PTLC2005 Smith & Beckmann Improving Pronunciation through Noticing-Reformulation Tasks: 1
Improving Pronunciation through
Noticing-Reformulation Tasks
Joanna Smith, Unitec New Zealand, jsmith@unitec.ac.nz
Basheba Beckmann, Unitec New Zealand, bbeckman@unitec.ac.nz
1 Introduction This paper outlines a pronunciation teaching technique that was
originally designed as an assessment task for an advanced class of English language
learners. The course in question is a compulsory first year Bachelor of Arts (English as
an Additional Language) course at Unitec New Zealand, where the students have an
IELTS band 6 or equivalent upon entry. The technique takes students through a series
of steps including listening to and analysing their own speech according to specific
phonetic features and then comparing their pronunciation to that of a model
pronunciation of the same text. Students then work on improving the targetted aspects
of their pronunciation, and reformulate their text with the aim of bringing their
pronunciation closer to the model.
In order to ascertain, among other things, whether this noticing-reformulation
assessment technique was useful for students, an action research project was
undertaken three months after the first running of the course. The results were positive
and the usefulness of the course was affirmed.
2 The two main ideas: Noticing and Reformulation In designing the pronunciation
strand of the course, we consulted the current literature on teaching English. Apart from
a rather obvious, but nonetheless encouraging idea that overtly teaching pronunciation,
especially suprasegmentals, was effective in improving pronunciation, two ideas stood
out as being effective for teaching other skills to advanced learners, namely noticing and
reformulation.
Thornbury (1997) describes a noticing technique for the teaching of written grammar. In
this learners are trained to notice both their own output and native speaker input. He
goes on to suggest the comparison of the two, and calls this ‘noticing the gap’. Others
(Yule, Hoffman & Damico,1987, Lynch, 2001 and Menim, 2003) have used similar
procedures for teaching higher-level speaking skills, such as discourse or presentation
skills. As far as we could ascertain, however, noticing was not applied in the literature to
the teaching of pronunciation.
Reformulation is described by Thornbury (1997) as a correction process whereby a
teacher recasts content written by a student so that the second draft approximates as
closely as possible to a target language model. Although again more commonly used as
a method for addressing written grammar, Derwing (2002), Lynch (2001) and Menim
(2003) also refer to the usefulness of a reformulation-type technique in helping learners
to correct their own errors in speaking. Lynch (2001) focuses predominantly on students
noticing grammatical errors. He found that students’ transcription and reformulation of
scripts are a ‘central requirement for formal language learning.’ (p. 130). Lynch
observed that students found transcribing their own scripts interesting and useful and
they noted many of their own errors. He concludes that the method he uses offers a
‘productive route to noticing, in which learners are encouraged to externalise their
thoughts …about their own output.’ (p. 131). Menim’s (2003) focus was also on syntax in
PTLC2005 Smith & Beckmann Improving Pronunciation through Noticing-Reformulation Tasks: 2
speaking. As a side effect, he found that after a 2-week interval pronunciation had
improved in students’ second performance of oral presentations.
Although in the literature these techniques were not specifically intended for teaching or
learning pronunciation, it seemed clear that a noticing-reformulation technique would be
effective. Below is a description of the process designed.
3 Noticing and Reformulation for learning pronunciation Outlined here is a generic
model of the Noticing-Reformulation technique, incorporating a few changes made since
the original design (C.f. Beckmann & Smith, forthcoming).
1. Setting a context – students are shown a stimulus (such as a photo, video clip,
item) which acts as a context for a short written text which they are given. The
text is typically a narrative or description of the stimulus.
2. Initial output – Learners read the short text onto a tape – it is typically 10-30
seconds long.
3. Noticing own speech – Learners listen to their recording and then analyse their
pronunciation according to selected phonetic features. A worksheet is provided
with targeted questions for students to answer about their pronunciation of
certain items in the text.
4. Model input – Learners are then given a recording of a model pronunciation of
the text.
5. Noticing model – Learners analyse the model text for the target phonetic
features, again with a worksheet provided.
6. Noticing the gap – Learners compare their own pronunciation with the model
pronunciation, using their analyses as a guide.
7. Reformulation – learners practise and prepare for a second recording, aiming to
correct any errors they noticed.
8. Informed output –Learners record the text a second time.
9. Reflection – learners compare their first and second recordings and comment on
any improvements or continued errors.
This technique can be used as an assessment technique, as it was originally designed,
provided the students have already learned the relevant phonological or phonetic theory
used for the analyses in steps three and five. The technique can also be adapted for use
as a teaching tool during a lesson if one gives the relevant theory between steps two
and three. This would then be similar to a “Test Teach Test” method commonly used in
language teaching.
Note that the length of the selected text can vary, depending on which phonetic details
the learners are working on. When the target features are phones, the text can be as
small as a couple of sentences, and may only be 5-10 seconds long. There may be
several instances of the selected phoneme and its realised allophones in the text. If,
however, the target feature is intonation, the text will necessarily be longer in order to
allow for the intonation patterns over several sentences or phrases to be studied.
One minor drawback in the above process is that the students are reading rather than
producing spontaneous speech. The problem with using spontaneous speech is that the
content would vary too greatly from a prepared model text, despite setting a clear
context. In the comparison phase (step 6), students’ focus would naturally be on the
differing grammar and vocabulary, rather than on the pronunciation. In fact it would be
impossible to compare phonetic detail if the words were different, but it would be
PTLC2005 Smith & Beckmann Improving Pronunciation through Noticing-Reformulation Tasks: 3
plausible to compare intonation patterns despite having different words. In one-to-one
situations, a teacher could provide a model pronunciation for a student’s spontaneous
text, provided a tape-script is written by either the student or the teacher after the initial
recording in step 2. In a class situation, however, reading a given text seems to be the
most time-efficient solution. Note that reading skills are assumed, as the task is
designed for advanced learners.
4 Does the process work? An action research project (a study which is ‘contextual,
small-scale, localised, within a specific situation and in its reflectivity it aims to bring
about change and improvement in practice.’, Burns 1999: 30) was undertaken in late
2003 to determine, among other things, the effectiveness of this Noticing-Reformulation
technique. Results of the study are reported in Beckmann & Smith (forthcoming), but
relevant parts are summarised here. Note that the technique described above is a
slightly modified version of the technique used with the cohort of students who
participated in the action research project, but on the whole this does not detract from
the results. Note also that this process was used as the assessment process in the
course studied. Students had five such assessments at regular intervals throughout the
semester, after the relevant phonological theory had been taught and the pronunciation
practised.
When asked three months after the course whether students found their pronunciation
had improved, twelve of the thirteen respondents replied ‘yes’ and the other said her
pronunciation had remained the same. When asked the open question of how their
pronunciation had improved, only four of the twelve responses related to specific English
phonological features. The remaining eight responses all had something to do with
strategies learned in the Noticing-Reformulation process. These were grouped as: selfmonitors own pronunciation when speaking (5), increased awareness of own
pronunciation (4) and notices the pronunciation of others, both native speakers and nonnative speakers (6). This result supports Yule, Hoffman & Damico’s (1987) conclusion
that students had increased skills in phoneme discrimination over time, despite poorer
production scores. While the current study did not involve independent testing for
performance, it suggests improvements in both performance and noticing.
When asked which parts of the assessment the students found useful, the biggest
response (five out of 13) was related to the practical nature of the assessment. One
student in an interview said ‘Yes, the assessment makes me study hard. This
assessment’s like practice. I can feel that I improve my intonation after practiced many
times.’
An exciting result from the survey was the students’ positive responses to the notion of
‘noticing the gap’. The following interview extract shows that this student considered
noticing an essential step in improving pronunciation: ‘If you can [be] self aware and
notice your errors you will … find out what will be better next time so you will get your
improvement.’
The three students who were interviewed as part of the study all said that they had
continued to use the strategy of noticing when speaking with others. One student said: ‘I
listen to native speakers for particular phonological features. Every sentence native
speakers say I listen carefully and then try to find out the feature of why they say it that
way and what is the phonemics. And which part is linked together … I’ll just think about
it and try to say that in my own speech. … And I do keep noticing my errors.’
PTLC2005 Smith & Beckmann Improving Pronunciation through Noticing-Reformulation Tasks: 4
5 Summary & Conclusion This paper suggests an effective technique for teaching
pronunciation to advanced learners of English. Results of a small action research study
show that after completing the pronunciation strand of the course where such a
technique was used regularly, students felt their pronunciation had improved. Learners
responded positively to the technique, and continued to use the strategies of noticing
and reformulation three months after the course had finished. Results of this study
confirm other findings (Thornbury, 1997, Lynch, 2001, Menim, 2003, Couper, 2003) that
noticing as part of self-analysis facilitates improvements in language output. This study
shows in particular that the processes of noticing and reformulation can be applied to
the teaching and learning of pronunciation.
5 References
Beckmann, B. and Joanna L. B. Smith (forthcoming) “Improving Pronunciation through
Noticing-Reformulation Tasks”
Burns, A. (1999) Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couper, G. (2003) The Value of an explicit pronunciation syllabus in ESOL teaching.
Prospect, Vol. 18, pp. 53-70.
Derwing, T.M., and M. J. Rossiter, (2002). ESL learners’ perceptions of their
pronunciation needs and strategies. System Vol. 30, pp. 155-166.
Derwing, T.M, (2003) What do ESL Students Say about their Accents? The Canadian
Modern Language Review, Vol. 59, Issue 4, pp. 547-566.
Lynch, T. (2001) Seeing what they meant: transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT
Journal, Vol. 55 Issue 2, p. 124.
Menim, P. (2003) Rehearsed oral L2 output and reactive focus on form. ELT Journal,
Vol. 57, pp.130.
Thornbury, S, (1997) Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote ‘noticing’.
ELT Journal, Vol. 51 Issue 4, pp. 326-334.
Yule, Hoffman & Damico (1987) Paying attention to Pronunciation: The role of selfmonitoring in perception. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. pp. 765-768.