You are on page 1of 19

[Type text

]

ELT Voices – India
Volume 3 Issue 2 | April 2013
ISSN 2230-9136

ELT Research Paper 5

EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation
Factor in Teaching-Learning Process and Its Effects on
Learners’ Motivation
Gholamreza Abbasian, Ph.D.
Department of English, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Aadel Bahmanie, M.A.
Department of English, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

© Ignite (India) Publishing, Bhavnagar, Gujarat – India

www.eltvoices.in

Key words: Reflective teaching. motivation 62 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. pedagogically. the analysis of the data showed that EFL teachers’ pronunciation was significantly reflected upon by both EFL teachers and learners.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . though EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection did not have any statistically significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation. the teachers should care about their pronunciation while teaching. To fulfil the purpose of the study. and 70 lower-intermediate EFL learners responded to a pronunciation knowledge and awareness questionnaire and Gardner’s Motivation Inventory. However. Using chi-square. Both EFL teachers and learners may avail from the findings of this study.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation Abstract The current study was conducted to investigate the relationship between EFL teachers’ and learners’ reflection on pronunciation factor in teaching-learning process and learners’ motivation. pronunciation reflection. the material analysis and qualitative interaction analyses revealed that. 30 EFL instructors answered a pronunciation knowledge and awareness questionnaire.

3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . Reflective practices have also been valued in the realms of speech production and perception. and Damico (1987) assume that self-monitoring skills have effects on pronunciation perception. In addition. beliefs. 2. Therefore. 500) about their efforts in language courses. Review of the Related Literature Reflection can also be discussed from the view point of second language teaching. Hoffman. examine their attitudes. Demonstrating the importance of reflection in material design. Dempsey. However.. 2000). and use the information obtained as a basis for critical reflection” (p. students’ reflective thinking has been advocated by many researchers (Hay. cited in Celce-Murcia.1. as a learning tool. Morley (1994) considers speech monitoring. 2001) or applied instruments with low reliability scores and/or that resulted in unacceptable validity (Kember. Kember & Leung 2005). this study is an attempt to explore learners’ and teachers’ knowledge and their deliberation in monitoring it in the process of teaching and learning. & Murphy. This partially stems from the lack of any consistent theory on reflection. Teaching and learning pronunciation too need teachers with reflective habits. research on reflection has mostly fallen at conceptual level rather than empirical one. Peltier. Yule.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation 1. Biggs. Introduction For a long time. p. assumptions. Rutherford (1987) believes that speakers’ completing self-evaluation forms on the basis of listeners’ reflection on the delivery of the speech helps to fortify awareness or consciousnessraising. important goals for 63 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. reflection has been crucially necessary for effective decision making in environments in which there are ambiguous problems and unique elements with approximately no solutions (Pee et al. 2001. As far as curriculum and education are concerned. the majority of reflective studies has been qualitative in nature (Cope 2003. and teaching practices. Kenworthy (1987) considers providing feedback as a role of an EFL pronunciation teacher. Richards and Lockhart (1994) define reflective second language teaching as an approach in which instructors “collect data about teaching . Philip Shigeo Brown (2007) introduces the content of Birmingham MA TEFL/TESL course at the core of which reflection tasks can be seen. & Leung 2004). Halton. & Drago 2004.

1998) discuss that teaching pronunciation results in improvement of 64 | E L T Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . Vitanova and Miller (2002) contend that the learner is ignored in the related literature.The role of motivation in improving language proficiency has been examined in early SLA research. motivation and concern for good pronunciation. However. care. What follows casts light on the link between motivation. Many (e. 2005) believe that pronunciation teaching has been marginalized. So. phonetic ability. Niederhauser also discusses that “Korean attitudes toward foreign languages and cultures also influence student motivation” (1997. attitude and identity. 1972). Purcell and Suter (1980) contend that motivation affects pronunciation. 7). Munro. Leather assumes that motivation causes L2 speech development. there might be more student preparation for a class like that. she may be encouraged to speak like him because it sounds appealing. And finally.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation pronunciation instruction. such as the ability to transfer the knowledge. Kenworthy (1987) believes that the affecting factors in learning pronunciation are the native language. That can be among the direct and/or indirect benefits of pronunciation reflection in teaching-learning process. and pronunciation learning. Pennington (1992) also believes that reflective practice motivates second language learners. Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970) conclude that Farsi EFL learners pay more attention to the factors of learning motivation. Some years later. Nunan (1993) contends that learner motivation doesn’t seem to be the biggest concern of EFL teachers. the age factor. other features of a good English language teacher. correlation between motivation and pronunciation training is what researchers have come to (Vitanova & Miller.g. Derwing. & Wiebe. and learning would be facilitated indirectly by teacher’s correct pronunciation. p. 2002). Derwing & Munro. However. stemming from implanted learning motivation. should not be ignored. Of course. Suter (1976).g. the amount of exposure. native-like pronunciation has also been among the elements of language proficiency in much of that research (Gardner & Lambert. Oxford (1990) considers motivation among affective factors which has a great role in language learning success or failure. It is believed when an eager FL student faces an FL teacher having a great command on pronunciation and speaking skills different from the others. but this effect has been considered a little. Some researchers (e. Moyer (2004) came to another conclusion: a few highly motivated adult L2 learners achieve native-like speech patterns.

Kenworthy (1990) believes that an EFL pronunciation teacher should help learners hear and make sounds by providing them with his feedback. they are cut off from language. “If they cannot hear well. The story might be the same for the final –ng and schwa. “speech coach” or “pronunciation coach” are the roles of the teacher 65 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. the input had better get fixed at first. as it is not imaginable that an EFL learner. If they cannot be understood easily. Communication might be ruined if there is phonological misunderstanding. Although the native speakers focus on the addressor in language communication. they are cut off from conversation with native speakers” (Cited in Robertson. p. they should not expect the native listener to get what they have wanted to produce at the first step because the addressee does not live on their mind. after comprehending it is a valuable and powerful resource. getting to know some features of Persian pronunciation system seems to be a warranted. In cases like that. In countries such as Iran. in communicative learning programs.8). More specifically. Purcell and Suter (1980) assume that a little relationship has been found between classroom pronunciation instruction and pronuncial proficiency. For instance. They conclude that there is no strong correlation between identifying accents and the amount of time allocated to studying English. On the other hand. and the English tap [ɾ . in cross-cultural comprehensibility. and a voiceless word-final trill r . However. since there is no /w/ in Persian. the degree of importance of phonological appropriation is a challenge in the domain of TEFL. To study the English language pronunciation status of Iranian EFL teachers. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) shed light on the difference between the sole Persian alveolar trill /r/ in the initial position. the effect of the teachers’ accent on the students’ seems to be something inevitable because of the limited students’ exposure to English language. When EFL learners say ‘tree’ instead of ‘three’.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . Seidlhofer (2001) believes that a basic knowledge in pronunciation. who has been exposed to incorrect input. produces sound output. /v/ is mostly used instead. the addressee and intelligibility/comprehensibility of the message receive the emphasis (Jenkins. 2005). Gilbert (1995) believes in interdependency of listening comprehension and pronunciation. English language is taught as a Foreign Language (FL). o. 2005.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation foreign language production. Nooteboom (1983) also has suggested that speech perception affects speech production. They add that reaching accurate second language pronunciation is not within the control of educators. But Suter (1976).

It seems that many EFL learners drop classes due to poor pronunciation inherited by incompetent teachers. in TEFL. Leather (n. 3. p. In line with this trend.S.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 .Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation entitled by Morley (1991). apart from correcting errors and supplying information. Effective communication. an effective factor in developing L2 speech.2. offers cues.A. and to investigate the extent their knowledge and awareness of pronunciation skill factors match. motivation is "the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity" (Gardner. The speech coach. 1985). this study was designed to fill the gap in the literature in order to explore learners’ knowledge and their deliberation in monitoring it in their teacher’s teaching. seven M. and overall supports and encourages the learner” (Morley. 2005. sets high standards. holders. 1991. among which one Ph. Given the status quo of the affairs such as reflectivity in teaching. p..1. According to Gardner.D. and one B. made up the population of 130 people for this study. and twenty-one B. seems to be of greatest importance. cited in Robertson. 507.. as a fruit.Participants One hundred randomly selected Iranian lower-intermediate EFL students and thirty EFL instructors.d. provides a wide variety of practice opportunities. On phonological acquisition in multilingualism. to explore teachers’ knowledge and their deliberation and reflection in using it in their teaching. “gives models. 3. Faulty pronunciation may affect motivation to learn as well. suggestions and constructive feedback about the performance. Method 3. this study attempted to investigate the assumed relationship between EFL teachers’ and learners’ reflection on pronunciation factor in teaching-learning process and learners’ motivation. Instrumentation 66 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. pronunciation and motivation and possibility of their interrelationship.A. improving pronunciation will enhance selfesteem and facilitate communication.) considers motivation. 10). On the other hand.

A pronunciation knowledge and awareness questionnaire /inventory to measure the teachers’ reflection and carefulness on their pronunciation while teaching (Derwing & Rossiter.4. following instruments were employed. in the same field. the data was mainly analyzed based on frequency and chi-square analyses as follows. Seventy of the learners answered both questionnaires. no one received the second questionnaire of somebody else. and no EFL instructors left a questionnaire blank. Though the distribution and then collection of the questionnaires were anonymous. Gardner’s Motivation Inventory to measure the learners’ motivation (2004) 3. and 6 university instructors. 1. commented on the content of the questionnaire measuring the teachers’ reflection and carefulness on pronunciation while teaching. was administered to EFL instructors. 67 | E L T Voices – India (Vol.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation To collect the data. in a piloting phase. the two respective questionnaires were administered in a one-week interval. the questionnaire measuring teachers’ reflection and care on their pronunciation while teaching. A pronunciation knowledge and awareness questionnaire /inventory to measure the learners’ awareness and care for their teachers’ pronunciation (Derwing & Rossiter 2002) 3. 4. Results and Discussions Given the nature of the data and the instruments used. That was done by allocating every student a number. 3. awareness and care for their teachers’ pronunciation. Data Collection To collect the data on measuring the learners’ motivation. 2002) 2. Procedures Instrument Validation In order to validate the questionnaires. 10 MA students in TEFL answered the questionnaire measuring the learners’ awareness and care for their teachers’ pronunciation. Then.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 .3.

Table 2 displays the frequencies. The justification for the application of the analysis of chisquare lies in the fact that if the teachers are significantly reflective on their pronunciation skill while teaching. Table 1. Analysis of Chi-Square Reflection on Teaching Pronunciation CHOICES Chi-Square 875. expected and residual values for the teachers’ selection of the choices regarding their reflection on pronunciation while teaching English.411a Df 4 Sig.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 462.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 .05) indicates that there are significant differences between the choices selected by the teachers when responding to the questionnaire. 0 cells (0. On the other hand. then they should select the “usually and always” choices more than the negative ones. the chi-square observed value of 875. The positive residual values for the last two choices (usually and always) indicate that their reflection on pronunciation while teaching is beyond expectation.41 (P = . the negative residuals for the first three negative and moderate choices indicate that the teachers believe that they rarely fail to concentrate on pronunciation while teaching.000 a.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation Investigation of the Research Questions An analysis of chi-square was run to probe the first research question addressing whether EFL teachers are significantly reflective on their pronunciation skill while teaching.0. . it can be concluded that the first null-hypothesis as EFL teachers are not significantly reflective on 68 | E L T Voices – India (Vol.000 < . Based on these results. As displayed in Table 1.

0 Sometimes 365 462. As displayed in Table 4.02 (P = .000 Voices – India (Vol. Frequencies. Table 3. Majority of the EFL teachers significantly believe that they are reflective on their pronunciation skill while teaching.0 -330.0 457.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . Table 2. Expected and Residual Values EFL Teachers’ Reflection on Pronunciation kill while Teaching Observed N Expected N Residual Never 132 462. The justification for the application of the analysis of chi-square lies in the fact that if the learners are significantly reflective on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning process. the chi-square observed value of 2629..0 Seldom 251 462. .028a Df 4 Sig.0 -97. Analysis of Chi.3.0 Usually 919 462.quare Reflection on Teachers’ Pronunciation CHOICES Chi-Square 69 | E L T 2629.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation their pronunciation skill while teaching is rejected.0 181. then they should select the “usually and always” choices more than the negative ones.0 Always 643 462.0 -211.05) indicates that there are significant differences between the choices selected by the learners when responding to the questionnaire on their reflection on teachers’ pronunciation in learning process.000 < .0 An analysis of chi-square was also run to probe the second research question addressing whether EFL learners are significantly reflective on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning process.

0%) have expected frequencies less than 5.0 454.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation a. The positive residual values for the last three choices (sometimes.0 Seldom 434 1274. expected and residual values for the students’ selection of the choices regarding their reflection on teachers’ pronunciation in learning process.0 Usually 2483 1274.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . Based on these results it can be concluded that the second null-hypothesis as EFL learners are not significantly reflective on their teacher’s pronunciation in learning process is rejected. The minimum expected cell frequency is 1247. usually. On the other hand the negative residuals for the first two negative choices indicate that the students believe that they rarely fail to concentrate on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning process. 0 cells (0. If there are not any significant differences between the 70 | E L T Voices – India (Vol.0 -840.0 153.0 Sometimes 1427 1274. Expected and Residual Values EFL tudents’ Reflection on Teachers’ Pronunciation Observed N Expected N Residual Never 298 1274. Table 4 displays the frequencies. Majority of the EFL learners significantly believe that they are reflective on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning process.0.0 Always 1728 1274. Frequencies. and always) indicate that their reflection on teachers’ pronunciation while learning English is beyond expectation.0 1209. Table 4.0 An analysis of chi-square was again run to probe the third research question addressing whether EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection has any significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation.0 -976.

05) indicates that there are significant differences between the teachers and learners’ responses given to the reflection on the pronunciation and language learning motivation.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation teachers’ pronunciation reflection and EFL learners’ language learning motivation and majority of the answers belong to the positive choices (usually and always) conclusion can be reached as teacher’s pronunciation reflection has a significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation. As displayed in Table 5. if no significant differences are observed or the responses given by the teachers and students are contradictory. The minimum expected count is 305.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . (2-sided) 306. i. 0 cells (0. Based on these results.quare Teachers’ Reflection on Pronunciation and Learners’ Language Learning Motivation Pearson Chi-Square Value Df . Table 6 displays the frequencies.1. Sig.96 (underlined and italicized) denotes significant differences between the two groups’ responses. Any standardized residual beyond the ranges of +/.0%) have expected count less than 5. it can be concluded that standardized residuals for the teachers’ responses on the positive side of the table – usually and always – are positive.e. On the other hand. Table 5. The frequencies and percentages are descriptive statistics.000 a.000 < .890a 4 .43. however the standardized residual is an index based on which inferences can be made. the teachers 71 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. percentages and the standardized residuals for the teachers and learners’ responses given to the reflection on the pronunciation and language learning motivation. the significant chi-square value of 306. Analysis of Chi.89 (P = . then it can be concluded that teacher’s pronunciation reflection does not have any significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation.

1 2.6% 14.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation believe that they are reflective on pronunciation when teaching English while the standardized residuals on the negative side of the table – never and seldom – are negative.9% 15. the teachers believe that they rarely fail to concentrate on pronunciation when teaching English. i.5 -3.7% 100.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . it can be concluded that EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection does not have any 72 | E L T Voices – India (Vol.3 Count 1136 1044 1486 1816 1798 7280 % within STATUS 15.6 1. Residual -9.0% 5.9 2. Residual A reverse pattern is.8% 100. Based on these results. Frequencies.3% 20. Percentages and tandardized Residuals Teachers’ Reflection on Pronunciation and Learners’ Language Learning Motivation CHOICES Teacher Student Total Never Seldom Sometimes Usually Always Count 132 251 365 919 643 2310 % within STATUS 5.7% 10.2 -5. Table 6.5% 19.0% Std.4% 24.5% 100.9% 24.9 -3.2% 13.0% Std.3 Count 1268 1295 1851 2735 2441 9590 % within STATUS 13.8 10.e.3% 28.5% 25.8% 39. observed for the students.8% 27. however. Moreover the positive standardized residuals on the negative side of the table indicate that the EFL students are not motivated to learn English. The negative standardized residuals on the positive side of the table indicate that the students do not hold a positive motivation towards learning English.7 -1.

the teachers’ residual value for Never measurement scale is -330. Comparing Teachers-Learners’ Reflectivity On all the areas of measurement. and/or Usually measurement scale also receives 919 and 2483 in this comparison. all the standardized residuals are also dramatically different. and/or the residual values for Sometimes 73 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. the more they mismatch. while that of the learners is -976. Meanwhile. Table 7 shows the degrees to which teachers’ reflectivity matches or mismatches that of the learners. due to fixed expected values for the teachers and learners respectively 462 and 1274. Table 7. their observed and expected values are drastically different from each other. values offered by the EFL teachers and learners on five measurement scales are compared. The more these two groups act differently on the scales. In addition.0.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . the teachers and learners’ observed values for the measurement scale of Sometimes are respectively 365 and 1427.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation is supported.0. For example. In other words the teachers’ reflection on pronunciation does not increase the students’ motivation towards learning English. To estimate these degrees.

however.389). as perceived in Table 2. In other words. All the residual values for the measurement scales of Usually and Always are positive. goes to the teachers and is made up by negative values for Seldom and Never. 5. Discussions and Conclusions As the analyses show. care for it. majority of the EFL teachers. This. Regarding the teachers’ reflectivity on their own pronunciation. the teachers’ reflection on pronunciation does not increase the students’ motivation towards learning English. EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection does not have any significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation. does not seem to be in line with the following presuppositions and/or findings.0. believe that they are significantly reflective on their pronunciation skill while teaching.0 and 153. 3.0. -97.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation measurement scale are respectively -97. Wang and Munro (2004) 74 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. Although EFL teachers’ pronunciation is reflected upon by both EFL teachers and learners. however. EFL teachers are significantly reflective on their pronunciation skill while teaching. skills and knowledge” (p. This is not in line with the finding of Pennington (1992) who reported reflective practice motivates SL learners and that of Kenworthy (1990) who approved the link between learning pronunciation. and motivation. p. cited in Derwing & Munro. the difference between residual values the teachers and learners have offered indicates that the EFL learners are more reflective than the teachers. The learners are unanimous with the teachers in offering negative values for the measurement scales of Seldom and Never. The only negative value for Sometimes measurement scale. Then. lack of “confidence.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . MacDonald (2002) counted the roots of many teachers’ neglecting pronunciation teaching in Australia as. That is. 2005.

pronunciation and acquisition. Leather (n.d. Oxford (1990) considers motivation as an affective factor which plays a great role in language learning success or failure. Purcell & Suter. the students could count the learner’s experience of pedagogical misdirection as another source for teachers who neglect pronunciation teaching. Reflecting on the teacher’s pronunciation. on 75 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. In addition. In line with pouring light on the views existing in the related literature. That is majority of the EFL learners significantly believe that they are reflective on their teachers’ pronunciation in learning process. as the strongest factors affecting pronunciation. Vitanova and Miller (2002) also concluded that passing a pronunciation course could motivate a learner to work on her pronunciation continuously.). While some studies (Suter. and motivation and native language.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation found another source in this regard. as shown in Table 4. Oxford (1990) considers motivation an affective factor which plays a great role in language learning success or failure. seem to be taken into consideration to a limited extent. This is in line with what the students confessed in the study done by Wang and Munro (2004). The problem is the learners’ experience of pedagogical misdirection. 1976. Moyer (1999) believes in a correlation between motivation and pronunciation training.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . As to the link between motivation. 1980) have concluded that the relationship between classroom pronunciation instruction and gained pronuncial proficiency is little. the following are points worthy of note. EFL learners are also significantly reflective on their teacher’s pronunciation in learning process. They believe that reaching accurate second language pronunciation is not within the control of educators.

EFL teacher’s pronunciation reflection does not have any significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation. Final Remarks In spite of the fact that EFL teachers’ pronunciation is significantly reflected upon by both EFL teachers and learners. On pronunciation instruction.Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation phonological acquisition in multilingualism. Yule. 6. although EFL teacher’s pronunciation is significantly reflected upon by both EFL teachers themselves and EFL learners. A student’s active listening to and mirroring a native speaker help him realize the relation between listening skills and production of speech (Vitanova & Miller. It might be conservatively attributed to the feeling and assumption that EFL students are not really after learning English language or they suffer from educational indecisiveness. 2002). and 76 | E L T Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . Self-monitoring. reflecting on pronunciation might be considered crucial for FL learners if selfinvolvement and self-monitoring were considered subcategories of reflection. Hoffman. introduces motivation as a factor which has a role in developing L2 speech. important goals for pronunciation instruction. It means students should be able to monitor and modify their speech. and Damico (1987) highlight self-monitoring skills obligation. As a conclusion. It means that an EFL student who has been reported to reflect on his EFL teacher’s pronunciation is not significantly motivated in light of his teacher’s pronunciation skill. Morley (1994) believes in considering learners self-involvement aspects. it does not have any significant effects on EFL learners’ language learning motivation. On real language use. as a need for consciousness raising process. makes the learner independent and competent. As a result. Morley (1994) considers speech monitoring and modification strategies. Because Pennington (1992) contends that reflective practice motivates second language learners. On pronunciation perception.

. J. T.379-397. J. (2005).Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation Kenworthy (1990) also approves the link between learning pronunciation.. Journal of TESOL QUARTERLY. Unpublished MA Thesis.1016/S0346-251X(02)00012-X Gardner. San Diego: Dominic Press 77 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. Reflective teaching. Management Learning. (1972). reflective learning. 20(6). (2002). Pronunciation practices as an aid to listening comprehension. J. & Rossiter.. Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Social Work Education. doi: 10. J. C. USA: Heinle & Heinle. Gilbert. care for it. & Murphy. C. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. A Guide for the Teaching of Second Language Learning (pp. Contrary to necessity of observing the roles besides FL learning motivational factors. University of Birmingham. E. Mendelson and J. Birmingham.). W. M. MA: Newbury House Publishers. (2007).1080/02615470120089825 Derwing. Rubin (Eds. J. Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. 39. 155–166. M. Cope. C. doi:10. M. (1995). Celce-Murcia. and motivation. 97-111). M.2307/3588486 Derwing. 42950. E L learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. 34 (4). 631–641.3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . & Munro. (1985). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection. M. Dempsey. P. In D. R. System 30. (2001). (2003). S. London: Edward Arnold. T. Reflective learning in social work education: Scaffolding the process. it seems that questionnaire is not much valid instrument to be used for collecting data on personal traits such as motivation since the respondents are rarely willing to act honestly and seriously..doi:10. M. R. Rowley. (2001). Halton. Other strategies such as longitudinal video-taping while teaching-learning process might help any other interested researcher come to more reliable depth results. & Lambert. M. Social psychology in second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. References Brown. UK. Gardner.

MacDonald. Journal of TESOL QUARTERLY. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. A. E.8. Ladefoged. Dordrecht: Foris. A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J.M. C. HongKong: City Polytechnic. A. D. & Lockhart. H. Harlow. Biggs. Richards. Morley (Ed. Flowerdew. (1970). Morley. D. T. Medical Education. Oxford: Blackwell. (2002). 261-78. New York: Newbury House. (1994). I & Leung. B. Age. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74 (2). Language Learning.. Perspectives on second language teacher education. (1987).. Reflecting on teaching and learning: A developmental focus for the second language classroom. Pronunciation theory and pedagogy: New views. In J. J.. Hsia (Eds..Y.ality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the learning process questionnaire.. (2005). M. Kember.535-543. The sounds of the world's languages. 3– 18. 17(3). Peltier.). Longman. 39. J. Moyer. Prospect. Examining the multidimension. & Davenport.W. J.. Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of teacher attitudes and identity. Drago. The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Woodman.doi: 10. Pronunciation—views and practices of reluctant teachers. Teaching English pronunciation. (1994). 153-194). S..2307/3588493 Kember. 183-89 Pee. (2004).Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation Hay. (Eds. (2005).P. (1983). 20. Practice-based learning: Views on the development of a reflective learning tool. (1992). (1996). P. D. Oller. accent and experience in second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Nooteboom. Sound structure (pp. 169-82. new directions (64-91). S. and W. Reflective learning and on-line management education: A comparison of traditional and on-line MBA students. & Ziahosseiny.W. R. Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. & Maddieson. 34. Kenworthy.. The Influence of the Teaching and Learning Environment on the Development of Generic Capabilities needed for a Knowledge-based Society.1177/0273475305279657 Jenkins. 3 I s s u e 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . VA: TESOL. J. 2004. (2004). In J. Is speech production controlled by speech perception? In van den Broecke et al. S. M. doi:10. 13 (4). 754-561. Pennington.). C. I. Fry. A multidimensional curriculum design for speech-pronunciation instruction. J. Brock & S. Strategic Change. 245-266.. D.L. (2000).). (1990). Oxford. 78 | E L T V o i c e s – I n d i a ( V o l . Alexandria. Learning Environments Research. & Leung.

Suter. 30(2). A. 765–768. TESOL Quarterly. R. 8(1). 21(4). G. (2001). (2002).Gholamreza Abbasian & Aadel Bahmanie: EFL Teachers and Learners Reflection on Pronunciation Factor in TeachingLearning Process and Its Effects on Learners’ Motivation Rutherford. http://dx. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. B. Yule. Reflective practice in pronunciation learning. Longman Seidlhofer. Hoffman.. W. Vitanova. & Purcell. Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. (1987). R. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca’. G. Suter. (1987). & Damico. The Internet TESOL Journal. Language Learning. Predictors of pronunciation accuracy: A re-examination. 271-287. J.. P. 11. 133-158. E.2307/3586994 79 | E L T Voices – India (Vol. Language Learning. 31-39.. 233-53.doi. 26. Predicators of pronunciation accuracy in second language learning.org/10. Paying attention to pronunciation: The role of selfmonitoring in perception. (1980).3 Issue 2) | April 2013 | ISSN 2230-9136 . & Miller.. (1976).E.