and seen as a

logical progression. These views differ from those shown by teachers in previous research in

the sense that the teachers in the present study seem to perceive nativeness and intelligibility

as a continuum rather than two entirely separate aims. Furthermore, our findings suggest that

pronunciation instruction still is a relatively neglected area of English teaching, despite its

proven benefits. Finally, even though teachers report teaching pronunciation at times, there is

no consensus on how to teach it or what pronunciation model is preferred.

5.5 Limitations of the Study

The present study aims to investigate the views and reported practices of English teachers in

the Swedish upper-secondary school. As such, it is important to consider to what extent the

teachers in our study represent the teacher workforce as a whole. While the authors of this

study have been careful not to draw any over-generalised conclusions, it is still important to

note that only one focus-group interview with four teachers was conducted for the gathering

of the qualitative data. Additionally, only 54 teachers participated in the survey, and

combined, these numbers could be considered rather low. Furthermore, the findings of this

study should most definitely be seen in the light of its Swedish context. As is obvious

throughout our accounts of our own and previous research, the views of teachers differ

according to cultural contexts and over time.

Another matter that has proven to be of concern during our study is that we created and sent

out the survey before finalising the focus-group interview. Hence, we did not have the chance

to shape the survey in light of our focus-group findings. In retrospect, we realise that such an

alternative approach could have led to more fruitful findings, as we would have been able to

make more relevant comparisons between the qualitative and quantitative data.

A final remark is that the setting of the focus group interview (a group conversation via an

online meeting tool) could have caused the participants to alter their responses or not feel

comfortable. However, as we covered in section 3.2, we opted for two sets of teacher

colleagues in order to create a greater sense of comfort for the participants. Indeed, the

authors’ impression of the focus-group interview is that the conversation was casual and

fluent.

43

5.6 Suggestions for Further Research

When investigating the data from our focus-group interview, a theme emerged that teachers

tend to consider nativeness norms irrelevant for most learners, but that “better” or “more

interested” students should aim to consistently use a certain native model. This suggests that

while comprehensibility is enough as a starting point, teachers still regard a native accent as

the ultimate goal for learners of English. We argue that this is a highly relevant finding which

requires further investigation. One point of inquiry could be to investigate for which learners

teachers consider pronunciation instruction to be important and at which levels pronunciation

should be taught.

44

List of References

Bai, B. & Yuan, R. (2019) ‘EFL Teachers’ beliefs and practices about pronunciation

teaching’. ELT Journal [online] 73(2), 134-143. available from <https://academic

-oup-com.e.bibl.liu.se/eltj/article/73/2/134/5150649> [21 May 2020]

Brinkkjær, U. & Høyen, M. (2013) Vetenskapsteori för lärarstudenter. Lund:

Studentlitteratur

Brinton, D. M. (2016) ‘Pronunciation’. In Handbook of Research in Second Language

Teaching and Learning. Ed. by Hinkel, E. Abingdon: Routledge, 257-269

Broth, M., Musk, N. & Persson, R. (2020) Conventions for Transcribing Talk. Linköping:

Linköping University

Bryman, A. (2015) Social Research Methods [online] available from <https://ebookcentral

.proquest.com/lib/linkoping-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4776951> [22 Feb 2021]

Cecen, S. & Serdar Tuluce, H. (2019) ‘An investigation of pre-service EFL teachers’

attitudes towards speakers from three circles of English’. Journal of Language and

Linguistic Studies [online] 15(1), 123-139. available from

<https://eric-ed-gov.e.bibl.liu.se/?id=EJ1212043> [21 May 2020]

Dahlgren, L. O. & Johansson, K. (2009) ‘Fenomenografi’. In Handbok i kvalitativ

analys. ed. by Fejes, A. & Thornberg, R. Stockholm: Liber, 122-134

David, M. & Sutton, C. D. (2011) Samhällsvetenskaplig metod [Social Research: An

Introduction]. 2nd edn. trans. by Torhell, S. Lund: Studentlitteratur

Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. J. (2005) ‘Second Language Accent and Pronunciation

Teaching: A Research-Based Approach’. TESOL Quarterly [online] 39(3), 379-397.

available from <https://www-jstor-org.e.bibl.liu.se/stable/3588486> [21 May 2020]

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J. & Wiebe, G. (1998) ‘Evidence in Favor of a Broad Framework

for Pronunciation Instruction’. Language Learning [online] 48(3), 393-410. available

from<https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.e.bibl.liu.se/doi/abs/10.1111/0023-8333.00047>

[21 May 2020]

Deterding, D. (2013) Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An Analysis of ELF

Interactions in South-East Asia [online], 1-32. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. available

from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263351214> [21 May 2020]

Edley, N. & Litosseliti, L. (2010) ‘Contemplating Interviews and Focus Groups’. In Research

Methods in Linguistics. Ed. by Litosseliti, L. London: Bloomsbury, 155-179

Field, J. (2005) ‘Intelligibility and the Listener: The Role of Lexical Stress’. TESOL

Quarterly [online] 39(3), 399-423. available from

<https://www-jstor-org.e.bibl.liu.se/stable/3588487> [21 May 2020]

https://academic-oup-com.e.bibl.liu.se/eltj/article/73/2/134/5150649


https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/linkoping-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4776951

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/linkoping-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4776951

https://eric-ed-gov.e.bibl.liu.se/?id=EJ1212043

https://www-jstor-org.e.bibl.liu.se/stable/3588486

https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.e.bibl.liu.se/doi/abs/10.1111/0023-8333.00047

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263351214


45

Hahn, L. D. (2004) ‘Primary Stress and Intelligibility: Research to Motivate the Teaching of

Suprasegmentals’. TESOL Quarterly [online] 38(2), 201-223. available from

<https://www-jstor-org.e.bibl.liu.se/stable/3588378> [21 May 2020]

Jenkins, J. (1998) ‘Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an International

Language?’. ELT Journal [online] 52(2), 119-126. available from

<https://academic-oup-com.e.bibl.liu.se/eltj/article/52/2/119/2924408>

[21 May 2020]

Karakas, A. (2017) ‘Students’ perceptions of ‘Good English’ and the underlying ideologies

behind their perceptions’. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies [online] 13(2),

487-509. available from <https://eric-ed-gov.e.bibl.liu.se/?id=EJ1159165>

[21 May 2020]

Ketabi, S. & Saeb, F. (2015) ‘Pronunciation Teaching: Past and Present’. International

Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature [online] 4(5), 182-189. available

from <https://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/1581/1521>

[21 May 2020]

Kitzinger, J. & Barbour, R. S. (2011) ‘Introduction: The Challenge and Promise of Focus

Groups’. In Developing Focus Group Research. Ed. by Barbour, R. S. & Kitzinger, J.

London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Levis, J. M. (2005) ‘Changing Contexts and Shifting Paradigms in Pronunciation Teaching’.

TESOL Quarterly [online] 39(3), 369-377. available from

<https://www-jstor-org.e.bibl.liu.se/stable/3588485?origin=crossref&

seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents> [21May 2020]

Macdonald, S. (2002) ‘Pronunciation - views and practices of reluctant teachers’. Prospect

[online] 17(3), 3-18. available from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2855

17759_Pronunciation-views_and_practices_of_reluctant_teachers> [21 May 2020]

Moradkhani, S. & Asakereh, A. (2018) ‘EFL teachers’ attitudes toward accent and culture in

light of EIL: The case of Iranian public schools and private institutes’. Cogent

Education [online] 5(1), 1-18. available from <https://www.cogentoa.com/

article/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1489336> [21 May 2020]

Morgan, D. L. (2008) ‘Focus Groups’. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research

Methods. Ed. by Given, L. M. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ochs, E. (1979) ‘Transcription as Theory’. In Developmental Pragmatics. Ed. by Ochs, E. &

Schieffelin, B. New York: Academic Press

Skolverket (2019) English [online] available from <https://www.skolverket.se/download/

18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/1535372297288/English-swedish-school.pdf>

[21 May 2020]

Tergujeff, E. (2012) ‘The English Pronunciation Teaching in Europe Survey: Finland’.

Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(1), 29-45

Tergujeff, E. (2013) ‘Learner Perspective on English Pronunciation Teaching in an EFL

Context’. Research in Language, 11(1), 81-95




https://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/1581/1521

https://www-jstor-org.e.bibl.liu.se/stable/3588485?origin=crossref&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://www-jstor-org.e.bibl.liu.se/stable/3588485?origin=crossref&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285517759_Pronunciation-views_and_practices_of_reluctant_teachers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285517759_Pronunciation-views_and_practices_of_reluctant_teachers

https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1489336

https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1489336

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/1535372297288/English-swedish-school.pdf

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/1535372297288/English-swedish-school.pdf

46

Thomson, R. I. & Derwing, T. M. (2015) ‘The Effectiveness of L2 Pronunciation Instruction:

A Narrative Review’. Applied Linguistics [online] 36(3), 326-344. available from

<https://eric-ed-gov.e.bibl.liu.se/?id=EJ1207244> [21 May 2020]

Üstünbas, Ü. (2018) ‘Does Pronunciation Instruction Make Any Sense? EFL Learners and

Teachers’ Beliefs’. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction [online]

10(1), 71–84. available from <https://eric-ed-gov.e.bibl.liu.se/?id=EJ1207244>

[21 May 2020]

Uzun, T. & Ay, S. (2018) ‘Preservice English teachers’ perspectives on pronunciation’. In J.

Levis (ed.) Proceedings of the 9th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and

Teaching Conference, University of Utah, held September 2017. Ames, IA: Iowa

State University. 120-128

Vetenskapsrådet (2017) God forskningssed. [online] available from

<https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25b05/1555332112063

/God-forskningssed_VR_2017.pdf> [24 May 2021]



https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25b05/1555332112063/God-forskningssed_VR_2017.pdf

https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25b05/1555332112063/God-forskningssed_VR_2017.pdf

47

Appendix 1 - Interview Guide

Discussion questions

General views

1. In general, what do you consider to be good pronunciation?

2. How good is your students’ pronunciation?

3. To what extent do you think that pronunciation is an important aspect of English

teaching?

Speaking model

4. To what extent do you demand a specific type of English when your students are

speaking?

How do you communicate that model to your students?

5. To what extent do you use a specific type of English when you speak in your

classroom?

In class

6. To what extent does your students’ pronunciation affect classroom participation and

communication?

7. To what extent do you teach pronunciation in your English classes?

8. During a lesson, in what kind of activities would you most likely bring up aspects of

pronunciation?

9. To what extent do you assess your students’ English pronunciation during and/or

after class?

Curriculum

10. What are your thoughts on the curriculum when it comes to pronunciation? To what

extent do you think that the curriculum should address pronunciation explicitly?

Scenarios 11. During a group discussion, one of your students mispronounces a word, which leads

to a misunderstanding. What would you do? Why?

12. When reading a text everyone has in front of them, one student reads aloud and

mispronounces a word. What would you do? Why?

13. You have an informal conversation with a student about the past weekend, and he or

she makes a pronunciation error. What would you do? Why?

48

Appendix 2 - Survey Responses

49

1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree

50

51

52

53

54

1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always

55

56

57

58

Appendix 3 - Letter of Consent

Information om att delta i undersökning

Vi, Jonas Rentner och Axel Tegnered, är lärarstuderande vid Linköpings universitet och

ska skriva vårt sista examensarbete. Arbetet kommer att handla om hur lärare ser på och

använder sig av uttalsundervisning i engelska på gymnasiet.

För att kunna undersöka detta har vi valt att dokumentera hur lärare diskuterar denna

fråga genom en fokusgrupp. I rådande pandemi har vi valt att genomföra denna genom

ett samtal på Zoom (bild och ljud) som vi spelar in och sedan analyserar. Att delta är

helt frivilligt.

Videoinspelningen kommer endast att användas för denna studie. Efter studiens

slutförande kommer inspelningen att kasseras tillsammans med eventuella

personuppgifter. Det är Linköpings universitet och vår handledare Nigel Musk som blir

personuppgiftsansvarig i enlighet med Allmänna dataskyddsförordningen.

Efter att inspelningen gjorts kommer den som sagt att transkriberas och analyseras.

Inspelningen i sig kommer att förvaras på ett sådant sätt att ingen förutom vi och vår

handledare kommer att få tillgång till den. I våra transkriptioner kommer vi att

anonymisera er så att er identitet inte kommer att framgå.

Du kan när som helst avbryta ditt deltagande i studien utan att det kommer få några

negativa konsekvenser för dig. Om du efter inspelningen ångrar ditt deltagande är det

bara att du hör av dig till någon av oss eller vår handledare (mejl finns nedan).

Om du vill ta del av studiens resultat kan du fylla i din mejl nedan, så får du en kopia

när arbetet är färdigställt.

Tack för ditt deltagande!

Jonas Rentner (lärarstuderande, [email protected], 0769468484)

Axel Tegnered (lärarstuderande, [email protected], 0760453055)

Nigel Musk, handledare och biträdande professor i engelska ([email protected], 013-281869)

Institutionen för kommunikation och samhälle

Linköpings Universitet

Linköping

59

Medgivande att delta i studie

JA NEJ

Jag kan tänka mig delta i studien och bli inspelad. □ □

Användning av inspelning

Jag godkänner att:

JA NEJ

· inspelningen används i forskningssyfte, t ex i vetenskapliga arbeten. □ □

· transkriptioner (tal omskrivet till text) får användas i forskningssyfte. □ □

OBS! Du får ändra dig när som helst under eller efter inspelningen. Hör bara av dig till

Jonas eller Axel.

_________________________________ ______________________________

(ort) (datum)

___________________________________________________________________________

(Signatur och namnförtydligande)

E-postadress om resultatet önskas: _______________________________________________

60

Appendix 4 - Self Evaluation

A great many times throughout this process, I, Axel Tegnered, have reflected on the sincere

gratitude I feel over having had Jonas as my writing partner for this second thesis. The best

way I can describe our collaborative process is that we have had a sort of Yin and Yang

relationship; when I have had a creative flow and produced a lot of text, Jonas has been there

to proofread, revise and improve what I have written, adding relevant and correct sources

when I have been unable to find them. At other times, when I have felt the urge to throw my

computer out the window, Jonas has been there to write patiently while I have walked around

in my room, giving suggestions of what I feel should be included in the text he is currently

working on. Writing thesis 2 has truly been a dynamic and creative process, despite not

meeting in person a single time for the whole duration of this ultimate academic final boss of

an exam. Thank you Jonas for a great and long-lasting collaboration that will hopefully

survive as we enter our future lives as working teachers. As a final note, I want to make a

comment on our excellent, thorough and supportive supervisor Nigel Musk. The way you

have examined our work from every little misplaced preposition to every major logic gap in

our reasoning has been a pleasure to behold. My most heartfelt gratitude goes out to you

Nigel!

I, Jonas Rentner, am overwhelmed by the ease with which the present study has been

conducted. Over the past months, Axel and I have met every morning via Zoom, thus

establishing a routine that has helped us structure our work process. Furthermore, we have

always had clear milestones that we have aimed to reach by certain points. This has meant

that we have never lost track of where we are going with our thesis. Seeing as we wrote our

first thesis together, I went into this project knowing that we had a great collaboration. That

being said, I still find myself surprised by – and grateful for – our cooperation in this writing

process. As is perhaps always the case in long projects such as this, there have been times

when one of us has lost the motivation to write. I am proud to say that at those times, the

other one – be it me or Axel – has been there to take over the reins and steer us in the right

direction. Finally, I want to thank our supervisor, Nigel Musk. This work would have been

impossible without your much valued guidance.

Documents

Teachers’ Views on Teaching English Pronunciation