Article Review 3

  An article review of "Phonology Courses Offered by MA TESOL Programs in the U.S."

John M. Murphy

Georgia State University

(TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 31, No. 4, Winter 1997)

Section 1: Introduction

   This article reports an investigation of the design and content of phonology courses offered through MA TESOL programs in the U.S. as described by 70 phonology instructors at different institutions. MA TESOL courses focused on topics in phonology represent important opportunities for preparing language teachers to meet the speech intelligibility needs of L2 learners. PC/PI courses are essential forums for language teachers to learn about pronunciation resources mediated by computer-assisted language learning (CALL), explore their potential, and improve on them. Today’s PC/PI instructors play a pivotal role in helping to ensure that L2 teachers will recognize and extend promising directions for improving their pronunciation.

    This article includes five major parts. An introduction to the issue, previous researches done, professional and text resources, research questions, the method, the main topics of analysis, and a conclusion.

Summary

    The introduction part gives a prelude to the article and the investigation. Some of the terms used in the article are defined in this part. The term phonology-centered (PC) signals MA TESOL courses focused on the description, acquisition, and instruction of L2 phonology and devoting 90% or more of the course content to topics in phonetics/phonology. The term phonology-inclusive (PI) signals courses giving significant attention to such topics within an even more broadly focused syllabus. After gathering responses from 70 instructors, several graduate research assistants (GRAs) analyzed descriptive data on each program’s single course giving most attention to this area. The data was gathered on the single course the participating instructors considered to be their program’s closest PI offering. The Directory of Professional Preparation Programs in TESOL in the United States and Canada, 1995–1997 describes approximately 129 PC courses offered through 105 MA TESOL programs. The 1995 Directory’s indication that approximately 90 of 195 programs do not offer a PC course signals considerable variation in the preparation of language teachers in this area. As these numbers suggest, PC/PI courses play a major role in many MA TESOL programs though not in all of them.

   The second section of the present article introduces the previous researches done in the similar fields. Palmer’s (1995) findings confirmed that PI courses play an important role in the preparation of ESL teachers. He lists required PI courses second in frequency to the top-ranked MA TESOL methods course and observes that Phonology is its most frequent course title. Brandford and Kenworthy (1991) report that ESL teachers feel that their pre- and in-service programs lack adequate depth to support effective L2 pronunciation teaching. These findings suggest that many professional development programs give L2 pronunciation teaching inadequate attention, thus fails to provide teachers with the requisite background.

    The third section of this article takes the professional and text resources for phonology courses into account. Pennington (1994) was the first to introduce six contemporary themes of instruction and research: phonology in context, phonological parameters, transfer and development, speech perception and production, maturational constraints, and psychological/social influences. Bowen and Marks (1992), Hancock (1996), and Laroy (1995) offer collections of literally hundreds of classroom activities focused on pronunciation teaching.

   The forth section presents a set of questions which are needed in order to learn about the attention given to topics in phonology. 1. To what extent do MA TESOL programs incorporate courses in, or related to, topics in phonology in their curricula? 2. What are the objectives and content of such courses? 3. Is there general agreement on what MA TESOL graduates need to know about phonology-centered topics?

   The fifth part of the article deals with the method of investigation. The Directory of Professional Preparation Programs in TESOL in the United States is examined as the basis for inviting MA TESOL programs to participate. A cover letter requesting course syllabi and other relevant information along with a four-page, single-sided questionnaire are mailed to the coordinators of these 159 programs. The final set of data contributing to the present investigation included 68 completed questionnaires, 2 partially completed questionnaires, and 55 course syllabi. An analysis of the data revealed the following seven topics to be central: (a) degrees of phonology-centeredness, (b) course titles, (c) targeted teacher populations, (d) content foci, (e) participant activities and tasks, (f) required texts and readings, and (g) instructors’ suggestions for enriching the course. These topics are discussed one by one.

(a) Degrees of phonology-centeredness: 80% of the 70 instructors providing data on this topic indicated that phonology-centered courses are major components of their MA TESOL curricula. A detailed examination of actual titles and syllabi revealed that all 70 programs represented in the survey offered at least one PI course, though not necessarily one focused predominantly in this area.

(b) Course titles: there was a variation in course titles. Although no title was used consistently across a significant number of programs, the titles of 27% of the courses surveyed were phonology, phonetics, phonetics/phonemics, phonetics and phonology, topics in phonology, or phonological theories/phonetics.

(c) Targeted teacher populations: the findings showed that the majority of courses targeted the needs of language teachers who work with adult and adolescent learners.

(d) Content foci: the findings indicated that three topics received great emphasis, according to the respondents, revealing that PC/PI courses provide a thorough grounding in both the segmental and suprasegmental dimensions of phonology and that instructor's place a high priority on developing students’ facilities with at least one system of broad phonetic transcription. These topics included receiving significant emphasis in PC/PI courses included sound-patterning phenomena, the realization of sound combinations in contexts of connected speech, and positional variation of allophones. Our analysis revealed four topics to receive little or no emphasis in PC/PI courses: surveying L2 instructional materials, examining principles of syllabus design, reviewing historical developments in pronunciation instruction, and using drama techniques.

(e) Participant activities and tasks: Nearly half of the 70 instructors who responded required students to generate original pronunciation teaching activities, tasks, and materials. Moreover, MATESOL students are held responsible for designing L2 classroom activities, tasks, and materials.

(f) Required texts and readings: all of the instructors surveyed assigned at least one required, full-length text to serve as an anchor for the course.

(g) Instructors’ suggestions for enriching the course: most of the instructors preferred to have increased access to recorded samples of L2 learners’ speech, particularly if designed for guided analysis, practice with proficiency and diagnostic assessments, norming sessions, and collaborative discussions. A second priority cited by instructors is the need for improved computer software. Anderson-Hsieh (1996) proposes four analytic categories: 1. computer programs with sound spectrogram, pitch, and intensity displays, 2. computer programs with pitch/intensity extraction functions but without spectrographic display, 3. less sophisticated ESL pronunciation software that lacks speech analysis displays, and 4. ESL software intended for general L2 instructional purposes.

    The last section of this article is a conclusion over the findings. It has been found that MA TESOL candidates would benefit from considerably increased faculty assistance in applying conceptual understandings to the teaching of pronunciation. However, there six challenges for improving MA TESOL instruction: 1. Course participants should be involved in L2 classrooms. 2. Vivid case narratives of L2 learners’ and teachers’ authentic experiences with the acquisition and teaching of L2 pronunciation should be developed. 3. Instruction in emerging technologies should be provided. 4. Pronunciation teaching should be related to state-of the art conceptions of L2 teaching and learning. 5. Teachers should be prepared to document learners’ pronunciation needs. 6. Teaching should be done in styles that enrich graduate education.

Final comments

     As it is clear from the article, nowadays pronunciation has a predominant role in TESOL classes. And the teachers of English should have an acceptable pronunciation themselves. Furthermore, part of teacher educators’ challenge is to find ways of preparing MA TESOL candidates to work within such areas as speech intelligibility, literacy, cultural awareness, and academic preparation without losing sight of the important moral and political roles L2 teachers play. The future of phonology-centered MATESOL instruction and pronunciation teaching worldwide will depend upon well informed professionals committed to developing strategies for meeting these and related challenges.

Section 2: critique

    Overall, this article has been successful in reporting the investigation. And it gives a clear picture of the study. The present article has also unity and coherence but one of the inadequacies of this article is that in some parts, the issue remains vague and the topic not thoroughly clarified. For example it only gives a definition of phonology- inclusive courses and mostly focuses on phonology-centered courses.