Kochem (2021) TESOL Quarterly Exploring The Connection Between Teacher Training and Teacher Cognitions Related To L2

15457249, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesq.3095 by Desi Arinda - <shibboleth>-member@monash.edu.au , Wiley Online Library on [11/03/2023].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Exploring the Connection between
Teacher Training and Teacher Cognitions
Related to L2 Pronunciation Instruction
TIM KOCHEM
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa, United States
Abstract
In recent years, research into the learning of pronunciation pedagogy
and its effects on a teacher’s capacity to provide effective pronuncia-
tion instruction has been steadily growing. Nevertheless, a prominent
puzzle piece still remains uncovered: the direct effect that coursework
has on a trainee’s ability to deliver effective instruction. To address this
gap, the current study explores the development of second language
teacher cognitions and actual teaching practices in a tutoring project,
which serves as the capstone assignment for a graduate course in pro-
nunciation pedagogy. Semi-structured interviews, stimulated recalls,
written reflections, and tutoring observations were used to explore the
intricate connection between training and practices. Findings suggest
that controlled activities made up the majority of the trainees’ tech-
niques. Trainees requested more in-class practice with creating and
conducting free activities, as these were viewed as the toughest tech-
nique. Also, this study found one predominant connection which the
tutoring project brought to light: the trainees’ use of the communicative
framework (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2010) as an
‘order of operations’. These results highlight the importance of training
in pronunciation pedagogy which includes a hands-on experience.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.3095
INTRODUCTION
E xceptional language teaching requires adequate content knowl-

edge (e.g., morphology, syntax, semantics, etc.) and pedagogical
knowledge. Preparing language teachers to teach pronunciation
Corresponding author. Email: tkochem@iastate.edu
1136 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 56, No. 4, December 2022

© 2021 The Authors. TESOL Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of TESOL International Association.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
15457249, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesq.3095 by Desi Arinda - <shibboleth>-member@monash.edu.au , Wiley Online Library on [11/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
should not be an exception to this rule, though few second language
(L2) teacher trainees graduate from programs with the knowledge
required to teach English pronunciation (Murphy, 2014). Without
both knowledge bases (i.e., content and pedagogical), teachers have
reported a lack of confidence, skills, and ability to teach English pro-
nunciation features (e.g., Couper, 2017; Henderson et al., 2015).
Scholars assert that this deficit is reflected in the instructional time
spent on pronunciation in the classroom if any attention is given to it
at all (Derwing, 2010).
To rectify the lack of English pronunciation instruction in the lan-
guage classroom, several specialists have called for more specialized
training in pronunciation pedagogy in language teacher preparation
programs (Derwing & Munro, 2005; Foote, Holtby, & Derwing, 2011;
Foote, Trofimovich, Collins, & Urz ua, 2016; Henderson et al., 2015).
This call has also led to the development of several models for teach-
ing pronunciation pedagogy to teacher trainees (e.g., Echelberger,
McCurdy, & Parrish, 2018; Murphy, 2014). However, very few
researchers have investigated the connection this training has on a
trainee’s classroom practices (e.g., Burri & Baker, 2020). Therefore,
the current study aims to bridge the connection between second lan-
guage teacher education (SLTE), second language teacher cognition
(SLTC), and actual teaching practices in L2 pronunciation.
Second Language Teacher Cognition
In the current study, SLTC refers to the teacher’s understanding of

their role in the language learning process (Borg, 2006). More specifi-
cally, SLTC is explored through an examination of the “cognitive
dimension of [language] teaching – what teachers know, believe, and
think” (Borg, 2003, p.81). Frequently faced with diverse groups of
learners, including different first language (L1) backgrounds, various
learning preferences, and contrasting motivations for language learn-
ing, language teachers must deliver instruction in ways which promote
the learning of the L2. In order to better prepare future language
educators to do this, understanding the beliefs and knowledge of cur-
rent teachers, and how they impact the teachers’ actual classroom
practices, is essential.
Borg (2006) identified many factors that can influence SLTC, but
arguably the three main factors are personal experience, professional
coursework, and classroom practice. Personal experience typically
refers to speaker status, whether the teacher is a native speaker (NS)
or a nonnative speaker (NNS) of the target language. It is often
believed by both teachers and students alike that NSs are better for
L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1137

pronunciation instruction (e.g., Henderson et al., 2015). However,
Levis, Sonsaat, Link, & Barriuso (2016) found no difference in English
pronunciation gains for students taught by either an NS or NNS, com-
menting that pronunciation gains are not determined by the native-
ness of the teacher’s pronunciation but rather by “knowledgeable
teaching practices” (p. 894). In a similar study, Li and Zhang (2016)
found that their participants showed significant improvement after
being taught by an NNS teacher and no significant improvement after
being taught by NS teacher, even though the participants preferred an
NS for pronunciation instruction.
The second major factor is professional coursework, which has been
an important topic in SLTC research. The common aim of this
research is to describe the effect that coursework has on the develop-
ment of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about language learning/
teaching. Mattheoudakis (2007) used the Beliefs about Language
Learning Inventory (BALLI; Horwitz, 1985) with a group of 36 pre-
service EFL teachers three times throughout a teacher preparation
program. She noted the changes the trainees went through as they
completed coursework and how the communicative training they
received possibly weakened their beliefs about the primacy of vocabu-
lary, grammar, and the importance of native-like pronunciation.
The final factor that can change SLTC, which some might argue is
the most important of the three (e.g., Baker, 2011, 2014), is classroom
practice. Evidence of this is increasingly visible in SLTC research. As
part of Mattheoudakis’ (2007) study, a second group of 30 teacher
trainees chose to do a teaching practicum. This group, as compared
with the first group, was much more critical of the teachers they had
when they had been language learners, expressing how they could
have done more communicative training. However, at least theoreti-
cally, the communicative training they had received seemed to be re-
evaluated by the trainees during the practicum experience, as some
reverted to more traditional beliefs that were more in tune with
grammar-translation methods than communicative practices.
The connection between these factors has been explored in other
skills areas, such as grammar (e.g., Borg, 1999), writing (e.g., Yigitoglu
& Belcher, 2014), and reading (e.g., El-Okda, 2005), as well as general
language teaching (e.g., Moodie, 2016). Results from these studies sug-
gest that teachers’ previous experiences in language learning regularly
converge or diverge with knowledge gained through coursework.
Understanding the connection and relationship between the three fac-
tors (i.e., personal experience, professional coursework, and classroom
practice) is indeed an invaluable topic for teacher educators. However,
very little research into the connection between the three has been
conducted in the field of L2 pronunciation.
1138 TESOL QUARTERLY

Second Language Teacher Cognition in L2 Pronunciation
While perhaps not as explored in relation to grammar, reading, or

writing, SLTC research in the area of English pronunciation is a grow-
ing field of interest. These studies’ primary focus has been teachers’
beliefs regarding the importance of pronunciation in language learn-
ing, which features of pronunciation should be prioritized, and which
techniques to use when teaching pronunciation. The predominant
data collection methods have been surveys or questionnaires, with
some making use of interview data. However, only a handful of studies
looking at SLTC and its connection to teaching pronunciation involve
classroom observations.
Baker (2014) is perhaps the most widely cited of these studies, as it
was the first in-depth, classroom-based investigation into the tech-
niques used to provide English pronunciation instruction. Based on
her dissertation work (i.e., Baker, 2011), she explored the connection
between SLTC and five experienced ESL teachers’ teaching practices
concerning pronunciation techniques. She found that the participants
relied heavily on controlled activities—or those strongly directed by
the teacher (Baker, 2014) and emphasize form rather than meaning—
instead of more communicative activities. Hismanoglu and Hismano-
glu (2010) also found that read-aloud, dictionaries, and dialogues were
the top three preferred techniques for teaching pronunciation, all of
which are controlled activities.
Even though Baker (2014) comments that there seems to be a rela-
tionship between previous coursework and the variety of activities
used, more recent research suggests that there may be other factors at
play. Burri (2016) found that his participants favored controlled activi-
ties over more communicative ones at the end of a graduate course in
L2 pronunciation pedagogy. Likewise, Buss (2017) found that her par-
ticipants may not have been “fully prepared to use more communica-
tive pronunciation activities” (p. 217) during their capstone tutoring
project.
The ability to integrate communicative activities into pronunciation
instruction is an invaluable skill for language teachers to develop. As
studies have shown, instruction that includes both controlled and com-
municative activities often leads to greater improvements in the spon-
taneous production of speech by learners (e.g., Saito, 2012; Saito &
Lyster, 2012). As Saito and Plonsky (2019) recommend in their meta-
analysis of 77 pronunciation studies, while “the positive effects of
explicit instruction are tied to the initial stages of [second language
acquisition] . . . learners [should] be given opportunities to procedura-
lize and automatize the target features” (pp. 691-692). This is not to

say that language teachers should focus solely on communicative activi-
ties. Perception-based and controlled tasks have both been shown to
have a significant positive effect on learner gains in pronunciation
(e.g., Lee et al., 2015; Saito, 2012; Saito & Plonsky, 2019). Rather, lan-
guage teachers should provide pronunciation instruction that includes
a variety of activity types. However, as Baker (2014), Burri (2016), and
Buss (2017) have shown, English language teachers seem to be trepi-
datious of integrating communicative activities into pronunciation
instruction.
Since Baker (2014), additional studies have attempted to corrobo-
rate her findings (e.g., Burri & Baker, 2020; Couper, 2017), though
few have used actual classroom data (e.g., Gordon, 2019), relying
almost entirely on self-reported data through interviews or question-
naires. Nonetheless, one common theme found has been the influ-
ence that coursework has on a teacher’s ability and confidence to
teach L2 pronunciation.
Second Language Teacher Training in L2 Pronunciation

Pedagogy
Little is known about the connection between SLTE and English

pronunciation pedagogy due primarily to a lack of research. This can
be attributed to the overall lack of professional training in English pro-
nunciation pedagogy found in language teacher preparation programs
(e.g., Breitkreutz, Derwing, & Rossiter, 2002; Foote et al., 2011; Mur-
phy, 2014, 2017). When training is provided, we typically see it in one
of three forms: (1) what is learned about pronunciation in introduc-
tory teaching methods courses; (2) a methods or theory course in pho-
netics and phonology; or (3) an L2 pronunciation pedagogy course
(Murphy, 2014). Because so few L2 teachers gain either the content
knowledge or the pedagogical knowledge to teach English pronuncia-
tion, we often see that it is either taught as prescribed in the course’s
textbook or neglected in L2 instruction (Derwing, 2010).
As a result, connecting the dots between SLTE and a teacher’s abil-
ity to provide effective pronunciation instruction is problematic. Bur-
ri’s (2016) doctoral work was the first large-scale investigation into the
connection between SLTE, SLTC, and L2 pronunciation pedagogy.
Using a longitudinal case study design, he closely looked at the long-
term development of SLTC and the role that SLTE played in L2 pro-
nunciation pedagogy. Using data from 15 ESL/EFL student teachers
in a graduate course on L2 pronunciation pedagogy, Burri conducted
four separate studies to explore the connection between SLTC and

SLTE. From those studies, he (and sometimes his co-authors) found
that exposure to different English accents enriched the trainees’
knowledge about pronunciation teaching (Burri, 2015a) and that nov-
ice teachers perceived teaching pronunciation to be harder than expe-
rienced teachers (Burri, Baker, & Chen, 2017). Also, he found that
the beliefs of the NNS trainees changed significantly because of a self-
perceived gain in their pronunciation (Burri, 2015b) and that a “medi-
ational relationship between cognition development and identity con-
struction” (p. 3) played a vital role in the development of the
teachers’ learning of pronunciation pedagogy (Burri, Chen, & Baker,
2017).
However, the participants in these studies were not asked to teach
English pronunciation as part of the research, which raises the ques-
tion: In what ways does a course in L2 pronunciation pedagogy pre-
pare a teacher trainee to provide pronunciation instruction? Although
not explicitly asked to teach pronunciation as part of the research,
Burri, Chen, et al. (2017) noted differences between the pre-service
and in-service teachers’ confidence levels due to the course. Overall,
they found that the pre-service teachers reported feeling less confident
about their ability to teach English pronunciation than the in-service
teachers. Furthermore, the practicing teachers noted how they “were
able to connect new course content” into their teaching practices,
such as the International Phonetic Alphabet (p. 120)—something the
pre-service teachers may not have had the opportunity to do, which
serves as one possible explanation for their lack of confidence.
Buss (2017) used a longitudinal study to explore the development
of SLTC in pre-service ESL teachers in an undergraduate pronuncia-
tion pedagogy course. Most noteworthy about the course is that it had
a short practicum at the end, where student teachers were paired up
and tasked with teaching an L2 learner “four pronunciation tutorial
classes” (p. 210). Using data from questionnaires and interviews over
three time periods, she found that her participants’ cognitions chan-
ged substantially during the course but that the teaching practicum
had a relatively low impact. It could be that the participants had
already come to a solid understanding by this time, and the teaching
practicum simply strengthened their resolve.
Finally, Burri and Baker (2020) followed up with five of Burri’s
(2016) participants who now had been working as ESL/EFL teachers
for 1.5 to 2.5 years. Using data collected from the pronunciation peda-
gogy course and also narrative frames collected during their teaching
experience, they found that the “participants’ process of learning to
teach pronunciation gradually developed over [time]” (p. 11), but that
their learning trajectories were inconsistent after the course had
ended. The narrative frame data also revealed that teaching

pronunciation was difficult because contextual factors had a strong
influence on their practices and cognitions.
Throughout the literature on SLTE, SLTC, and L2 pronunciation,
few have explored the types of techniques that trainees use after
receiving training. As Burri and Baker (2020) comment, “[t]o what
extent L2 teachers apply – in their classrooms – knowledge and skills
they acquired in a pronunciation teacher preparation setting, and how
their cognition and practices develop after completing a course on
pronunciation pedagogy remains largely unknown” (p. 3). This is a
pertinent topic to explore, as some suggest (e.g., Baker, 2014) that
training plays a role in the variety of activities a teacher uses, while
others (e.g., Gordon, 2019) suggest that it might be more closely
related to teaching experience.
Current Study
Using a qualitative case study design (Creswell, 2013), the develop-
ment of SLTC in a graduate pronunciation pedagogy course was inves-
tigated, with particular attention paid to the role played by teaching
practices during a four-week tutoring project. By using this setting, cur-
riculum factors could be mitigated so that the ability to teach pronun-
ciation was highlighted. That is, the student teachers were not
providing grades to the students, teaching to a test, or other such
influences that teachers may face in a formal classroom environment.
Also, by using one-on-one tutoring, the participants are the focal point
of the instruction, meaning they cannot ‘hide’ from their student—
they are the input, the instructor, and the interlocutor.
This study is of relevance to both teacher educators and student
teachers of L2 pronunciation pedagogy. First, it provides further evi-
dence to Baker’s (2014) findings of the techniques used in actual pro-
nunciation instruction using classroom-based research. Second, it
identifies common challenges faced by trainees who are teaching L2
pronunciation explicitly for the first time and additional benefits from
having a hands-on experience. The findings also affirm the call for
more specialized training in L2 pronunciation pedagogy in language
teacher preparation programs (e.g., Murphy, 2014). This study
addresses the following questions:
1. What cognitions do student teachers have about techniques for
teaching English pronunciation in a tutoring setting?
2. What relationships, if any, exist between the trainees’ cogni-
tions, professional development, and teaching practices?

METHODOLOGY
Participants
Ten student teachers in a graduate-level L2 pronunciation pedagogy

course at a large university in the Midwest US agreed to participate in
this study. The student teachers were chosen based on two criteria: (1)
they were enrolled in the L2 pronunciation pedagogy course, and (2)
they had never developed extensive materials, activities, or lessons for
L2 pronunciation instruction. Table 1 provides demographic informa-
tion related to their speaker status, teaching experience, and degree
currently sought during the course. Because this study is exploratory,
it was advantageous to have participants with varying backgrounds.
Pseudonyms were randomly generated for each student teacher.
Setting
The graduate course’s purpose was to learn about second language

pronunciation research and prepare students to teach English pronun-
ciation. Topics covered in the course included intelligibility, compre-
hensibility, segmentals and functional load, word stress, connected
speech, rhythm, prominence, and intonation, to name a few. The
course textbook was Celce-Murcia’s , Brinton, Goodwin, and Griner
(2010) Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book and Reference Guide.
Table 2 provides an overview of the course, as is commonly found
within studies in this field (e.g., Burri, 2016; Buss, 2017). The course’s
primary instructor was a professor who has been in the department for
nearly 20 years and has been researching and teaching pronunciation
TABLE 1
Demographic Information
Speaker Years Teaching Language(s) Degree

Participant Status Experience Taught Level(s) Taught Sought
Amy NNS 0 n/a n/a MA
Ben NS 3 Spanish Beginner MA
Chloe NS 0 n/a n/a BA
Eve NS 1.5 English n/a (tutoring) MA
Faith NNS 8 English Beginner and Intermediate PhD
Jacob NS 0 n/a n/a MA
Mia NS 0 n/a n/a BA
Mason NNS 0 n/a n/a PhD
Scarlett NS 0 n/a n/a BA
Sofia NNS 8 English Beginner and Intermediate MA

TABLE 2
Overview of Themes Covered in Graduate Course
Week Topic(s) Assignment(s)

1 Researching and Teaching Pronunciation Teaching Scenario 1
2 Consonants Teaching Scenario 2
3 Vowels Materials Analysis 1 / Teaching
Scenario 3
4 Word Stress Materials Analysis 2 / Teaching
Scenario 4
5 Rhythm Materials Analysis 3
6 Connected Speech Materials Analysis 4
7 Prominence / Intonation (1)
8 Intonation (2) Pedagogical Bibliography
9 Assessment (1) / Materials Development (1) Materials Analysis 5 / Diagnostic
10 Assessment (2) / Materials Development (2) Lesson Plans Week 1-3 for Tutoring
11 Technology Week 1 Tutoring / Written Reflection
12 Morphology / Orthography Week 2 Tutoring / Oral Report
13 Speaking / Fluency Week 3 Tutoring / Oral Report
14 Listening / Perception Week 4 Tutoring / Written Reflection
15 Variation and Social Aspects / Ethics of Research Paper
Instruction
and oral communication for over 30 years. He handled over 90% of

the lectures and grading in the course. The secondary instructor (the
author of this paper) was a Ph.D. student within the same program
and has been teaching pronunciation and oral communication for
three years. He delivered the lectures during the week on technology
and did grading only for the teaching scenarios and oral reports.
The course provided a close examination of teaching and research-
ing English pronunciation. While several teaching methods were
explored (e.g., haptic, audiolingual), the course focused on Celce-
Murcia et al.’s (2010) communicative framework for teaching the stu-
dent teachers how to provide effective pronunciation instruction to
learners. The framework outlines five aspects of pronunciation teach-
ing: (1) description and analysis; (2) listening discrimination; (3) con-
trolled activities; (4) guided activities; and (5) communicative activities
(pp. 45-48). The first two aspects (i.e., description and analysis; listen-
ing discrimination) received more attention throughout the course, as
most of the student teachers were learning about the pronunciation
features for the first time. While they received less attention than the
prior two aspects, the latter three aspects (i.e., controlled, guided, and
free activities) received equivalent attention throughout the course. To
help identify the differences between the three activity types, the stu-
dent teachers were asked to analyze published pronunciation materials
during weeks 3-9 to help familiarize them with how different activities
were set up by materials developers. The activity types were mostly

contextualized for use in a classroom setting; however, the instructor
provided both a recorded video demonstration and an in-class demon-
stration of one-on-one tutoring to show the student teachers how to
adapt these materials for their capstone project.
For the capstone project, the student teachers were assigned to
tutor a single learner in English pronunciation, translating the course-
work into practical lesson plans and materials. This occurred in weeks
11-14 of the course, which means they had received training in the fea-
tures of English pronunciation, analyzing and categorizing learner
errors, and providing instruction per the communicative framework
(Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). The primary instructor found the learners
for the student teachers, and also audio-recorded and completed a
diagnostic of the learners’ pronunciation; yet, the student teachers
were also asked to complete a diagnostic of their learner’s pronuncia-
tion as an assignment of the course.
Based on the student teacher’s diagnostic, they were to designate
three pronunciation features to focus on in each of their four 50- to
60-minute tutoring sessions. For example, if a student teacher desig-
nated rhythm, prominence, and the minimal pair /b/-/p/ as focal fea-
tures, they would address all three features in each session. The
student teacher’s evaluation and selection of pronunciation features
were then passed on to the primary instructor, who verified the stu-
dent teachers’ claims about their learner and provided feedback. Once
three pronunciation features were agreed upon, the student teacher
developed a three-week lesson plan that outlined the activities they
would use to address each feature (the fourth lesson plan was created
after the third session).
The student teachers then contacted their learners and arranged a
time and meeting space. The primary instructor allowed the tutoring
to occur wherever convenient for the teacher and learner, so long as
the space was quiet (e.g., empty classroom, conference room, office
space) During the tutoring sessions, the student teachers were not
required to stick to their lesson plan, though they were required to
address each of the three pronunciation features. This flexibility
allowed the student teachers to spend more time on a feature if they
thought it was necessary. To account for this flexibility, the instructors
had the student teachers write a two- to three-page reflection paper
after the first and fourth week of tutoring and provide an oral report
after the second and third week of tutoring. The reflections and oral
reports covered such topics as how the session went, what was covered,
how it was covered, and how they might change their tutoring sessions
in the future based on this session. The instructors and student
teachers also spent ten to twenty minutes of class time talking about
common questions regarding the tutoring sessions.

Role of the Researcher
The researcher’s role was multifaceted, as he had previously taken

the course being observed and was the secondary instructor. Because
of this, he was able to provide personal insights during the oral
reports, which may have influenced the student teachers. This, at least
partially, made the research and the course inseparable. That is, the
knowledge shared in the oral reports could have become a reason for
why student teachers adapted their tutoring styles or the materials they
used, which would then be highlighted in the student teacher’s next
oral or written report.
Data Collection Instruments
Three instruments were used to collect data in this study: oral

reports, written reflections, and tutoring observations (see Appendix A
for sample prompts used in oral reports and written reflections). The
use of three methods aided with methodological triangulation, mean-
ing that each method provided another way to analyze the student
teachers’ experiences and better inform any conclusions. In addition,
unstructured interviews (e.g., conversations with student teachers
before or after class), video recordings of the graduate course, and the
student teachers’ lesson plans were used to further contextualize
findings.
Oral reports. Each student teacher engaged in two oral reports,

one after both the second and third weeks of tutoring. Each oral
report lasted for roughly 60 minutes (about 120 minutes total per stu-
dent teacher) and was audio-recorded and transcribed. The oral
reports consisted of two parts: a 30-minute semi-structured interview
(SSI) and a 30-minute stimulated recall interview (SRI).
The majority of qualitative case studies use SSIs to collect large
amounts of descriptive data from a relatively small number of student
teachers (Creswell, 2013). In this study, SSIs were used primarily to
better understand how the student teachers translated the coursework
into practical application. They were also used to address any general
concerns the student teachers may have with the tutoring project.
SRIs are crucial for SLTC research because they allow researchers to
uncover teachers’ thoughts during their teaching (Gass & Mackey,
2016). In the current study, student teachers were asked to engage
with about 10 minutes of video footage from their tutoring sessions.
All SRIs took place within 48 hours of the tutoring session, as is tradi-
tionally accepted (Gass & Mackey, 2016). Following Baker (2014), the

footage included different pronunciation activities chosen by the
author to represent a wide variety of activity types. The video excerpts
selected were meant to engage student teachers with multiple aspects
of their pronunciation instruction, including description of features,
activity implementation, and feedback on learner performance. By
doing so, we were able to gain a more in-depth understanding of how
student teachers linked the different aspects of their teaching
together.
Written reflections. It has been argued that reflective writing can

result in a deeper understanding and appreciation for learning
because it is a physical depiction of the mental reflective process (Van
Beveren, Roets, Buysse, & Rutten, 2018). This makes reflective writing
a valuable tool for exploring the changing cognitions of the student
teachers. Also, as opposed to the oral report, the written reflection is a
one-way interaction, in that the student teachers freely write their
opinions and thoughts without outside interference. This type of data,
coupled with the oral reports, provides a snapshot of what the student
teachers thought was most important in their learning during the
tutoring project. The written reflections were completed in weeks 1
and 4 of the tutoring project.
Tutoring observations. Actual observations of teaching practices are

essential in more robust studies of SLTC. This typically includes one
to four observations per participant (e.g., Burns & Knox, 2005). In this
study, each student teacher was observed two times (approximately
110 minutes in total for each student teacher) during the second and
third weeks of the tutoring project. This was decided in tandem with
the primary instructor, who suggested these would be the ideal weeks
to observe the student teachers’ practices. Each tutoring observation
was video-recorded.
Data Analysis
First, data collected from the oral reports were transcribed verbatim.
All of the data, including video recordings of the tutoring sessions,
were then entered into NVivo 12 (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2020)
for coding purposes. First, as in Baker (2011, 2014), the tutoring
videos were segmented into individual activities, allowing for the cod-
ing of activity types. Next, the oral reports were segmented into their
two constituents (i.e., SSI and SRI). This was done as soon as it
became apparent that the data types provided different views about
their teaching practices. Finally, the written reflections were added.

The tutoring videos were coded according to activity types using
what Brown (2007) calls the continuum of activity types. This aided in
the distinction between controlled-guided-free activities, as these are
vast categories. Controlled activities are at one end of the continuum,
where the teacher plays a dominant role in their execution and manip-
ulation, and student responses are highly limited and predictable. This
activity type allows a teacher to make sure a pronunciation feature is
used, making them ideal for instruction. At the other end of the con-
tinuum, free activities give control to the learner, typically in pair or
group collaboration, where responses are unpredictable and communi-
cative. Following Baker (2014), activities were only considered
pronunciation-oriented “if the teacher explicitly linked the free tech-
nique to pronunciation development” (p. 143). In the middle of the
continuum, we find guided activities, which combine aspects of both
controlled and free activities, in that the activity is typically presented
as a controlled activity, but learner responses can be open-ended and
sometimes unpredictable.
The reliability of the coding of observational data was checked using
a second coder—a teacher with an advanced degree in Education and
fifteen years of classroom experience. After receiving training in the
coding scheme, the second coder examined 20% of the data. The
author chose the activities from the observational data to ensure vari-
ety in activity types (Baker, 2014). We reached an inter-coder simple
agreement of 93%—achieving agreements of 90% or higher is often
the desired goal (Geisler, 2004). Having reached the desired mark,
the author coded the remaining observational data.
For the SSI, SRI, and written reflections, a top-down approach to
coding was chosen using Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theoretical model of
teachers’ seven categories of knowledge: content knowledge, general
pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge, knowledge of the learner, knowledge of educational con-
texts, and knowledge of education ends. More specifically, the current
study focused on three of these categories: content knowledge, peda-
gogical content knowledge, and knowledge of the learner. This deci-
sion was made to highlight the student teachers’ knowledge of content
(e.g., phonological features), their ability to translate content knowl-
edge into practical teaching applications (pedagogical content knowl-
edge), and their ability to analyze and categorize learner errors
(knowledge of the learner). This coding scheme was further adapted,
as others have suggested (e.g., Baker, 2014; Burri, 2015a), to include
the work of Baker (2014), Brown (2007), Burri (2016), Celce-Murcia
et al. (2010), and Couper (2017). This adapted version (see
Appendix B) allowed for a more exact examination of pronunciation
pedagogy and practices, as it included knowledge, beliefs, and values

of phonological features and pronunciation instruction (e.g., the com-
municative framework).
To ensure the trustworthiness of the coding and data analysis with
the SSI, SRI, and written reflections, member checking was applied
throughout both data collection and analysis procedures. This
included ongoing discussions with student teachers about data analysis
and summarization sessions at the end of oral reports (Mertens,
2010). It also included peer debriefing (Esterberg, 2002), that is, work-
ing with other researchers. This debriefing occurred with both the pri-
mary instructor and the two research assistants throughout data
collection and analysis. These extended discussions provided an oppor-
tunity for the researcher to “confront his or her own values and to
guide next steps in the study” (Mertens, 2010, p. 270). Finally, triangu-
lating multiple methodological approaches also added to the study’s
trustworthiness (Creswell, 2013; Mertens, 2010), thereby helping to
ascertain a more complete understanding of the student teachers’
SLTC developments and teaching practices.
FINDINGS
Cognitions about Techniques Used
To understand the student teachers’ cognitions about pronuncia-

tion techniques, the range of techniques or activities must be analyzed
first. Table 3 describes the different controlled, guided, and free tech-
niques (adapted from Baker, 2014, pp. 146-147) that the student
teachers used throughout the tutoring project. In total, the student
teachers leaned towards the use of controlled activities (13 of 20); the
remaining techniques were split amongst guided (5) and free (2)
activities. This is what Baker (2014) found amongst her five experi-
enced teachers and is probably most attributable to controlled activi-
ties’ unambiguous focus. That is, the focus of such activities is the
pronunciation feature being taught, making it ideal for explicit
instruction.
Table 4 shows both the total frequency of activity types and the
number of student teachers who used the different techniques week-
by-week based on self-reported data (Weeks 1 and 4) and observational
data (Weeks 2 and 3). For example, in Week 1, we see that Audio
Identification was used 21 times and was employed by all 10 student
teachers. Most noteworthy are the final week’s activities, which seem to
drop drastically from the prior weeks. This is mostly the result of the
student teachers using prolonged activities, including videos and pic-
ture stories. For example, one student teacher who used discussions in

TABLE 3
Different Types of Pronunciation Activities Used by Participants
Activity Brief description

Controlled
1. Listening text description Learner listens to a text.
2. Explanation and examples Tutor explains and provides examples of feature
3. Production practice Learner reads a set of words or sentences which
highlight target feature
4. Tactile production practice Production practice with inclusion of specific physical
movement
5. Checking Tutor checks learner’s performance and provides
feedback
6. Knowledge verification Tutor verifies learner’s understanding of previously
taught material
7. Repetition drill Learner repeats a target form
8. Visual identification Learner selects target answer using visual cue and
respond verbally
9. Audio identification Learner makes a choice based on what they hear
10. Audio identification (repetition) Learner first repeats what they hear and then makes
a choice
11. Visual recognition Same as visual identification but learner does not
respond verbally
12. Audio recognition Same as audio identification but learner does not
respond verbally
13. Review Tutor reviews content previously taught
Guided
14. Question-answer referential Tutor asks learners questions which the tutor does
not know the answer to
15. Production-audio identification Learner/tutor produces a target form while other
makes a choice based on what they hear; other
responds verbally
16. Production-audio recognition Learner/tutor produces a target form while other
makes a choice based on what they hear; other does
not respond verbally
17. Mutual exchange Tutor and learner share information to complete a
task
18. Picture Story Learner must create a story based on a short comic
strip Free
19. Game Tutor and learner engage in an activity which has an
objective, a set of rules, and a degree of competition
20. Discussion Tutor and learner discuss a specific topic
Week 4 used them for the entire session—no other activities were
reported.
Three groups emerged when analyzing the student teachers’ activity
use: (1) those who incorporated all activity types in every session; (2)
those who gradually built communicative activities into the sessions;
and (3) those who never progressed into communicative activities.
This first group included only two student teachers: Chloe and Jacob.
They used the four communicative activities listed in week 1—each
using one discussion and one game.

TABLE 4
Participants’ Use of Activity Types Based on Observations and Reports
Activity Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

CONTROLLED
Listening text description 2 (1) 3 (2) 2 (2) 3 (3)
Explanation and examples 29 (9) 22 (8) 16 (7) 6 (4)
Production practice 22 (9) 12 (9) 14 (10) 6 (4)
Tactile production practice 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 2 (2)
Checking 2 (1) 4 (4) 8 (8) 2 (1)
Knowledge verification 0 (0) 10 (7) 9 (8) 6 (3)
Repetition drill 20 (8) 10 (9) 10 (9) 4 (4)
Visual identification 4 (2) 4 (4) 5 (5) 2 (2)
Audio identification 21 (10) 12 (10) 10 (10) 3 (3)
Audio identification (repetition) 4 (4) 6 (5) 5 (4) 2 (2)
Visual recognition 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (2) 1 (1)
Audio recognition 8 (4) 4 (4) 4 (4) 1 (1)
Review 1 (1) 10 (7) 10 (5) 6 (4)
GUIDED
Question-answer referential 5 (4) 5 (5) 7 (6) 4 (4)
Production-audio identification 4 (3) 9 (8) 10 (9) 3 (3)
Production-audio recognition 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 (1) 0 (0)
Mutual exchange 0 (0) 6 (6) 7 (6) 5 (2)
Picture Story 0 (0) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5)
FREE
Game 2 (2) 2 (2) 3 (3) 0 (0)
Discussion 2 (2) 5 (4) 4 (3) 7 (3)
Note: The first number represents how many times an activity type was used in a particular
week. The number in parentheses represents how many participants used the activity type in
a particular week.
Both Chloe and Jacob took a similar approach to the tutoring pro-
ject, in that they viewed it as an opportunity to learn how to deliver
pronunciation instruction. As such, they included activities from all
five phases of the communicative framework into each session. Still,
they faced individual hurdles with implementing communicative activi-
ties, particularly in time management and assessing their learner’s pro-
nunciation. Many of the student teachers mentioned time
management as a hurdle; however, when faced with issues of time,
Chloe and Jacob decided to stick with their lesson plan and get as far
as they could, which resulted in some activities being cut towards the
end of the session.
The second group included those student teachers who gradually
built communicative activities into the sessions, and this group con-
sisted of Eve, Mia, and Sofia. All three members of this group men-
tioned an intention to use communicative activities in the earlier
weeks, but either time management forced them to delay some activi-
ties to later weeks, or they wanted to spend the first week conducting
more controlled activities. Unlike Chloe and Jacob, this group decided

to cut activities out during their instruction, which typically resulted in
the communicative activities being cut. During the first two weeks, this
group found that controlled activities tended to take more time than
they had planned in their lessons. Also, as Eve pointed out, there were
times during the sessions when the student teachers “decided to do
[an activity] that wasn’t in [the] lesson plan” (Reflection #1). While
Eve stated that this additional awareness-raising activity was “one of the
most successful” (Reflection #1), it also took time from the session
that she had not planned for, which changed her session timing.
The final group—those who never progressed into communicative
activities—consisted of Amy, Ben, Faith, Mason, and Scarlett. Amy,
Ben, and Mason reported that they did not feel their learner was ready
for free activities, so instead focused on more controlled activities with
minimal guided activities per session. Amy and Mason’s justification
for this was straightforward, in that their learners claimed they did not
feel ready for communicative activities, as Amy states: “[The learner]
preferred working on his confidence in his production before attempt-
ing to speak communicatively” (SSI #1). This caused Amy and Mason
to rethink their activities throughout the project, instead relying more
on controlled and guided activities which met the learner’s goals.
Ben’s decision was made based on both his learner’s goals and his
own holistic assessment, in that “[the learner] needs more listening
practice . . . so we might need to do some more listening exercises;
that’s obviously the precursor to production” (SSI #1).
Faith cited a lack of confidence in conducting free activities in the
one-on-one setting, stating, “I didn’t know how to approach a conver-
sation [activity]. I think that’s one thing I could do more in a class:
you can pair them off, talk about something, record themselves, ask
each other questions” (SSI #2). She found it difficult to manage a con-
versation and listen for pronunciation errors simultaneously, some-
thing which Mia also noted: “I don’t think I’m that good of a listener.
So, my problem is, I’ll notice a[n error] and I’ll be like, ‘Oh I need to
noticed that’, but then like four words have passed” (SRI #2). This
suggests that Faith and Mia had difficulty in providing timely feedback
in free activities, particularly when the teacher has multiple roles to
perform. Additionally, Faith’s statement—that free activities would be
more suitable in a classroom setting—was noted by six student
teachers, as they believed providing timely feedback would be easier if
they were not an active participant in the conversation.
Finally, Scarlett claimed that her reason was “difficult[y coming] up
with activities where we could practice . . . without reading a dialogue”
(SSI #2). At the end of the project, she further elaborated that the
training course could include “some practice creating a communica-
tive activity and testing it out with classmates before . . . apply[ing] it

with a student” (Reflection #2). This final piece suggests that English
pronunciation pedagogy courses should not only explain and show
what a communicative activity is, but also provide a chance for crea-
tion and practice.
Trainees’ Cognitions, Professional Development, and

Teaching Practices
The second research question is best addressed by one belief that
arose from all data sources concerning the relationship between pro-
fessional development and teaching practices: the communicative
framework is best used as an ‘order of operations’. This belief was
mentioned by nine student teachers, and was neither entirely attached
to the course nor the tutoring project but was influenced by a combi-
nation of the two.
Although the framework outlines the five aspects (e.g., description,
listening discrimination, etc.) quite like a recipe for effective pronunci-
ation instruction, the primary instructor insisted multiple times
throughout the course that they did not have to be used as such. In
fact, the instructor explained how pronunciation teachers would often
jump around the different aspects depending on the learner’s needs,
which Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) also claim: “[W]e recognize that
learning is not a linear process and that teachers may opt to revisit cer-
tain . . . phases during the teaching process, as learner needs dictate”
(p. 45).
All ten student teachers noted the usefulness of the framework.
Without a framework, student teachers felt that they “would be pretty
lost,” as it gave them “a better idea of how [they] can move through
different types of activities" (Eve, SSI #1) and that it gave them a "way
to organize and balance" (Chloe, SSI #2) their teaching practices and
tutoring sessions. The student teachers also felt they had to progress
linearly through the framework, first describing the feature, then lis-
tening discrimination, controlled activities, guided activities, and
finally, free activities. The lesson plans provided by the student
teachers with their first reflection showed that nine student teachers
moved in a linear pattern. Only one participant, Chloe, deviated from
the linear progression throughout all four weeks of her tutoring. She
began each tutoring session with a short discussion activity aimed to
accomplish two goals: to get the student comfortable with talking, and
to identify errors in her learner’s spontaneous speech. She then con-
ducted her controlled and guided activities while making connections
back to the original discussion activity.

While following the communicative framework as a recipe is not
overly problematic, especially for novice English pronunciation instruc-
tors, this ordering was sometimes used as a reason for not progressing
into guided or free activities until a learner went through a gamut of
controlled practice. Such was the case with Ben in his first week, who
did “some description and analysis, and then some of the controlled
production . . . in the first session. We did very little guided activities,
no communicative. The first session started with more of a controlled
environment, see what [the learner] was capable of” (SSI #1). Eve con-
ducted her first session with a similar goal in mind:
I framed a lot of the activities as ways to prime her brain to be able to
hear differences in sounds before we try to perfect the way that she
actually says those sounds. (This is why the majority of my activities
were listening discrimination and controlled exercises. This was inten-
tional for our first week.) (Reflection #1)
One potential hurdle with the ‘order of operations’ approach is that
guided and free activities, per the framework, were usually presented
last by the student teachers. So, if a student teacher ran out of time,
these were the activities cut from the session, as seven student teachers
noted throughout the project.
Not only did we see this linear progression within each tutoring ses-
sion, but we also saw a similar pattern developing over all four weeks
of the project. That is, description of features, listening discrimination,
and controlled activities were focused upon more heavily in the begin-
ning weeks, while guided and communicative were given more focus
in the latter weeks. This suggests that the student teachers believed
that perception precedes production (as was seen in Ben’s and Eve’s
choices for first week activities), which is easily explained by the pri-
mary instructor stating that such was often the case during the course.
However, the student teachers noticed limited errors overall in their
learners’ perceptual abilities, as Amy noted: “Even though [the
learner] struggled to produce the /I/ sound, he was able to hear
when I said it correctly and incorrectly” (Reflection #1). This was most
likely the result of the learners’ proficiency in English, as these were
not beginner-level language learners. At the very least, they had
obtained a level of proficiency needed to pass an English proficiency
exam (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS) to enter a US university. Still, the
learner’s knowledge of English pronunciation (e.g., technical terminol-
ogy, description of phonological features) ‘shocked’ four student
teachers, as most were learning about these features for the first time.
As perceptual errors were limited, this caused the student teachers to
decrease the amount of time spent on perceptual activities, yet we see
they still included these activities throughout the four weeks.

DISCUSSION
This study sought to explore the cognitions of student teachers who

were tutoring a learner in English pronunciation as part of a pronun-
ciation pedagogy course. The first research question focused on the
development of their use of activities throughout the tutoring project,
finding that participants fell into one of three categories based on
their use of activities. The second research question focused on the
relationship between teacher cognition, professional development, and
teaching practices. The most prominent connection between these
three was the use of the communicative framework (Celce-Murcia
et al., 2010) as an ‘order of operations’. These findings showed that
the student teachers tended to focus more on listening discrimination
and controlled activities in the first week. This presented one cogni-
tion the student teachers held regarding activity choices, in that the
primary instructor asserted that perception precedes production (e.g.,
Bradlow, Pisoni, Yamada, & Tohkura, 1997), and controlled activities
can lead to positive learner gains in pronunciation (e.g., Derwing,
Munro, & Wiebe, 1998; Saito, 2007). The notable exception to this
pattern was Chloe, whose approach resembled Firth’s (1992, p. 173)
“zoom principle.” That is, she started with a big picture (i.e., a discus-
sion activity), and then ‘zoomed in’ on the learner’s errors.
Because these were novice pronunciation instructors, most of whom
were teaching for the first time, it is not surprising that they opted for con-
trolled activities. They are efficient to design and implement; that is, they
require minimal effort up-front. Communicative activities require a more
holistic approach and a keen ear to notice learner errors—a skill that
most language teachers develop over time. Still, some research suggests
that the use of controlled activities alone often produced lower gains in
spontaneous speech production than the use of both controlled and com-
municative activities (e.g., Elliott, 1997; Saito, 2012). Based on this find-
ing, we have two recommendations. The first recommendation is that
pronunciation pedagogy courses provide hands-on opportunities to
develop and test communicative activities. This could help novice English
language teachers to develop awareness skills for hearing pronunciation
errors in spontaneous speech. The second recommendation is for more
research focused on the impact of communicative activities on learner
gains, as this area is still somewhat limited in empirical studies. Addition-
ally, research focused on the sequencing of the communicative frame-
work and its impact on learner gains is needed. Celce-Murcia (1983)
argued that she “does not feel that [pronunciation] instruction should
begin with . . . [controlled] drills” (p. 20), yet there is little empirical evi-
dence to support any kind of sequencing in pronunciation instruction.

After the first week, we noticed a gradual increase in the number of
guided and communicative activities, as the student teachers gained a
better understanding of their learner’s errors. However, five student
teachers chose not to implement communicative activities for three
primary reasons: (1) the learner was not ready; (2) a lack of confi-
dence in the teacher; and (3) unable to design communicative activi-
ties for certain features. This finding is in line with Burri (2016) and
Buss (2017), who also found that controlled activities were favored
more than less-controlled activities. This, however, could be attribut-
able to the tutoring context, as six participants suggested communica-
tive activities would be more suitable for a classroom setting. While it
is reasonable to suggest that the experience led to an increased under-
standing of pronunciation instruction, it is not clear how transferrable
that understanding is to a classroom context. By understanding this
connection, we could better prepare field experiences for student
teachers in pronunciation pedagogy, as some studies have also used
tutoring contexts (e.g., Buss, 2017). Therefore, further research is
recommended to explore the relationship between one-on-one tutor-
ing and classroom teaching, specifically in the use of activity types.
Beyond the teaching context, there were three student teachers
who reported that their learner was not ready for communicative activ-
ities, which seemingly represents what Shulman (1987) referred to as
knowledge of the learner. While this knowledge base includes analyz-
ing and categorizing learner errors, it also includes an understanding
of the learner’s needs and goals, which affected some student
teachers’ decisions concerning activity use. This suggests that knowl-
edge of learner, at least to some degree, was a bridge between the
student teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowl-
edge, which others have also suggested (e.g., Johnston & Goettsch,
2000). This finding would support the notion that teacher training
programs should help student teachers to navigate pronunciation
instruction by adapting to their learners’ needs, but at the same
time, the training should also provide methods for co-constructing
goals with the learners. For example, Amy and Mason both had
learners who did not feel comfortable with producing spontaneous
speech until they had practiced their production skills. While not as
concerning in a four-week tutoring project, neither Amy nor Mason
noted that they tried to explain the importance of communicative
activities to their learners. By developing skills to co-construct goals
with the learners, this type of scenario may be avoided as the student
teacher is equipped to explain and justify the importance of less-
controlled activities while still taking into consideration the goals and
needs of the learner (Almarode & Vandas, 2018; Hattie & Donoghue,
2016).

CONCLUSION
Based on this study, the relationship between SLTC, SLTE, and L2

pronunciation instruction is a complex and ever-changing developmen-
tal process. The inclusion of classroom-based research into the relation-
ship certainly bolsters the importance of pronunciation training and
what should be included, especially in terms of pedagogical content
knowledge and knowledge of the learner (Shulman, 1987). It also dem-
onstrated the importance of hands-on professional development, as
some aspects of the theory-practice connection cannot be taught in a
course, such as the implementation of activities and confidence in one’s
own ability as a pronunciation teacher (Burri, Chen, et al., 2017). One
aspect, as Mia sums up, is developing an ability to adapt:
I am proud of how well I have adapted to my tutee and changed my
lesson styles based on what she did. I like to believe that I am adapt-
able and willing to change, but this experience proves it. I saw what
she did in lesson one and learned what I couldn’t do. I also had to
adapt to my tutee’s questions and come up with explanations or fur-
ther areas of study. (Reflection #2)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to John Levis, Charles Nagle,

Elena Cotos, Gulbahar Beckett, Volker Hegelheimer, and the anonymous
reviewers for their insightful feedback on earlier versions of this study. Addition-
ally, I am so very appreciative to the student teachers who participated in the
study. Without their dedication, this study would not have been possible.
THE AUTHOR
Tim Kochem is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa

State University. His research interests include L2 pronunciation pedagogy, lan-
guage teacher cognition, online language teacher education, technology-enhanced
language learning, and classroom-based research.
REFERENCES
Almarode, J., & Vandas, K. (2018). Clarity for learning: Five essential practices that
empower students and teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Baker, A. (2011). Pronunciation pedagogy: Second language teacher cognition and prac-
tice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, GA.
Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers’ knowledge of L2 pronunciation techniques:
Teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices and student perceptions.
TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 136–163.

Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teach-
ing. System, 27(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00047-5
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36(2),
81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Lon-
don: Continuum.
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. I. (1997). Train-
ing Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Some effects of percep-
tual learning on speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 101(4), 2299–2310. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418276
Breitkreutz, J., Derwing, T., & Rossiter, M. (2002). Pronunciation teaching prac-
tices in Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 19(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.18806/
tesl.v19i1.919
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language peda-
gogy (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Burns, A., & Knox, J. (2005). Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the
language classroom. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Researching applied linguistics in language
teacher education (Vol. 4, pp. 235–260). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1007/1-4020-2954-3_14
Burri, M. (2015a). “My perspective changed dramatically”: A case for preparing L2
instructors to teach pronunciation. English Australia Journal, 31(1), 19–37.
Burri, M. (2015b). Student teachers’ cognition about L2 pronunciation instruc-
tion: A case study. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(10), 66–87.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n10.5
Burri, M. (2016). “It’s been a real eye opener”: learning to teach English pronunciation
from a teacher cognition perspective. doctoral dissertation, University of Wollon-
gong, NSW.
Burri, M., & Baker, A. (2020). “A big influence on my teaching career and my
life”: A longitudinal study of learning to teach English pronunciation. TESL-EJ,
23(4), 1–24.
Burri, M., Baker, A., & Chen, H. (2017). “I feel like having a nervous breakdown”:
Pre-service and in-service teachers’ developing beliefs and knowledge about
pronunciation instruction. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 109–
135. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.3.1.05bur
Burri, M., Chen, H., & Baker, A. (2017). Joint development of teacher cognition
and identity through learning to teach L2 pronunciation. The Modern Language
Journal, 101(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12388
Buss, L. (2017). The role of training in shaping pre-service teacher cognition
related to L2 pronunciation. Ilha do Desterro, 70, 201–226.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1983). Teaching pronunciation communicatively. MEXTESOL
Journal, 7(1), 10–25.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., Goodwin, J., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunci-
ation: A course book and reference guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Couper, G. (2017). Teacher cognition of pronunciation teaching: Teachers’ concerns
and issues. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 820–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.354
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Derwing, T. (2010). Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. In J. Levis & K.
LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st pronunciation in second language learning and
teaching conference (pp. 24–37). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronuncia-
tion teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–397.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588486
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad
framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393–410.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00047
Echelberger, A., McCurdy, S. G., & Parrish, B. (2018). Using a study circle model
to improve teacher confidence and proficiency in delivering pronunciation
instruction in the classroom. CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 213–230.
Elliott, A. R. (1997). On the teaching and acquisition of pronunciation within a
communicative approach. Hispania, 80(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/
345983
El-Okda, M. (2005). EFL student teachers’ cognition about reading instruction.
The Reading Matrix, 5(2), 43–60.
Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGrawHill.
Firth, S. (1992). Pronunciation syllabus design: A question of focus. In P. Avery &
S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American-English pronunciation (pp. 173–183). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Foote, J. A., Holtby, A., & Derwing, T. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunci-
ation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1–
22. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v29i1.1086
Foote, J. A., Trofimovich, P., Collins, L., & Urz ua, F. (2016). Pronunciation teach-
ing practices in communicative second language classes. The Language Learning
Journal, 44(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.784345
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2016). Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Geisler, C. (2004). Analyzing streams of language: Twelve steps to the systematic coding of
text, talk, and other verbal data. New York: Pearson Education.
Gordon, J. (2019). The knowledge base of L2 pronunciation teaching: The case of
a nonnative-speaking teacher. TESL Canada Journal, 36(2), 2019, 91–117.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i2.1315
Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and con-
ceptual model. Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/
npjscilearn.2016.13
Henderson, A., Curnick, L., Frost, D., Kautzsch, A., Kirkova-Naskova, A., Levey, D.,
. . . Waniek-Klimczak, E. (2015). The English pronunciation teaching in
Europe survey: Factors inside and outside the classroom. In J. Mompean & J.
Fouz-Gonzalez (Eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Current trends and direc-
tions (pp. 260–291). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978113750
9437_12
Hismanoglu, M., & Hismanoglu, S. (2010). Language teachers’ preferences of pro-
nunciation teaching techniques: traditional or modern? Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 983–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.138
Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching
in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333–
340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1985.tb01811.x
Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language
teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 56(3), 437–468. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.3.437
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pro-
nunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–366.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu040

Levis, J., Link, S., Sonsaat, S., & Barriuso, T. (2016). Native and nonnative teachers
of L2 pronunciation: Effects on learner performance. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4),
894–931. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.272
Li, Y., & Zhang, G. (2016). Native or non-native-speaking teaching for L2 pronun-
ciation teaching?—An investigation on their teaching effect and students’ pref-
erences. English Language Teaching, 9(12), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.
v9n12p89
Mattheoudakis, M. (2007). Tracking changes in pre-service EFL teacher beliefs in
Greece: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1272–1288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.001
Mertens, D. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moodie, I. (2016). The anti-apprenticeship of observation: How negative prior lan-
guage learning experience influences English language teachers’ beliefs and
practices. System, 60, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.05.011
Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher training programs provide adequate preparation in
how to teach pronunciation. In L. Grant (Ed.), Pronunciation myths: Applying sec-
ond language research to classroom teaching (pp. 188–224). Ann Arbor, MI: The
University of Michigan Press.
Murphy, J. (2017). Teaching the pronunciation of English: Focus on whole courses. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020). NVivo (released in March 2020). https://www.
qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home
Saito, K. (2007). The influence of explicit phonetic instruction on pronunciation
in EFL settings: The case of English vowels and Japanese learners of English.
Linguistics Journal, 2(3), 16–40.
Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A syn-
thesis of 15 quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4),
842–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.67
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective
feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of
English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633.
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching
revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language
Learning, 69(3), 652–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12345
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Edu-
cational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
Van Beveren, L., Roets, G., Buysse, A., & Rutten, K. (2018). We all reflect, but
why? A systematic review of the purposes of reflection in higher education in
social and behavioral sciences. Educational Research Review, 24, 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.01.002
Yigitoglu, N., & Belcher, D. (2014). Exploring L2 writing teacher cognition from
an experiential perspective: The role learning to write may play in professional
beliefs and practices. System, 47, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.
2014.09.021

APPENDIX A
Sample Prompts for Oral and Written Reports
Sample Semi-Structured Interview Prompts:

1. What features are you working on with your learner?
2. What did you work on last time? How did that influence what
you worked on this time?
3. How well do you think your last session went?
4. What did you work on this week? What type of activities did
you use?
5. How well do you think it went? Why?
6. What will you work on next week?
7. How do you think the class is influencing your decisions in les-
son planning? In-the-moment teaching decisions?
8. How confident do you feel teaching pronunciation to your
learner?
9. What’s something that’s easier than you expected? Something
that’s harder?
10. Do you think your learner needs pronunciation training?
11. How are you going about materials development?
12. How do you know that your learner is understanding your
instruction?
Sample Stimulated Recall Prompts:
1. What were you thinking at this moment?
2. How do you feel about this activity? Do you think it’s working?
Sample Written Reflection Prompts:
1. Describe how your tutoring session went. Try to provide as
much detail as possible.
2. Reflect and evaluate your tutoring session. What was successful
and what was not successful? Why? What changes, if any, do you
think you will make for your second week? How do you think
your tutee responded to your instruction, and why?

APPENDIX B
Top-level Coding Scheme for Qualitative Analysis
Case Parent Codes

Actual Practice
(Beliefs) • Assessment of Pronunciation
• Importance of knowledge about pronunciation
• Prioritization of pronunciation features
• Pronunciation models
• Usefulness of materials or textbooks
• Impact of confidence
Actual Practice • General pedagogical knowledge
(Knowledge)
• Knowledge of learners
• Pedagogical content knowledge – pronunciation
• Pedagogical content knowledge – other skills
• Content knowledge
Self-Reported • Assessment of Pronunciation
(Beliefs)
• Importance of knowledge about pronunciation
• Prioritization of pronunciation features
• Pronunciation models
• Usefulness of materials or textbooks
• Impact of confidence
Self-Reported • General pedagogical knowledge
(Knowledge)
• Knowledge of learners
• Pedagogical content knowledge – pronunciation
• Pedagogical content knowledge – other skills
• Content knowledge
Development • Knowledge sharing with colleagues
of Cognitions
• Language learning experience
• Teacher training
• Teaching experience
• Reflection/Feedback

Kochem (2021) TESOL Quarterly Exploring The Connection Between Teacher Training and Teacher Cognitions Related To L2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kochem (2021) TESOL Quarterly Exploring The Connection Between Teacher Training and Teacher Cognitions Related To L2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15457249, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesq.3095 by Desi Arinda - <shibboleth>-member@monash.edu.au , Wiley Online Library on [11/03/2023].

E xceptional language teaching requires adequate content knowl-

Corresponding author. Email: tkochem@iastate.edu

1136 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 56, No. 4, December 2022

Second Language Teacher Cognition

In the current study, SLTC refers to the teacher’s understanding of

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1137

1138 TESOL QUARTERLY

While perhaps not as explored in relation to grammar, reading, or

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1139

Second Language Teacher Training in L2 Pronunciation

Little is known about the connection between SLTE and English

1140 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1141

1142 TESOL QUARTERLY

Ten student teachers in a graduate-level L2 pronunciation pedagogy

The graduate course’s purpose was to learn about second language

Speaker Years Teaching Language(s) Degree

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1143

Week Topic(s) Assignment(s)

and oral communication for over 30 years. He handled over 90% of

1144 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1145

The researcher’s role was multifaceted, as he had previously taken

Data Collection Instruments

Three instruments were used to collect data in this study: oral

Oral reports. Each student teacher engaged in two oral reports,

1146 TESOL QUARTERLY

Written reflections. It has been argued that reflective writing can

Tutoring observations. Actual observations of teaching practices are

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1147

1148 TESOL QUARTERLY

Cognitions about Techniques Used

To understand the student teachers’ cognitions about pronuncia-

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1149

Activity Brief description

1150 TESOL QUARTERLY

Activity Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1151

1152 TESOL QUARTERLY

Trainees’ Cognitions, Professional Development, and

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1153

1154 TESOL QUARTERLY

This study sought to explore the cognitions of student teachers who

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1155

1156 TESOL QUARTERLY

Based on this study, the relationship between SLTC, SLTE, and L2

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to John Levis, Charles Nagle,

Tim Kochem is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1157

1158 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1159

1160 TESOL QUARTERLY

Sample Semi-Structured Interview Prompts:

L2 PRONUNCIATION TRAINING AND TEACHING 1161

Case Parent Codes

1162 TESOL QUARTERLY

You might also like