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
Figure 2 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
Figure 4 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
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
Figure 5 Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree
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:
Extract 3 - Catherine
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
Figure 7 Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree
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
Extract 8 - Catherine
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:
Extract 9 - Catherine
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
Figure 8 Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree
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:
Extract 11 - Catherine
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.
Figure 9 Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree
30
Figure 10 Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree
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).
Figure 11 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
31
Figure 12 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
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:
Extract 17 - Catherine
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.
Figure 15 Strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly agree
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]
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
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]
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.