_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

11 June 2017 23:41
_______________________________________________________________

11 June 2017 ProQuest

 Table of contents

1. The interaction of motivation and achievement in advanced EFL pronunciation learners........................... 1

11 June 2017 ii ProQuest

Document 1 of 1

The interaction of motivation and achievement in advanced EFL pronunciation learners

Author: Smit, Ute

Publication info: IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching ; Heidelberg 40.2
(2002): 89-116.
ProQuest document link

Full text:
Headnote
Abstract
Building on the motivation in language learning discussion of recent years (e.g., Gardner 1985; Drnyei 1994;
Gardner et al. 1997), long-term empirical research investigating motivation in pronunciation learning has been
undertaken at the English Department, Vienna University (e.g., Dalton et al. 1997; Smit and Dalton 1997, 2000).
In its final stage, the focus has turned to the interaction of the variously attested motivational factors and
achievement in advanced EFL pronunciation learning. This article first provides a description of the motivation
test administered to 141 respondents in 1997/98, and the kinds of motivational factors those students of English
have revealed. Then the factors are investigated with regard to their interaction with the students' achievements
in the obligatory pronunciation module. The results show that learning success is related to the module-
independent factors of students' level of proficiency before the module and their individual readiness to work on
and change their pronunciation.
1. Introduction
Despite disagreement about the aims of pronunciation learning in ESL and EFL contexts (e.g., Jenkins 1998a,
1998b), its relevance as an integral part in mastering a foreign language seems to go unquestioned. Similarly,
while the role motivation plays in language learning might be open to discussion, its integral status in the
learning process is generally accepted (e.g., Drnyei 1994; Elliott 1995; Gardner et al. 1997). When considering
the two aspects in combination, i.e., motivation in pronunciation learning, the degree of ambivalence seems to
be enhanced and even more difficult to investigate. The small number of previous studies have come up with
fairly contradictory claims, placing motivation either at the centre of pronunciation learning as such (e.g., Elliott
1995; Moyer 1999) or marginalizing it as impossible to measure (e.g., Coates 1986). At the same time, this
extremely ambivalent, not to say contradictory, status of motivation in pronunciation learning stands in stark
contrast to the general relevance attached to students' motivation. For that reason, a considerable part of the
long-term research project focusing on the pronunciation classes at the English Department of the University of
Vienna (e.g., Dalton et al. 2000) has concentrated on the relevance of motivation (e.g., Smit and Dalton 1997).
As reported in IRAL 38, a preliminary motivation in pronunciation construct was established, based on an initial
study (Smit and Dalton 2000). As this study did not include students' success in the pronunciation module, it
has been deemed necessary to undertake further research.
The aim of this article, then, is to shed empirical light on the hitherto tacitly accepted hypothesis that the
students' achievement in the pronunciation module is positively influenced by the factors of the motivation in
pronunciation construct. In order to test this hypothesis, the original motivational test was administered again in
an adapted version. After a brief discussion of the construct (see Section 2) and the study (see Section 3), I will
present the study results, focusing on the motivational factors (see Section 4.1 and Section 4.2) and their
interaction with the students' achievements in the pronunciation module (see Section 4.3),1 which will give rise
to discussions of the theoretical construct itself, and the relevance of our students' motivation in pronunciation
achievements (see Section 5).
2. The motivation construct

11 June 2017 Page 1 of 18 ProQuest

The endeavour to describe motivation in pronunciation learning came at a very opportune time, as the 1990s
witnessed a lively discussion on motivation in language learning. Departing from the classic socio-educational
model by Gardner and associates (e.g., Gardner 1985), a number of researchers reviewed and extended the
motivation construct in language learning. Gardner's model focuses on language learning as a social
psychological process underlining specifically the learners' attitudes towards the target language and their wish
to become integrated in the target community. In the modifications suggested in the recent debate the social
components of the learning process are seen to play a smaller role (e.g., Crookes and Schmidt 1989; Drnyei
1990, 1994, 1996; Gardner et al. 1997; Oxford and Shearin 1994, 1996; Tremblay and Gardner 1995). Instead,
the original model of motivation in language learning has been enlarged by the inclusion of factors relating to
the learning situation and the individual learner (cf. Drnyei 1994; Smit and Dalton 2000). In view of the fact that
pronunciation learning has often been treated as a language learning skill of its own in independent textbooks
on pronunciation,2 it seems quite possible that it requires a different kind of motivation. Support for this
assumption can also be gained from the, rather scarce, research that has been done in this field (cf. Elliott
1995; Purcell and Suter 1980). In a very comprehensive study of factors contributing to successful
pronunciation learning in an EFL context - which makes it truly comparative to our situation - Coates (1986)
pointed to the role of motivation but left it largely unexplained. This role has recently been given more shape,
albeit for a very specific group of learners only: in a recent study of the pronunciation achievement of American
Ph.D. students of German (Moyer 1999), the respondents' extrinsic motivation to teach at university level has
been identified as the most influential factor for the learners to be rated as native speakers of German.3
Our own research showed that the social components, especially the integrative motive of Gardner's original
model, are especially pertinent (cf. Dalton et al. 1997, 2000) and have to be accorded more importance in
motivation in pronunciation learning than with regard to motivation in language learning more generally.
Otherwise, the understanding of motivation as consisting of learner-, subject- and classroom-related factors
(e.g., Drnyei 1994: 280) was also quite useful.4 However, it gained even more relevance with the rigid three-
partite structure being replaced by fuzzy borders and resulting areas of overlap (cf. Smit and Dalton 2000). Of
the learner-related factors, the most relevant one turned out to be anxiety. With regard to the subject-related
factors, all of them, i.e., extrinsic and intrinsic motives as well as integrativeness, tested so centrally relevant
that they seem to account for the special status of pronunciation within language learning. The most central
classroom-related factor was found to be students' readiness to learn proactively and self-dependently. This
result could not be completely relied on, however, as the low number of informants did not allow a full data
analysis of all the testing scales belonging to this group of factors.
While the motivation in pronunciation tests at the English Department, Vienna University have thus shed light on
the similarities and differences between pronunciation learning and language learning in general, a further test
was undertaken to investigate an important aspect omitted before - the role of achievement.
3. Study
The motivation in pronunciation study preceding the present one was done with 61 informants who responded
to a newly-developed questionnaire (based on two questionnaires used for testing motivation in FL learning in
general, cf. Ehrman, 1996; Schmidt et al. 1996). While this first study functioned as a pilot test, its results
proved so reliable and consistent that they could be used in their own right (Smit and Dalton 1997). For the
present study I reused the questionnaire and streamlined it by integrating a few insights that had emerged
during the pilot study.5 A positive side-effect was that the resulting shorter test was easier to administer,
especially because the same group of students was asked to participate in the test twice. The idea behind the
(partial) repetition of the test was to find out whether students would display similar or different patterns of
motivation at the beginning versus the end of the module. With a view to the relevance of previous grades
achieved, as stated by Coates (1986: 53), I also added a few direct questions on the students' previous
achievements in English (school and university). The whole test therefore consisted of three parts, two of which

11 June 2017 Page 2 of 18 ProQuest

were filled in at the beginning of term (T1) and two at the end of it (T2), i.e., one part was completed twice (see
appendix for the questionnaire).
* Part A (T1 and T2): 18 directly formulated items testing subject- and learner-related factors
* Part B (T2): 39 directly and indirectly formulated items testing classroom-related factors
* Part C (T1): several open and closed questions on the respondent's personal background
In addition to the data from the test, the final grades the respondents attained for the pronunciation module were
included in the analysis.
The test was administered to all 181 students taking the pronunciation module in the winter term of 1997/98. As
only those could be included who were present at T1 and T2, the final number of informants dropped to 141. As
regards demographics, the test population reflects the student population at our department quite well (see
Appendix, Table 3): they are 80 % female, 90 % German L1 speakers, and 60 % want to become teachers.
Almost half of them have not spent more than a few weeks in an English-speaking country. 85 % want to attain
a near-native RP accent and only 15 % a near-native GA one. This preference cannot be attributed to RP itself,
but to the geographical and historical affinity with Britain rather than the United States. Further important facts
about this group are that 30 % are repeaters, i.e. they have failed this module once or twice before, and that the
above-mentioned low grades achieved for the pronunciation module were also registered in the semester when
the study was administered: almost 30 % failed, and another 30 % received the lowest pass grade available -
grade 4.
4. Results
In keeping with the motivation in pronunciation construct, I will present the data as they relate to the above-
mentioned three kinds of factors. As the subject- and learner-related factors seem highly merged, however, I
shall start by discussing them in one subgroup (Section 4.1). The classroom-related factors behave
independently and will therefore also be presented that way (section 4.2). The final subsection will deal with the
role those factors have played with regard to the final grade received for this module (Section 4.3).
4.1. Subject- and learner-related factors
The 18 items testing subject- and learner-related factors were subjected to the principal components analysis,
once for T1 and a second time for T2. The point of this step was to extract the relevant underlying factors, which
at the same time reduced the number to a manageable few, namely 5 factors for both tests accounting for 60 %
(T1) and 64 % (T2) of the total variance respectively. In order to increase the interpretability of the factors, they
were then rotated orthogonally by using the varimax procedure. For the sake of the follow-up tests the factorial
values were calculated by the regression method and saved as new variables. Similar to the pilot test, I used
the following criteria for the number and constellation of the factors: minimum eigenvalue of 1; minimum of 3 %
of total variance; and more than 0,45 as minimum loading for the individual items to be included in the factors.
Furthermore, Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated to confirm the reliability of the factors (see Table 4
and Table 5 in the Appendix for the factor matrices, and Table 1 for the five factors, the relevant items, their
loadings and alpha coefficients).
Although the two tests, T1 and T2, did not yield exactly the same number and constellation of factors, they are
comparable to a certain extent. The factors module-independent motives, extrinsic motives and intrinsic motives
are attested in both tests, albeit with partly differing (loadings of) items (see Table 4). Anxiety and self-efficacy
appear as different factors at T1, but as only one at T2. Finally, other evaluation seems to have been relevant
on its own only towards the end of the pronunciation module, at T2.
In a correlational comparison, the factors attested at T1 and T2 received fairly identical ratings at the beginning
and end of the module (see Appendix, Table 6). This seems to indicate that the three months of intensive
preoccupation with pronunciation learning has not had any dampening effect on the respondents' feelings of
intrinsic, extrinsic, and module-independent motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy.
The first and apparently most central factor is what I have termed here module-independent motives. This is a

11 June 2017 Page 3 of 18 ProQuest

combination of positive attitudes to the target accent and group of speakers ("I love the accent and the
country.") and the clear insight and realization that a near-native accent is crucial to one's future life and career.
It is thus a mix of different types of motives widely known, and often discussed, in the language teaching
profession: integrative and instrumental but also intrinsic and extrinsic.6 I would like to suggest that it is exactly
this conglomerate of motives that causes the centrality of this factor. This is also supported by its fairly stable
nature: the semester of intensive pronunciation training had not had any effect on how students responded to
this factor. Further evidence for the fundamental nature of this factor is the existence of the two further factors,
termed intrinsic and extrinsic motives in this study, both of which describe motives linked to the pronunciation
module itself. In other words, the conglomerate of motives which is relevant independently of the module
appears to be divided into two independent factors when seen in direct connection with the module itself:
intrinsically motivated students argue that it is simply fun to do, a challenge they enjoy; and extrinsically
motivated ones accept and see the necessity of doing what the curriculum asks them to do and of doing it fairly
well when compared with the rest of the class. Further aspects that the students have identified as important to
their motivation in pronunciation learning are their self-efficacy, i.e., how they rate their chances of success
(achievement and proficiency), and their feelings of anxiety, i.e., how (in)adequate they feel in their
pronunciation. That these two factors can be seen as related to each other has become obvious at T2 when
they loaded, albeit inversely, onto the same factor. That anxiety and self-efficacy have merged towards the end
of the module might be a reflection of the double role anxiety can play, as cause and also as effect. For the
majority of the participants who took the module for the first time, anxiety could only have been a cause at the
beginning of the pronunciation module. But towards the end of it, the effect characteristics of anxiety seems to
have come to the fore, caused by self-efficacy. In other words, if people feel inadequately proficient, they also
become more anxious about their likely achievement. A final factor that seems to play a role is other evaluation,
i.e., how others might evaluate and react to one's own pronunciation. Since this factor appeared at T2 only, it
might be of a more marginal status, however.

11 June 2017 Page 4 of 18 ProQuest

Enlarge this image.
4.2. Classroom-related factors
The different classroom-related data were subjected to the same statistical procedures as described above:
firstly, factors were established by subjecting the relevant items to a principal components analysis with varimax
rotation. According to the conditions of inclusion of minimum eigenvalue 1 and 3 % of the total variance, this
resulted in 13 different factors accounting for 71 % of the total variance. The minimum loading for individual
items to be included in the factors was more than 0.45. Again, Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients were
calculated for the individual factors, but, in contrast to the subject- and learner-related factors, they were below
0.51 for 8 of the 13 factors. As such low coefficients indicate low internal reliability (cf. Bryman and Cramer
1997: 64), it was decided to exclude those 8 factors from further analyses. Therefore, the principal components
analysis was re-run with the specification of extracting 5 factors only, amounting to 41 % of the total variance.
Since, however, the items loading onto the fifth factor failed to show a satisfactory degree of internal reliability
(alpha coefficient at .50), that factor was excluded from the following presentation and discussion (see Table 7
in the appendix for the factor matrix and Table 2 for the remaining four factors, the relevant items, their loadings
and alpha coefficients).
It must be acknowledged that the most evident outcome of the classroom-related test is its relatively low
efficiency in terms of interpretability: of the 39 items included only 22 can be used as they load onto the first 4 of
the originally extracted 13 factors, amounting to less than 40% of the total variance. The most immediate insight
to be gained is therefore that this test still needs a lot of improvement before it can really fulfil its task of
comprehensively establishing the classroom-related factors relevant to advanced EFL pronunciation classes.
As far as can be ascertained from the existing results, however, our students seem to regard their personal and
individual involvement and learning as the most fundamental aspect of the pronunciation learning process. This
might seem to be the normal state of affairs in language learning, but in this specific case it must be kept in
mind that we are dealing with fairly advanced learners of English to whom using the language as such is no
longer a daunting idea. On the contrary, the overwhelming number of our students participate fluently in
everyday conversations. While, generally seen, this is an advantage for the students, it also means that for most
of them pronunciation is nothing to think or worry about. The eight years of EFL learning at school have given
them enough time to acquire their personal pronunciation and also to make it relatively rigidly entrenched. And
now, all of a sudden, they are required to rethink that; in many cases this means working on it and changing it
quite drastically. What up to now has not been of any real concern to them, is now suddenly at the centre of
attention. So, from this perspective, their high level of general proficiency in English might even aggravate
pronunciation learning. Against this background, the centrality of individual learning becomes quite
understandable.
The students' basic understanding of having to face the difficult and challenging task of changing their
pronunciation by themselves seems to be balanced out by the three remaining factors. While individual learning
relates to every student's personal involvement as well as state of mind, the other three factors specify three
ways of practising their pronunciation with help from others. These can be peers from the pronunciation class
itself and more experienced fellow students who help as tutors in the language lab sessions - practice with
peers (incl. language lab) - or the instructors of the pronunciation classes themselves - practice with instructor.
The third way of practising their pronunciation makes more indirect use of outside help: practice with tapes
combines two classic ways of pronunciation learning: the first is working with specialized pronunciation tapes
and the second concerns taping oneself to gain a more objective view of one's own level of proficiency.

11 June 2017 Page 5 of 18 ProQuest

Enlarge this image.

Enlarge this image.

4.3. Linking factors with final grade
The pilot study showed that both the learning styles and the motivational construct could be described in
relation to pronunciation learning. Their degrees of relevance with regard to the students' achievements in the
pronunciation module, however, were still open to analysis. The way of testing achievement that would most
likely first spring to mind is using a standardized test. After all, quite a number of such tools are available for
second/foreign language learning in general and could therefore also be used in motivation in language learning
research (for an overview cf. Gardner et al. 1997). The sub-field of pronunciation learning, however, is less
fortunate - such tests are conspicuous in their absence (cf., e.g., Vaughan-Rees 1997). So, instead of applying
a comprehensive testing tool, I had to fall back on the assessment of the module itself, i.e., the final grade. In
the Austrian system, it ranges between 1 and 5, with 1 being the best grade, 2 to 4 pass grades of decreasing

11 June 2017 Page 6 of 18 ProQuest

levels of success and 5 a clear fail. While the final grade should theoretically reflect the students' work
throughout the semester, reality shows that it mainly relies on the student performance in the final oral exam. In
about ten minutes every student is required to first read a prepared text, then an unseen text and, finally, to
converse on an everyday topic with the two examiners who are (near)native speakers of the variety the
examinee has adopted as their model. Immediately after the oral, the examiners compare their notes on the
student's pronunciation and decide on the final grade. When considering the complex nature of pronunciation
and the many factors contributing to it (just to mention a few: phonemic and allophonic levels, word, utterance
and turn stress, intonation patterns, fluency, rhetorical abilities), it is sadly obvious that the criteria for
assessment to be kept in mind are extremely diverse and difficult to bring together in one single grade. Yet, it is
the only assessment means available at this moment. In joint meetings on the problem of assessment, the
examiners have generally agreed on grade-linked descriptions of pronunciation achievement levels, thus trying
to maintain a relatively reliable assessment mode. With regard to research on pronunciation achievement, this
means that the final grades can at least be taken as fairly comparable across examiners. At the same time, it is
quite clear that a single grade cannot suffice to describe pronunciation proficiency adequately. Until
comprehensive pronunciation tests have been developed, it must, however, suffice for establishing relevant
links with the personal, classroom-linked, and subject- and learner-related factors (for the statistical analyses
see Tables 8-16 in the Appendix):
a. In analysing the impact the personal data (part C of questionnaire, see appendix) - as clearly independent
variables - might have had on the final grade, the SPSS means procedure was chosen (cf. Bryman and Cramer
1997: 187-190). It supplied evidence that the students' final grades varied by five factors: students' evaluation of
their own accents (self-evaluation, Table 8), the length of time they had stayed in English-speaking countries
(stays abroad, Table 9), whether they had taken the pronunciation module previously (repeater, Table 10), and
the grades they had attained for English in their final school year (school grade, Table 11) and for their Matura,
the Austrian school-leaving exam ('Matura' grade, Table 12). While these five relationships are statistically
significant, the eta-squared values show that the five personal factors account for fairly low amounts in the
variation of the final grade (between 5 % and 12 %). The factor with the strongest impact is the first one (self-
evaluation), which is also the only factor of a clearly subjective and evaluative nature. This means that students
who evaluated their own accents better also did better in the final exam. The other four factors refer to
objectifiable preconditions and their negative or positive influence on the students' achievements in the
pronunciation module. Repeaters do not only have the misfortune of having to take the module again, they also
have to reckon with lower final grades the second or third time round. Positive influences on the final grade, on
the other hand, have been attested for students who had already attained good grades for English at school or
who had more contact with English in one of its natural settings.
b. For the analysis of correlation between final grade and classroom-related factors, Pearson's Product Moment
Correlation Coefficient (Pearson's r) was chosen and showed that, of the four factors still included in the
analysis, only one correlated statistically significantly with the final grade, namely practice with peers (incl.
language lab) (Table 13). Since this correlation is fairly low (at .257), it can only be taken as an indication of
some relationship between the importance students placed on practising their pronunciation with language lab
tutors and peers in the module and an increased likelihood in getting worse grades at the end of the module. In
other words, too much emphasis on the support of peers does not seem to have been particularly helpful in
attaining a better final grade. But seeing that this is the only attested relationship - and weak at that - it must be
used cautiously. Looked at differently, it must be stated that students' final achievements as measured by final
grade have turned out to be fairly independent of the classroom-linked factors as elicited in this study.
c. Pearson's rs were also calculated for the correlational relationships between final grade and the subject- and
learner-related factors extracted at both tests (T1 and T2). Again, correlations turned out to be generally very
low and in only three cases could they be attested as statistically significant: at T1 with intrinsic motives (Table

11 June 2017 Page 7 of 18 ProQuest

14) and self-efficacy (Table 15) and at T2 with self-efficacy - lack of anxiety (Table 16). In all three cases low
negative correlations were attested, which means that more intense feelings could be linked with lower, i.e.
better, grades, at least to a certain extent. In other words, the strength of the relationship between the students'
final grades and the subject- and learner-related factors is similar to but less extreme than the classroom-
related factors: if attested at all, then relatively weak.
Despite such few correlational results, the analysis of the relationships between final grade and the three types
of factors has led to the following outcome: As far as can be ascertained from the low levels of correlation, the
students' chances of success are increased by a limited reliance on help from peers and strongly felt feelings of
inner motivation and self-confidence, as reflected in high levels of self-efficacy. What is maybe even more
important for attaining better grades in the pronunciation module, though, is the students' high levels of
proficiency in English in general and its pronunciation in particular, as they are reflected in the students' self-
evaluations, personal experiences with English in native contexts, passing the pronunciation module the first
time round and good grades at school.
5. Discussion
The results presented above have shed some light on two aspects: the motivation in pronunciation construct
and our student population.
With regard to the former, this test has added two new types of insights. The first one springs from relating
these results to those of the pilot study, as the kinds and constellations of the relevant factors can now be
specified more clearly. To begin with, the dichotomy of intrinsic versus extrinsic (or integrative versus
instrumental) motives has been enriched by a new dimension, namely the relevance of the pronunciation
module itself. In other words, it is not only the source of motivation which is relevant, but also the
contextualization of the target to be achieved, whether it is seen as an integral part of the module or
independent from it. Similarly, the factors standing for the students' self-confidence have evolved in a more
complex way than before: the previously established feelings of anxiety and self-efficacy do not only act
separately, but also merge, thus revealing that they can also be experienced as two sides of a coin. It is
interesting to note in this context that this happened at T2, at a moment when, on the one hand, the students'
feelings relied on a lot of personal experience with the module itself and, on the other hand, they were
sensitized by the imminent final exam. Finally, this test allowed a more detailed description of the relevant
classroom-related factors. Although the outcome still leaves a lot open for futher investigation, such as the list of
items used in the questionnaire and the reliability of the extracted factors, this study has led to more results than
the pilot study, which, due to its small scale, could not supply us with any far-reaching findings. Perhaps the
most important outcome in this context is that the first and most central factor is not directly linked to the
classroom at all, but rests solely within the individual learners and their readiness to accept the challenge of
changing their pronunciation and their willingness to work hard to reach that goal.
Quite understandably, assessment is a crucial part of establishing any motivation in language learning construct
as the validity of the various parts rests on their relationship to achievement. With regard to the present study,
the most surprising result must thus be that extremely few links are attested or, put differently, that only very few
of the many factors seem to be of relevance to the measure of achievement. This inevitably seems to indicate
that the theoretical construct as envisaged so far requires major revisions, and that the questionnaire, even if it
is reliable, needs a thorough revision and extension. While there is no way at the moment to prove the contrary
and "defend" the present test and construct, there is, however, an important caveat to be considered. As
mentioned above, the only assessment tool presently available - the final grade - is unlikely to give a
comprehensive description of a student's pronunciation. Especially so, since pronunciation testing is so difficult
that no generally accepted testing tool has been established so far. In other words, we seem to be in a catch-22
situation here, being unable to judge on which "fact" we can rely in order to discard wrong assumptions or
consequences.

11 June 2017 Page 8 of 18 ProQuest

Therefore, it seems more useful to leave this point open for the time being and, instead, to concentrate on the
links between the final grade and factors as attested in this study. The results have shown that better grades in
this module are more likely from students whose general language proficiency is, relatively seen, excellent, as
indicated by prior grades in English and length of stay in an English-speaking environment. This might not come
as a great surprise, but there are still two explanations possible here. Either this shows that, although
pronunciation has never been actively assessed before, there seems to be a clear link between general
competence and passing this module, or it reveals that students who are high achievers tend to stay high
achievers, also in other classes (cf. Coates 1986: 195-197). Whatever the reason for that correlation, language
competence is only one part of the story; the other is self-efficacy, and to a certain extent anxiety. It obviously
helps - as we know in all situations in life - when the students know their worth and face the final exam trusting
they will pass it. Furthermore, students who feel strongly intrinsically motivated have been shown to pass the
module more easily. In other words, a positive attitude towards pronunciation learning as such seems to help.
In total, these correlations point out that, in order to be more likely to pass the pronunciation module, students
should preferably begin with an above-average proficiency, feel intrinsically motivated, be self-confident, and
ready to work independently and intensively.
6. Conclusion
With regard to the original hypothesis to be tested here - students' achievement in the pronunciation module is
positively influenced by the factors of the motivation in pronunciation construct - the discussion of the results
makes it quite evident that the study has not yielded a clear result as (a) the factor that has tested as most
relevant for achievement is not part of the motivation construct at all and (b) the factors of the construct have
turned out to be of slight or even no relevance. For more decisive information, it will be necessary to undertake
further research, which, the outcome seems to indicate, will benefit from a more comprehensive approach,
combining motivation with other relevant factors such as general language learning attainment.
On a more general level, this study provides insights into the teaching and learning of EFL pronunciation at an
advanced level. The main outcome, namely that students' success relies, if not only, then at least to a certain
extent on their own preparedness and willingness, supports the so often invoked character of pronunciation as
being that aspect of a language which is closest to its speakers' feelings of identity. Every advanced learner has
already formed their own identity in that language and expresses it in their way of pronouncing it. It is therefore
plausible that the only factors that can really have any influence on the learners' success in changing their
pronunciation are those internally felt by the individuals, motivating them to adapt their own pronunciation to
what they, at that moment, perceive to be desirable and ideal.
Footnote
Notes
1. As reported in IRAL 38, this module, which covers one term of compulsory weekly class and language lab
sessions, aims at a near-native pronunciation of any standard L1 English and offers active training in either
Received Pronunciation (RP) or General American (GA). Since the students taking it - mainly L1 speakers of
Austrian German - have chosen English as one of their university majors, they form a very specific group of
learners of English. They aspire to become English language specialists - mainly EFL teachers at higher
secondary schools - and, after a minimum of 8 years of English at school, start studying at an advanced level of
English competence. At the same time, hardly any of the students have ever received explicit instruction in
pronunciation before. Not surprisingly, there is a great deal of anxiety and worries connected with the module,
which is also mirrored in the success rate. In the three semesters from October 1995 till January 1997, for
instance, 90% of second year students passed the English language class, but only 70 % successfully
completed the pronunciation class.
2. For instance, Bowler and Cunningham (1990, 1991); Bradford (1988); Dalton and Seidlhofer (1994); Gilbert
(1993); Grant (1993); Hagen and Grogan (1992); Kenworthy (1987); Swan and Walter (1985-87); Zawadzki

11 June 2017 Page 9 of 18 ProQuest

(1994).
3. Many thanks to an anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to Alene Moyer's research, which proves
that, under specific circumstances, highly successful nonnative speakers can attain a native level of
pronunciation proficiency (for similar results cf. Bongaerts et al. 1997).
4. Learner-related factors are language use anxiety, self-perception of L2 accent, causal attributions and self-
efficacy. Subject-related factors contain integrativeness, and intrinsic and extrinsic motives. Classroom-related
factors include class goals, teaching styles, feedback, student roles, and learning strategies. (For a detailed
discussion cf. Drnyei 1994.)
5. While most of the changes concerned the wording of individual rating items, the most important improvement
that I made concerned the types of item employed. In the pilot study we used indirect as well as direct items in
order to test whether the different testing techniques would have an influence on the ratings of the items, but, as
it turned out, they did not. Consequently, I was able to limit the type of item to direct ones only (Smit and Dalton
1997: 326).
6. While, basically, both of these two dichotomies differentiate between the locus of motivation as being either
within or outside the learner, they posit slightly different ways of defining the two respective types, which has in
turn given rise to further discussion (cf., e.g., Oxford and Shearin 1994: 20).
References
References
Bongaerts, Theo, Chantal van Summeren, Brigitte Planken and Erik Schils (1997). Age and ultimate attainment
in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 447-465.
Bowler, Bill and Sarah Cunningham (1990, 1991). Headway Pronunciation. (2 vols: Intermediate, Upper-
Intermediate.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradford, Barbara (1988). Intonation in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bryman, Alan and Duncan Cramer (1997). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows. London/New
York: Routledge.
Coates, John (1986). Pronunciation and Personality. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.
Crookes, Graham and Richard Schmidt (1989). Motivation: opening the research agenda. University of Hawaii
Working Papers in ESL 8: 127-140.
Dalton, Christiane and Barbara Seidlhofer (1994). Pronunciation (Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher
Education). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, Christiane, Gunther Kaltenbck and Ute Smit (1997). Learner attitudes and L2 pronunciation in Austria.
World Englishes 16: 115-128.
__ (2000). Die Rolle der Integrativeness beim Erlernen der Aussprache einer Fremdsprache. In Aktuelle
Themen im Zweitspracherwerb. sterreichische Beitrge, Allan James (ed.), 119-138. Wien: Edition Praesens.
Drnyei, Zoltan (1990). Conceptualising motivation in foreign-language learning. Language Learning 40: 45-78.
__ (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 78: 273-284.

__ (1996). Moving language learning motivation to a larger platform for theory and practice. In Language
Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century, Rebecca Oxford (ed.), 71-80. Hawaii: Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Ehrman, Madeleine E. (1996). An exploration of adult language learner motivation, self-efficacy, and anxiety. In
Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century, Rebecca Oxford (ed.), 81-104. Hawaii: Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Elliott, Aaron R. (1995). Field independence/dependence, hemispheric specialisation, and attitude in relation to
pronunciation accuracy in Spanish as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal 79: 356-371.
Gardner, Robert C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. The Role of Attitudes and

11 June 2017 Page 10 of 18 ProQuest

Motivation. London/Ontario: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, Robert C., Paul F. Tremblay and Anne-Marie Masgoret (1997). Towards a full model of second
language learning: an empirical investigation. Language Learning 81: 344-362.
Gilbert, Judy (1993). Clear Speech: Pronunciation and Listening Comprehension in North American English
(2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, Linda (1993). Well Said. Advanced English Pronunciation. Boston, MA: Heinle &Heinle.
Hagen, Stacy A. and Patricia E. Grogan (1992). Sound Advantage. A Pronunciation Book. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Jenkins, Jennifer (1998a). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language?
ELT Journal 52 (2): 119-126.
__ (1998b). Rethinking phonology in teacher education. VIEWS (Vienna English Working papers) 7(1): 40-46.
Kenworthy, Joanne (1987). Teaching English Pronunciation. London: Longman.
Moyer, Alene ( 1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. The critical factors of age, motivation, and
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 81-108.
Oxford, Rebecca and Jill Shearin (1994). Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical framework.
Modern Language Journal 78: 12-28.
__ (1996). Language learning motivation in a new key.. In Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New
Century, Rebecca Oxford (ed.), 121-144. Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center,
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Purcell, Elliott T. and Richard W. Suter (1980). Predictors of pronunciation accuracy: a reexamination.
Language Learning 30: 271-287.
Schmidt, Richard, Deena Boraie and Omneya Kassabgy. (1996). Foreign language motivation: internal
structure and external connections. In Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century, Rebecca
Oxford (ed.), 9-70. Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Smit, Ute and Christiane Dalton (1997). Motivation in ESL pronunciation learning: a progress report. In New
Sounds 97, Jonathan Leather and Allan James (eds.), 321-330. Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt.
__ (2000). Motivational patterns in advanced EFL pronunciation learners. IRAL 38 (3/4): 229-246.
Swan, Michael and Catherine Walter (1985-7). The Cambridge English Module 1 - 3. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tremblay, Paul F. and Robert C. Gardner. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning.
Modern Language Journal 79: 505-518.
Vaughan-Rees, Michael (ed.) (1997). Speak Out! 20: Testing pronunciation. IATEFL.
Zawadzki, Halina (1994). In Tempo. An English Pronunciation Module. MacQuarie University: National Centre
for English Language Teaching and Research.
AuthorAffiliation
University of Vienna
<ute.smit@univie.ac.at>

11 June 2017 Page 11 of 18 ProQuest

Enlarge this image.

11 June 2017 Page 12 of 18 ProQuest

Enlarge this image.

Enlarge this image.

11 June 2017 Page 13 of 18 ProQuest

Enlarge this image.

Enlarge this image.

Enlarge this image.

11 June 2017 Page 14 of 18 ProQuest

Enlarge this image.

11 June 2017 Page 15 of 18 ProQuest

Enlarge this image.

Enlarge this image.

11 June 2017 Page 16 of 18 ProQuest

Enlarge this image.

Enlarge this image.

Enlarge this image.

Publication title: IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching; Heidelberg

Volume: 40

Issue: 2

Pages: 89-116

Number of pages: 28

11 June 2017 Page 17 of 18 ProQuest

Publication year: 2002

Publication date: 2002

Publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Place of publication: Heidelberg

Country of publication: Germany

Publication subject: Education--Teaching Methods And Curriculum, Linguistics

ISSN: 0019042X

CODEN: IRALA4

Source type: Scholarly Journals

Language of publication: English; German; French

Document type: General Information

ProQuest document ID: 204974476

Document URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/204974476?accountid=25704

Copyright: Copyright Mouton de Gruyter 2002

Last updated: 2013-11-26

Database: ProQuest Professional Education

_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2017 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

11 June 2017 Page 18 of 18 ProQuest