View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

French Pronunciation Instruction Using the PACE Model

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: French Pronunciation Instruction Using the PACE Model
Language: English
Authors: Rose, Céline (ORCID 0000-0001-6568-1781), McBride, Adam F. (ORCID 0000-0002-0256-6636)
Source: Foreign Language Annals. Fall 2023 56(3):532-551.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: French, Pronunciation, Speech Instruction, Teaching Methods, Second Language Instruction, Language Teachers, Phonemes
DOI: 10.1111/flan.12711
ISSN: 0015-718X
1944-9720
Abstract: As an overwhelming amount of research has demonstrated that educator preparation programs do not adequately prepare instructors to teach pronunciation, this study aims to help teachers of foreign languages to implement and improve pronunciation instruction (PI) in their classroom by adapting PACE (Presentation, Attention, Co-construction, and Extension), the commonly used model for grammar instruction. The present study explores the efficacy of this model in improving learners' ability (1) to associate target phonemes with the appropriate phonological context and (2) to produce target phonemes distinctly in a spontaneous speech task. Data suggest that a modified PACE model for PI can be effective in both intermediate- and advanced-level courses. The possibility of adapting an existing and well-known method for teaching grammar would allow teachers to implement and/or improve their PI with minimal additional training.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1392184
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGpkrItemSjYzlSlIDcZ5NRAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCPbIf_4keBhiebZeQIBEICBmwMzSWnPC1ozYCytyAtu1ogc70_q8dOHx9xSTpGPioRUhWfzJ5BqSzwWOlZ_FQFzMQyWLzZDT8NAXqoa_LekdgAEI-6tIGapvku3eaqyKikC9d7SFxzoqYKX0xIjekqnmcOV4NGa4vE5b7b1sO6KPoSJVVruNaGE-Gr9RhNSQ-FXUy84D2APQGxlBa9MDlolS0GJbiV6CKqh3Xs3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0171902884;fla01sep.23;2023Sep14.07:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0171902884-1">French pronunciation instruction using the PACE model </title> <p>As an overwhelming amount of research has demonstrated that educator preparation programs do not adequately prepare instructors to teach pronunciation, this study aims to help teachers of foreign languages to implement and improve pronunciation instruction (PI) in their classroom by adapting PACE (Presentation, Attention, Co‐construction, and Extension), the commonly used model for grammar instruction. The present study explores the efficacy of this model in improving learners' ability (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) to associate target phonemes with the appropriate phonological context and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) to produce target phonemes distinctly in a spontaneous speech task. Data suggest that a modified PACE model for PI can be effective in both intermediate‐ and advanced‐level courses. The possibility of adapting an existing and well‐known method for teaching grammar would allow teachers to implement and/or improve their PI with minimal additional training.</p> <p>The Challenge: Both foreign language (FL) teachers and learners often want pronunciation to play a role in course curriculum. However, pronunciation instruction is rarely included in teacher preparation programs. How can current FL teachers learn how to teach pronunciation? Can PACE (Presentation, Attention, Co‐construction, and Extension), a model already used to teach grammar, be adapted to teach pronunciation?</p> <p>Keywords: all languages; curriculum and curriculum development; foreign/second language teacher preparation; in‐service and professional development; phonetics/phonology/pronunciation</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Pronunciation is an integral part of oral proficiency: the higher a speaker is on the ACTFL scale, the less pronunciation, along with grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, will detract listeners from the message being conveyed. Yet, pronunciation instruction (PI) in most foreign language (FL) classrooms is both infrequent and separate from the main curriculum (Foote et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]). This lack of emphasis for the learners is also accompanied with a lack of PI training in educator preparation programs (Huensch, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]). If the quasi‐absence of pronunciation teaching background impacts the saliency of PI in the classroom, adopting an accessible pedagogical model that many FL teachers are already familiar with for PI could increase its frequency and quality. In response to "the pronunciation teaching paradox," coined by Darcy ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>], p. 16), the current study investigates the efficacy of the PACE (Presentation, Attention, Co‐construction, and Extension) model—commonly used for grammar instruction—on French learners' ability to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>) associate two target vowels with their prescribed phonological context and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>) produce the two vowels distinctly in spontaneous speech.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-3">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171902884-4">Pedagogical approaches and efficacy of PI</hd> <p>The saliency of PI has evolved over time, with its prevalence during the days of audiolingualism and its marginalization accompanying the popularity of communicative teaching. The shift in the field of FL education away from the nativeness principle toward intelligibility—meaning "that listeners can understand the speaker's intended message" (Derwing & Munro, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>], p. 1)—has also caused a shift in the role of PI in the field: the aim of PI now consists of helping learners to produce intelligible and comprehensible speech, a goal that additionally supports them in moving along the oral proficiency scale (Martinsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref9">35</reflink>]) as they develop spontaneous pronunciation knowledge (Saito & Plonsky, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref10">48</reflink>]). While pronunciation is typically viewed as a means to an end (i.e., improved intelligibility and comprehensibility), and not an end in and of itself, the fact that it is still a key element to acquiring a FL leads educators at all levels to identify and adopt effective practices for PI.</p> <p>Improved pronunciation can be achieved through a variety of methods that have been well documented and researched in the last two decades. To name a few, some instructors describe pronunciation patterns in an explicit way (Kissling, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]) by discussing perception and/or articulation. Others teach their students to conduct speech analyses of their own production (Olson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref12">42</reflink>]) or make PI homework‐based so that students do not need teacher feedback or in‐class time to improve (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref13">33</reflink>]). Researchers also report adopting a reflective approach to focus the attention of students on their pronunciation after evaluating their own podcasting projects (Lord, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref14">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several meta‐analyses (e.g., Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref15">28</reflink>]; Saito, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref16">46</reflink>]) have attested that PI can indeed be effective. In fact, Saito and Plonsky ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref17">48</reflink>]) reached the conclusion that pronunciation is best taught through the explicit instruction of targeted features in controlled tasks, but deferred from making any conclusion regarding the effect of PI on spontaneous speech. They also observed the positive impact of noticing as a precursor for learning, one of the only theoretical bases to the different current pedagogical approaches to PI (Kennedy & Trofimovich, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-5">Teacher beliefs, practices, and training</hd> <p>Despite the research that has been done on novel methods for PI, other studies on the beliefs, practices, and training of teachers regarding pronunciation have indicated a persistent need for additional support. While most of these investigations have taken place in a second language context (e.g., Buss, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]; Foote et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]), recent studies have focused on FL teaching. Huensch ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]) surveyed almost 300 FL instructors of French, German, and Spanish and reported that 90% believed in the value of PI. Moreover, 89% thought that their students would benefit from PI. Similarly, Nagle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref22">39</reflink>]) surveyed 100 FL teachers of Spanish and showed that the majority of teachers believed that FL learners could modify their pronunciation. These two surveys also shed light on the limited pronunciation training background of current FL instructors: Nagle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref23">39</reflink>]) reported that only 50% of methods courses taken by the respondents included training on PI, and Huensch ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>]) found that only 13% of the instructors had taken a specific course on teaching pronunciation. Moreover, opportunities to learn about PI appear limited: 67% of teachers related that they wanted more training (Huensch, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>This specific drawback of FL teacher education affects the confidence of these instructors in their own ability to teach pronunciation but also their PI practices—or lack thereof—in the classroom: 82% of survey respondents reported allocating 15 min or less per week to PI (Huensch, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]). The relationship between training and practice has also been established by Nagle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref27">39</reflink>]), finding that the more training instructors had in pedagogy (as a whole or specific to pronunciation), the more likely they were to recognize the significance of pronunciation as a feature of successful communication and also to value PI in the classroom.</p> <p>Foote et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]) investigated the teaching of pronunciation further by documenting its instruction through 40 hours of classroom observations. The analysis of teacher talk showed that on average, 1.7% of the teachers' input to their students was related to pronunciation. The study also showed that the focus on pronunciation was reactive to the learners' output rather than preplanned, a practice also noticed by Huensch ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]) in introductory French and Spanish university courses taught by graduate teaching assistants.</p> <p>Even if many of the most commonly used French FL textbooks (e.g., Giachetti & Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>]; Manley et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>]; Mitchell & Tano, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref33">37</reflink>]; Valdman et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref34">54</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref35">58</reflink>]) include PI in some form—typically in small modules that present the target sounds in contrast and separately from the surrounding material—teachers may not feel they have the training to adapt these modules to a more communicative or pedagogically‐effective delivery, to say nothing of creating their own activities when their textbook has no pronunciation material at all, which is often the case with higher‐level textbooks (e.g., Ollivier & Beaudoin, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although many FL textbooks contain PI instruction in some form, Huensch's ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]) survey found that the majority of the nearly 300 participating FL instructors either didn't use pronunciation‐focused activities in their textbook or didn't have a textbook with any such activities. Additionally, only 27% of the instructors reported using outside materials to supplement instruction. Given the fact that "66% of instructors indicated that pronunciation was part of a major assessment in their classes (78% French, 75% German, and 51% Spanish)" (p. 755), it is curious and remains unclear why those instructors who use textbooks with pronunciation modules would elect to exclude them from their instruction. While Huensch didn't provide a direct answer, she did briefly discuss "novice instructors" (p. 758) and their tendencies to teach simply what is prescribed by their textbooks and/or supervisors. Indeed, Darcy ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>], p. 20) suggested that PI is often omitted from the FL curriculum due to a lack of time, which in turn may be aggravated by the "lack of training and adequate materials, as well as the fact that pronunciation is often taught separately from other language areas such as grammar or vocabulary."</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-6">Pronunciation and PACE</hd> <p>Despite its efficacy and relative salience for successful communication, PI is not as common as it could be in FL classrooms nowadays. Promoting PI is, however, possible through the implementation of a focus‐on‐form pedagogical model for grammar instruction that many FL teachers already know: the PACE model (Adair‐Hauck & Donato, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>]). This familiar[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>] approach is divided into four phases. The PACE lesson starts with the Presentation of an authentic story with many occurrences of the target form. Then, the Attention phase directs the focus of the learners on noticing the form in question. The teacher and learners later Co‐construct the structure, meaning, and function of the form through dialogic interactions within the learners' zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref41">56</reflink>]). Finally, the Extension phase allows the learners to use the form in a meaningful way in open‐ended activities. Glisan and Donato ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]) argued that implementing the PACE model is advantageous for three reasons: it increases the use of the target language, fosters a discourse community, and cultivates the discussion of texts.</p> <p>PACE relies on the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref43">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref44">50</reflink>]), which establishes the necessity of noticing or becoming aware of a language form before acquiring it. Saito and Plonsky ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref45">48</reflink>]) actually referred specifically to the importance of noticing in their study on pronunciation acquisition. In fact, the first step of Yates and Zielinski's ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref46">59</reflink>]) systematic approach to PI model is Listening and Awareness. This step, which focuses on listening and drawing attention to the target pronunciation feature, as well as discussing its qualities and differences with regard to learners' L1, corresponds roughly to the first three steps of PACE: Presentation, Attention, and Co‐construction. The final phase of Yates and Zielinski's model is somewhat similar to that of the PACE model, in that it ends with an Extension step, which is described as an application of this new learning to contexts both in and out of the classroom. The two intermediate steps of Yates and Zielinski's model (i.e., Control and Practice) are both absent from the traditional PACE model. These introduce activities that allow learners to verify their understanding in limited contexts.</p> <p>Although the term PACE is not referenced, Violin‐Wigent et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref47">55</reflink>]) designed a similar, inductive approach in their advanced‐level French pronunciation and phonetics textbook <emph>Sons et sens</emph>. Learners are introduced to the different sounds through an oral text followed by comprehension questions about the information of the text and another series of questions focused on specific sounds. Then, a series of activities targets the correspondences between letters and sounds, pronunciation, and transcription.</p> <p>González‐Bueno ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref49">19</reflink>]) interestingly adapted PACE for PI and added structured practice activities, inspired by Processing Instruction, in her S‐PACE model, which are similar to the Control and Practice steps in Yates and Zielinski's model. The Structure element in this model is introduced between Co‐construction and Extension activities, and is composed of both input and output exercises.</p> <p>Adapting PACE for PI is promising because it would allow FL teachers to use an already familiar model to harness some of the benefits of both Yates and Zielinski's Systematic Approach to Pronunciation Instruction and González‐Bueno's S‐PACE hybrid model. To the best of our knowledge, González‐Bueno ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>]) described the S‐PACE technique in great detail, but did not publish actual data regarding its efficacy. The current study sheds light on the impact of the PACE model adapted to teach pronunciation.</p> <p>The research questions are as follows:</p> <p> <emph>RQ1: Is PACE PI effective in improving learners' ability to associate target phonemes with the appropriate phonological context?</emph> </p> <p> <emph>RQ2: Is PACE PI effective in improving learners' ability to produce target phonemes distinctly in a spontaneous speech task?</emph> </p> <p>The purpose of this study is not to establish the PACE model as the most effective way to teach pronunciation, but rather to explore the effect of using this accessible method on pronunciation. We do not operationalize this improvement as an increase in intelligibility and/or comprehensibility, but as a clearer understanding of the phonological distribution of the target phonemes (RQ1), and as a more marked distinction in their acoustic production (RQ2). If the PACE model does prove to be effective in these regards, it is our hope that FL educator programs that already include the PACE model in their curriculum will also be able to teach that the model can be adapted for PI, which could then increase FL teachers' confidence to teach pronunciation to their students.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-7">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p>To test the two research questions, we analyzed the implementation of an expanded PACE model to teach the pronunciation of the front, unrounded phoneme pair /e/ and /ɛ/ in two French language courses at a university in the United States.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-8">Target sounds: The French vowels /e/ and /ɛ/</hd> <p>The present study focused on PI for the close‐mid vowel /e/ and the open‐mid vowel /ɛ/ in French. While actual production of these vowels by native speakers of Northern Metropolitan French may vary from the traditionally prescribed norm (Hansen & Juillard, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref52">21</reflink>]), the idealized, so‐called Standard French was selected as the target variety as it is so frequently taught in the L2 classroom (Lyche, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref53">31</reflink>])—for better or worse (Chapelle, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Even though some of the mid‐vowels of Standard French (i.e., /e,ɛ/ and /o,ɔ/) exist to a certain extent in American English (Wells, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref55">57</reflink>]), acquiring these pairs in French can be difficult. Indeed, pronunciation, perception, and—perhaps, above all—an understanding of the distribution of these vowel pairs in any language are often a challenge for second‐language (L2) learners to develop, whether or not the vowels exist in the learners' native language—or L1 (Gottfried, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref56">20</reflink>]; Kendall, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref57">25</reflink>]; Strange, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>]). For example, the mid‐close vowel /e/ prescriptively does not occur in closed syllables in French (those ending with a pronounced consonant), but it can occur—though typically diphthongized—in closed syllables in American English; the vowel /ε/ is shared between the languages, but its distribution and pronunciation differ.</p> <p>Traditionally the primary articulatory difference between the vowels of a given mid‐vowel pair is one of aperture. For example, the front, unrounded, open‐mid vowel /ɛ/ is articulated with greater distance between the tongue and the palate than one finds with the close‐mid /e/. There is also typically a difference in vowel frontness, where /e/ is produced more forward in the mouth than /ɛ/. By comparing the relative differences in vowel aperture and frontness, one can distinguish a close‐mid vowel from its open‐mid counterpart.</p> <p>Beyond their articulatory differences, the vowels /e/ and /ɛ/ also contrast in the phonological environments in which they are typically produced. According to the <emph>loi de position</emph> "law of position" (Morin, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref59">38</reflink>]), the close‐mid vowel /e/ is produced almost exclusively in open syllables (i.e., ending with a pronounced vowel), and the open‐mid vowel /ɛ/ is usually—but not always—produced in closed syllables (i.e., ending with a pronounced consonant). Orthographic representations for these vowels are often distinct, however, certain orthographic sequences don't always clearly represent one vowel or another.</p> <p>This vowel pair was selected as a target for instruction and subsequent investigation primarily for two reasons. First, it had been a component of the curriculum for an advanced French language course at the researchers' institution (see Section 3.2, below). Second, these two vowels are commonly included in first‐ and second‐year French textbooks as pronunciation notes/modules (if pronunciation is indeed treated), where they are predominantly presented as a contrast (e.g., <emph>Chez Nous</emph>, <emph>Défi Francophone, Encore</emph>, <emph>Espaces</emph>, <emph>Horizons</emph>, <emph>Portails</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-9">Participants</hd> <p>As previous research agrees that pronunciation should be integrated in the curriculum at every level of instruction (Derwing & Munro, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>]), participants included students enrolled in one of two French language courses (titled internally "Intermediate French" and "Advanced French Part II") at an American university. Learners from two sections of each course participated; each section was taught by a different instructor (cf. Table 1). As data analyzed in the present study (see Section 3.4, below) were initially gathered for an internal curriculum assessment for the host department, metadata about the individual students is extremely limited; however, it can be said anecdotally that many students—especially in the advanced‐level course—had spent considerable time abroad (>12 months) in one of several French‐speaking countries as part of voluntary service missions. Additionally, it should be stated that the course names (i.e., "Intermediate French" and "Advanced French Part II") do not indicate that all students enrolled in each course had achieved that level of proficiency on the ACTFL scale. However, the intermediate‐level course targets the intermediate‐ to advanced‐level functions, and the advanced‐level course targets both ACTFL advanced‐ and superior‐level functions. As the advanced‐level course is one of the first steps into the French major and minor, many of the students enrolled in this course had declared or had the intention to declare study in one of these programs.</p> <p>1 Table Distribution of participants in each section and course.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Course‐Section</th><th>Enrolled males</th><th align="left">Enrolled females</th><th align="left">Total quizzes</th><th align="left">Total oral</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Intermediate‐Section 1 (Int‐1)</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td>13</td><td>12</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate‐Section 2 (Int‐2)</td><td align="left">‐</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate‐Total</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td>24</td><td>22</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced‐Section 1 (Adv‐1)</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced‐Section 2 (Adv‐2)</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td><td>4</td><td>14</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced‐Total</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td><td>14</td><td>34</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>All participants</td><td align="char" char=".">21</td><td>38</td><td>56</td><td>51</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Due to the fact that instruction and both pre‐ and post‐instruction tasks were part of the coursework in these classes, there were some enrolled students who did not complete every task. As a consequence, 56 of the 59 enrolled students in all sections and levels completed both pre‐ and post‐instruction written assessment, and 51 of the 59 students provided usable data from both pre‐ and post‐instruction speaking tasks, as can be seen in Table 1.</p> <p>The researchers of the present study, both assistant professors of French, respectively of linguistics and pedagogy, were the two advanced‐level course instructors. One of the researchers was the intermediate‐level course supervisor. The intermediate‐section instructors were two undergraduate students majoring in French at the top of their class. Their exceptional proficiency (language skills are assessed by multiple French‐language faculty members as part of the hiring process, and proficiency can anecdotally be said to correspond to advanced‐mid to superior on the ACTFL scale) and considerable experience in France qualified them to teach the course. The instructor of the first section of the intermediate‐level course (Int‐1) had no previous teaching experience. The instructor of Int‐2 had already taught the course the previous semester and had also taken the semester‐long methodology class offered by the department.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-10">Instruction</hd> <p>The PACE PI was similar in all sections and supported by a common handout and PowerPoint presentation. For the first phase of PACE (Presentation), the students viewed slides which displayed a semi‐authentic, paragraph‐long text, with a recording of the paragraph read by a native speaker. The passage contained enough occurrences of the target vowels for the Co‐construction phase. The second slide listed several comprehension questions for the learners to answer to focus on meaning before form.</p> <p>Students were then led to the second phase (Attention) by noticing the two target vowels, one at a time: The third slide presented the text and instructed learners to identify all the words (<emph>n</emph> = 25) that share the sound /e/ that is found in the given keyword <emph>et</emph> /e/ [and], a salient word that all learners were familiar with. Similarly, the fourth slide instructed the learners to identify the words with the sound /ɛ/ (<emph>n</emph> = 20), as in the given keyword <emph>après</emph> /apʀɛ/ [after]. These two IPA symbols were included because previous research has shown that even beginner‐level students can learn pronunciation‐related metalinguistic vocabulary (Zielinski & Yates, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref61">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Co‐construction phase started on the next slide, with the text presented one more time with all the words containing the target vowels color‐coded. The phonemic symbols and keywords were also color‐coded on the side, along with the new instruction to discover the pronunciation rules. The instructors and their classes then engaged in a dialogic interaction with the purpose to establish the phonological environment for each vowel. This process was supported with a student handout (see Appendix A) with the text and a table with two columns for the learners to write down the phonological environment for each target sound.</p> <p>Unlike in Adair‐Hauck and Donato's PACE model (2002), where the Extension phase immediately follows Co‐creation of the grammar, we inserted two structured activities–similar to González‐Bueno's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref62">19</reflink>]) S‐PACE technique—to give learners an opportunity to practice the new contrast in a structured way. These activities consisted of a minimal pair production activity and a vowel identification activity with an analysis of the phonological environment of the target sounds in sentences followed by an out‐loud reading. These two activities were on a physical handout to allow the learners to take notes, if needed. Because of the time constraints of a single class period, the formal Extension activity did not take place in class but was included in the assessment tasks that were assigned as homework (see Section 3.4 below). The duration of the in‐class instruction and activities was approximately 30 minutes.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-11">Tasks and analytical methods</hd> <p>Learners were asked to complete two different forms of assessment both before and after instruction: a written task targeting their understanding of the phonological distribution of the target phonemes and a recorded speaking task. While some studies on PI focus primarily on articulation or self‐assessing reflection (see research cited above), we elected to focus on both the learners' ability to articulate these vowels distinctly, as well as their understanding of the conventional phonological environments of each vowel, which has rarely been investigated (Derwing & Munro, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref63">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The timeline for pre‐ and post‐instruction assessments is outlined in Table 2.</p> <p>2 Table Timeline for assessment and instruction.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Week A</td><td>• Pre‐instruction oral assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Week B</td><td>• Pre‐instruction written assessment• Instruction• Post‐instruction written assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Week C</td><td>• Post‐instruction speaking assessment</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171902884-12">Written task</hd> <p>The written task, designed to answer the first research question, involved an assessment of learners' ability to identify in an authentic written text (i.e., Bougary, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>]) 10 orthographic sequences that prescriptively represent /e/ and nine orthographic sequences that prescriptively represent /ɛ/. This text‐based task was not intended to evaluate learners' pronunciation—Buck ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>]) demonstrated such tasks to be poor reflections of actual pronunciation—but to assess their understanding of the general environments in which each phonemically contrastive vowel is appropriate (as in Violin‐Wigent et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref66">55</reflink>]) <emph>Sons et sens</emph>). This exercise, which was part of the focus of the aforementioned departmental curriculum assessment for the advanced‐level course, was commonly included in course curriculum.</p> <p>A score out of 19 on the written assessment indicates how many of the possible target vowels were correctly identified. To answer RQ1, pre‐instruction results were paired against post‐instruction results in a series of two‐tailed <emph>t</emph>‐tests, which compared results within each section and course.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-13">Speaking task</hd> <p>The second task—associated with RQ2—was an open‐response speaking prompt that served as the Extension step of (S‐)PACE instruction. The prompt asked students to describe a memorable trip they had taken, which targeted spontaneous past narration. This particular function—and the associated verb tenses—is covered in the curriculum of both course levels, enabling all students to complete the task. Because of the high frequency of /e/ and /ɛ/ in the French language (e.g., common in both grammatical and lexical morphemes, such as determiners, past participles, nouns, and adjectives) we did not anticipate that a given prompt appropriate for these levels would significantly impact the number of tokens of each vowel more than another prompt. This task was completed in a testing lab on campus that is regularly used for computer‐facilitated language exams and assignments. While this delivery method does not model a typical or natural speaking environment, it was a format that many students were familiar with from previous courses. Token counts for each course level and assessment can be found in Table 3.</p> <p>3 Table Pre‐ and post‐instruction token counts from speaking task responses for each course level.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Course level</th><th align="left">Mean number of /e/ tokens (standard deviation)</th><th align="left">Mean number of /ɛ/ tokens (standard deviation)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>Pre: μ = 26.6 (σ = 15.7)</td><td>Pre: μ = 15.9 (σ = 12.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Post: μ = 25 (σ = 9)</td><td>Post: μ = 13.6 (σ = 8.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced</td><td>Pre: μ = 30.8 (σ = 12.3)</td><td>Pre: μ = 21.8 (σ = 11)</td></tr><tr><td>Post: μ = 39.6 (σ = 18.4)</td><td>Post: μ = 24.3 (σ = 15.3)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Using the acoustic analysis software Praat (Boersma & Weenink, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>]), target vowels from both pre‐ and post‐instruction audio were identified and annotated on a TextGrid for each speaker. To determine the mean values of the first two vowel frequency formants (i.e., F1 and F2)—which reflect relative vowel aperture and vowel frontness, respectively (see Section 3.1, above)—a Praat script (freely available from the IRIS Database; iris-database.org) was used to extract F1 and F2 at five equidistant points across the vowel after first adjusting formant settings within Praat to ensure that the detected formants corresponded to formants displayed in the vowel spectra. Using RStudio (RStudio Team, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref68">45</reflink>]), a Hotelling's <emph>T</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> test (Hotelling, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref69">22</reflink>]) in R package "Hotelling" (Campbell & Curran, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]; Curran & Hersh, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>]; R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref72">44</reflink>]) was applied to each learners preinstruction speech data to determine whether the mean difference between the tokens of their /e/ vowels and their /ɛ/ vowels was statistically significant with regard to the dependent variables (i.e., F1 and F2 measures). A resulting <emph>p</emph>‐value of <0.05 suggests that the two vowels are produced distinctly from one another according to the given metrics (i.e., F1 and F2). This same process was performed on all post‐instruction speech. To answer RQ2, pre‐ and post‐instruction results for each individual learner were compared to see if performance changed after instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-14">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171902884-15">Written assessment results</hd> <p>We now turn to the analysis of the pre‐ and post‐instruction written assessments to determine the impact of instruction on the learners' ability to identify the two vowels. Table 4 presents the mean (and standard deviation) of the pre‐, post‐tests, and improvement for each course level and each section within the levels. As described in the previous section, a total of 56 participants completed both written assessments (22 intermediate, 34 advanced), evaluated on a scale of 19 points.</p> <p>4 Table Written assessment scores.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Course/Section</th><th>Mean pre‐test (st. dev)</th><th>Mean post‐test (st. dev)</th><th>Mean delta (st. dev delta)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Int‐1</td><td align="left">10.58 (2.74)</td><td align="left">14.75 (1.65)</td><td align="left">4.17</td></tr><tr><td>Int‐2</td><td align="left">8.8 (2.89)</td><td align="left">12.9 (2.80)</td><td align="left">4.1</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate‐Section Differences</td><td align="left">1.78</td><td align="left">1.85</td><td align="left">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate‐Total</td><td align="left">9.77 (2.89)</td><td align="left">13.91 (2.39)</td><td align="left">4.14 (0.51)</td></tr><tr><td>Adv‐1</td><td align="left">9.1 (4.04)</td><td align="left">13.65 (2.72)</td><td align="left">4.55</td></tr><tr><td>Adv‐2</td><td align="left">11.5 (2.92)</td><td align="left">16.71 (1.07)</td><td align="left">5.21</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced‐Section Differences</td><td align="left">2.4</td><td align="left">3.06</td><td align="left">0.66</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced‐Total</td><td align="left">10.14 (3.79)</td><td align="left">14.91 (2.65)</td><td align="left">4.76 (1.14)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Each section, regardless of the level, progressed on the post‐assessment in terms of mean scores. At the intermediate level, the two sections scored almost two points apart on average on the pretest (Int‐1: <emph>μ</emph> = 10.58; Int‐2: <emph>μ</emph> = 8.8). However, the mean score improvement was essentially the same in the two classes (<emph>μ</emph> = 4.17 for Int‐1; <emph>μ</emph> = 4.1 for Int‐2), for an average improvement of 4.14 points, or 21.78%. A <emph>t</emph>‐test showed that students in the intermediate classes significantly increased their score on the written assessment after PI (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>] = 6.28, <emph>p</emph> < .001, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> for effect size [ES] <emph>d</emph> = 1.56). According to Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref74">9</reflink>]), <emph>d</emph> = 1.56 (from the above <emph>t</emph>‐test) indicates that roughly 72.14% of scores from the pre‐instruction written assessment did not overlap with scores from post‐instruction written assessment, which suggests a large ES. However, Cohen also recommended that the specific <emph>d</emph>‐values used to interpret ES be selected according to what previous work in the field has established as meaningful. For L2 research, Plonsky and Oswald ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref75">43</reflink>], p. 889) "urge L2 researchers to adopt the new field‐specific benchmarks of small (<emph>d</emph> = 0.40), medium (<emph>d</emph> = 0.70), and large (<emph>d</emph> = 1.00)," which benchmarks we adopt here.</p> <p>At the advanced level, the two sections also scored about two points apart on average (Adv‐1: <emph>μ</emph> = 9.1, <emph>d</emph> = 1.32; Adv‐2: <emph>μ</emph> = 11.5, <emph>d</emph> = 2.37) on the pre‐instruction assessment. However, Adv‐2, which scored higher on the pre‐test as a whole, improved its mean average more than Adv‐1 did (Δ = 4.55 points for Adv‐1; Δ = 5.21 for Adv‐2). The average score improvement for the two sections was 4.76, or 25.05%. A <emph>t</emph>‐test indicated that the score improvement of the advanced‐level learners was statistically significant (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref76">33</reflink>] = 10.3, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>d</emph> = 1.46). Again, Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref77">9</reflink>], p. 22) suggests <emph>d</emph> = 1.46 to indicate that 69.66% of scores from the pre‐instruction written assessment do not overlap with scores from the post‐instruction written assessment.</p> <p>Figure 1 illustrates the individual pre‐ and post‐test scores for each level of instruction. The placement of the boxplots shows the improvement of the participants for both levels (<emph>μ</emph> = 4.45, 23.42%), but most importantly illuminates the distribution of the scores for each level. As shown by the decrease in the standard deviations from the pre‐ to the post‐tests, PI reduced the differences between the learners in terms of their ability to correctly identify the two vowels.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/FLA/01sep23/flan12711-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="flan12711-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Boxplot + dotplot of test scores by test type (pre‐ or post‐) and course level." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The advanced‐level learners not only generally scored higher than the intermediate‐level learners on the pre‐test but also demonstrated greater improvement on the post‐test. On average, the advanced‐level learners scored one point higher than the intermediate‐level learners on the post‐test (Δ = 4.14 for intermediate, Δ = 4.76 for advanced). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the intermediate‐level learners scored about three points higher on their post‐test compared to the advanced‐level learners on their pre‐test.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-17">Oral assessment results</hd> <p>Hotelling's <emph>T</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> test results for the 22 learners in the intermediate‐level course who completed all speaking tasks are presented in Table 5. Learners' performance on pre‐instruction speech is organized in columns (either significant or non‐significant results), and post‐instruction speech is organized in rows (either significant or non‐significant results). For example, the speech samples of three (30%) of the learners from Int‐2 (Section 2 of the intermediate‐level course) did not demonstrate a distinction between the vowels /e/ and /ɛ/—with regard to F1 and F2 values—on the pre‐instruction task, but do so on the post‐instruction task, suggesting measured improvement (cf. the upper‐right quadrant of Table 5). Ten learners (45.45% enrolled in the course) produced the vowels /e/ and /ɛ/ distinctly from one another on both pre‐ and post‐instruction tasks (cf. upper‐left quadrant). Results for four students—two in each section—failed to yield significant results on both pre‐ and post‐instruction tasks (cf. lower‐right quadrant), and tests for the five remaining students—of which four were in Int‐1—yielded significant results for pre‐instruction speech, but non‐significant results for post‐instruction speech (cf. lower‐left quadrant). Data from these two latter groups merit further investigation (see Section 5.5, below), as the five (22.73%) who seemingly regressed outnumber the three (13.64%) who seemed to improve. We elected to calculate the Mahalanobis <emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> measure (<emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups>) for each learner's <emph>T</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> results as it "is commonly reported as a multivariate ES measure" (Schumacker, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref78">52</reflink>], p. 53). Stevens ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref79">53</reflink>], pp. 202–203) gave the following guidelines for interpreting <emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> for ES: <emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.25, small; <emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.5, medium; <emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = > 1, large. Although Stevens note that "small and medium ES are very common in social science research" (p. 202), <emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> measures from the intermediate‐level data indicated primarily a large multivariate ES for both pre‐instruction speech (<emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.16–4.57, <emph>μ</emph> = 1.65) and post‐instruction speech (<emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.13–7.36, <emph>μ</emph> = 1.77).</p> <p>5 Table Distribution of significant and non‐significant Hotelling's T2 results by speech sample (i.e., pre‐ or post‐instruction) and section number for learners in the intermediate‐level course.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th /><th align="left">Pre‐instruction Speech</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th /><th>Significant result on T<sup>2</sup> test</th><th>Non‐significant result on T<sup>2</sup> test</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Post‐instruction speech</td><td>Significant result on T<sup>2</sup> test</td><td>Int‐1: 6 (50%)Int‐2: 4 (40%)Int‐total: 10 (45.45%)</td><td>Int‐1: 0 (0%)Int‐2: 3 (30%)Int‐total: 3 (13.63%)</td></tr><tr><td>Non‐significant result on T<sup>2</sup> test</td><td>Int‐1: 4 (33.33%)Int‐2: 1 (10%)Int‐total: 5 (22.72%)</td><td>Int‐1: 2 (16.67%)Int‐2: 2 (20%)Int‐total: 4 (18.18%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Hotelling's <emph>T</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> test results for learners in the advanced‐level course are presented in Table 6, which is organized in a fashion similar to Table 5. Four of the 29 speakers enrolled in this course who completed all speaking tasks went from non‐significant results on pre‐instruction data to significant results in post‐instruction, which suggests improvement (cf. upper‐right quadrant). A surprising 23 (or 79.31%) of them seem to have distinctly produced the vowels /e/ and /ɛ/ on both pre‐ and post‐instruction tasks (cf. upper‐left quadrant of Table 6). None produced the target vowels in such a way so as to yield non‐significant <emph>T</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> results on both pre‐ and post‐instruction data (cf. lower‐right quadrant). Curiously, the speech of two learners (both in Adv‐1) reached significance on pre‐instruction tests, but failed to reach significance on post‐instruction tests (cf. lower‐left quadrant). Adding the four learners who seem to have improved to the 23 who tested at ceiling—with regard to the metrics presently used—and taking into account the two who seemingly regressed, the total number of advanced‐level students whose speech yielded significant results on pre‐instruction tests increased from 25 (86.21%) to 27 (93.1%) on post‐instruction tests. However, as was seen among learners in the intermediate‐level, the speech of the two who seemingly regressed merits a closer look (see Section 5.2, below). Mahalanobis <emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> measures from the advanced‐level data suggest primarily large multivariate ES for both pre‐instruction speech (<emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.01 to 7.79, <emph>μ</emph> = 2.25) and post‐instruction speech (<emph>D</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.47–4.66, <emph>μ</emph> = 1.87).</p> <p>6 Table Distribution of significant and non‐significant Hotelling's T2 results by speech sample (i.e., pre‐ or post‐instruction) and section number for learners in the advanced‐level course.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th /><th align="left">Pre‐instruction Speech</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th /><th>Significant result on T<sup>2</sup> test</th><th>Non‐significant result on T<sup>2</sup> test</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Post‐instruction speech</td><td>Significant result on T<sup>2</sup> test</td><td>Adv‐1: 12 (75%)Adv‐2: 11 (84.62%)Adv‐total: 23 (79.31%)</td><td>Adv‐1: 2 (12.5%)Adv‐2: 2 (15.38%)Adv‐total: 4 (13.79%)</td></tr><tr><td>Non‐significant result on T<sup>2</sup> test</td><td>Adv‐1: 2 (12.5%)Adv‐2: 0 (0%)Adv‐total: 2 (6.89%)</td><td>Adv‐1: 0 (0%)Adv‐2: 0 (0%)Adv‐total: 0 (0%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171902884-18">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This research was motivated by the concept of "the pronunciation teaching paradox" (Darcy, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>], p. 16): the paucity of PI training for FL teachers (e.g., Huensch, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]) and the lack of focus on pronunciation in the classroom (e.g., Foote et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref82">13</reflink>]) are accompanied with a recognition that pronunciation is essential by both teachers and students, regardless of their proficiency level (Levis, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref83">29</reflink>]; Zielinski & Yates, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref84">60</reflink>]). Furthermore, as explored in Section 2.2, textbooks cannot be the sole source of support for instructors. The motivation to adapt the PACE model to teach pronunciation came from the desire to make PI more accessible for teachers. This section discusses results for both written and oral assessment, presents pedagogical implications, and describes limitations and relevant future work.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-19">Interpreting written assessment results</hd> <p>Data from the written assessments demonstrate that PACE PI was effective in improving the learners' ability to associate target phonemes with the prescribed phonological context for both levels of instruction. The advanced‐level learners generally showed more improvement on the post‐assessment and, on average, scored higher than intermediate‐level students, hinting that the instruction might have been more effective at the upper level. Pedagogical implications of these results are discussed briefly in Section 5.4.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-20">Interpreting oral assessment results</hd> <p>As presented in Section 4.2, the speech of 10 intermediate‐level learners yielded significant results in both the pre‐ and post‐instruction speaking tasks, and three learners showed marked improvement from pre‐ to post‐instruction performance. The four learners who showed no evidence of improvement nor of regression from pre‐ to post‐instruction do seem to have improved somewhat with regard to the frontness distinction between the target vowels. Three of the four had been producing the open‐mid /ɛ/ more forward in the vowel space in pre‐instruction speech than the close‐mid /e/, which is opposite to the conventional, expected articulation where /e/ is more fronted than /ɛ/. The fourth had been producing the correct frontness articulation in pre‐instruction speech, but only weakly. All four improved in post‐instruction speech by increasing the relative front‐back distance between the vowels by a mean relative frequency of up to 286 Hz. However, the lack of change in weak or incorrect vowel aperture seems to have kept the <emph>T</emph><sups>2</sups> results from reaching significance. So distinction in articulation seems to have increased, but not as much as in the speech of other learners.</p> <p>Results from the five intermediate‐level learners who seemingly regressed from pre‐ to post‐instruction speech are more opaque. One Int‐2 learner seems to have improved vowel aperture (again, switching incorrect directionality on the openness axis of the vowels), but regressed somewhat in frontness distinction. The other four learners in this group produced the target vowels with weaker distinction in both F1 and F2 measures from pre‐ to post‐instruction speech. The fact that these four learners who regressed so similarly were all in Int‐1 and comprised one‐third of the Int‐1 learners for whom we have data may suggest a negative instructor effect.</p> <p>As for the 29 learners in the advanced‐level course, results from four of them showed significant improvement from pre‐ to post‐instruction, and results from 23 learners revealed significant distinction of the two target vowels at both stages of performance. As was the case for some of the learners in the intermediate‐level course, data reveal evidence that one of the two speakers in the advanced‐level course who seemingly regressed may have been on a path to improvement. While /e/ and /ɛ/were produced distinctly in pre‐instruction speech, mean F1 values indicate that the close‐mid vowel /e/ was being regularly produced in a manner more open than the open‐mid vowel /ɛ/. The delta between the F1 means for /e/ and /ɛ/ in her post‐instruction speech was not dramatic enough to yield a significant result on the <emph>T</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> test, but it had shifted by a considerable 73 Hz in the right direction, making the close‐mid /e/ more closed on average than the open‐mid /ɛ/ in post‐instruction speech, but only slightly.</p> <p>Data for the other advanced‐level learner do not show evidence for improvement: the small difference in mean F1 values for both vowels in pre‐instruction speech changed minimally in post‐instruction speech, and the frontness distinction between the vowels (as measured by F2), which was strong enough in pre‐instruction speech to yield a significant <emph>T<sups>2</sups></emph> result, became weaker in post‐instruction speech. That said, 28 of the 29 learners enrolled in the advanced‐level sections either were already producing the target vowels distinctly in pre‐instruction speech or seem to have made improvement on the distinction.</p> <p>The high number of learners producing these vowels distinctly on both pre‐ and post‐instruction speech at both levels (i.e., 45.45% in the intermediate course and 79.31% in the advanced course) are indicative of previous acquisition of this vowel pair in speech through prior experience. A closer look at the data does show some individual differences in the articulation of these vowels for all speakers (e.g., moving/ɛa little further back in postinstruction speech for some; moving/e/a little higher for others; etc.), but no consistent patterns emerge, making it difficult to determine the impact instruction may have had on these particular students in learning to produce the target vowels with greater acoustic distinction with regard to F1 and F2 measures.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-21">Intersection of concept and speech</hd> <p>The link between oral and strictly written performance in the present study is somewhat unclear: four intermediate‐level learners who went from significant to non‐significant on the speaking tasks had lower than average written performance, while another who performed similarly on the speaking tasks achieved the most marked improvement of all levels and sections on the written task (Δ = 11). Similarly, of the four advanced‐level learners who showed improvement on speaking tasks, half scored lower than average on written assessment and the other half scored higher than average.</p> <p>As stated in Section 3.2, the tasks that yielded the data for the present study were a part of the curriculum for the courses in which the learners were enrolled. As a result, not all participants whose data we analyze chose to complete both written and spoken tasks both before and after instruction. Consequently, we elected to forego a direct comparison between written and spoken data, as any analysis would be using incomplete data. However, this connection between task performance is not a focus of the current study, and the lack of strong evidence that improvement in one aspect of pronunciation leads automatically to improvement in the other should not imply that either is unimportant or ineffective.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-22">Pedagogical implications</hd> <p>As shown by the potential instructor effect at the intermediate level, adapting the PACE model for PI was enhanced when the instructors had both general teaching experience and specific experience with the PACE model itself. FL educator training programs should empower future teachers to teach pronunciation by incorporating PACE as a model to teach both grammar and pronunciation.</p> <p>In terms of curriculum design, a better integration of PI through PACE can be facilitated when the text used for the Presentation step is recycled from or for other activities, such as a text for a grammar‐focused PACE, for cultural learning, or for a focus on the interpretive mode (reading comprehension or listening comprehension, if students listen to the text before reading it). Using the same text for different purposes will improve PI integration but also save time both in and out of the classroom; time being another common obstacle to PI (Darcy, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref85">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Extension activities of the current study included a written task testing the understanding of the phonological context. This understanding seems essential for learners' independent study of the language. For instance, they can better identify the prescribed pronunciation of the target sounds in novel words in a dictionary if they are familiar with IPA symbols, and with novel words generally as they become familiar with the prescribed phonemic environments where target sounds are distinguished one from another. This type of exercise, as used in Violin‐Wigent et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref86">55</reflink>]), has a place in both instruction and assessment.</p> <p>The impact of the PACE model for PI may vary based on the proficiency level of the students. In the current study, the PACE module had a weaker effect in the lower‐level course for the written task and a stronger effect in the lower‐level course for the speaking task. It appears that the learners enrolled in the higher‐level course did not benefit as much from the module in terms of production because most (86.2%) already clearly distinguished the two vowels in their speech. However, this is not to say that targeting other sounds or pronunciation features at this level would not be effective (see future work in following section). In more advanced classes, instructors could focus more on individual differences (see Baran‐Łucarz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>]) through feedback. This attention on singular learners also enables them to develop the particular pronunciation features of a specific language variety.</p> <p>Although some positive effects were observed, implementing PACE for PI should not be the sole focus on pronunciation in the classroom. Previous research (e.g., Darcy, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref88">11</reflink>]) has clearly demonstrated the role of feedback for pronunciation improvement: while the impact of instructor feedback has been studied extensively (e.g., Kissling, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]; Saito & Lyster, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref90">47</reflink>]), more recent investigations have also shown the positive effect of peer feedback (Martin & Sippel, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref91">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-23">Limitations and future work</hd> <p>The fact that data were collected from a department‐internal curriculum assessment introduced certain limits into the study. First, the researchers' access to metadata about the learner participants was extremely limited. Second, as not every student enrolled in these courses completed all of the tasks presented to them, certain gaps in the data collection process were introduced. Finally, this also prevented an extended‐delay post‐test (Nagle, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref92">40</reflink>]), which could have led to further insights on the long‐term benefits of the instruction.</p> <p>The limited focus on the two mid‐vowels, which were pronounced distinctly by the majority of the advanced‐level learners, weakened the ability to observe the impact of PACE instruction on oral production. Before the model studied here can be recommended more broadly, future studies should target other sounds (e.g., consonants, approximants, other vowels, etc.). Future research would also do well to explore the adaptation of the PACE model at earlier stages of instruction, such as in an introductory course, to determine how effective this approach would be in a K‐12 setting. Moreover, future research should investigate the effect of PACE‐model PI on the perception of L2 speech by native speakers of the target language (present authors, in progress). Such a study on perception would help determine whether the improvements in production also impact intelligibility, comprehensibility, and/or perceived accentedness.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-24">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>The current study demonstrates that the PACE model may be a viable option to teach FL pronunciation: it improved both intermediate and advanced learners' ability to associate target phonemes with the appropriate phonological context and to produce target phonemes distinctly in a spontaneous speech task. FL teachers who find themselves in the "pronunciation teaching paradox" (Darcy, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref93">11</reflink>], p. 16) can feel empowered by relying on their training in both PACE and feedback to implement PI in their classroom. Additionally, teacher educator programs may not need to extensively change their curriculum to include PI in their training if they slightly adapt what they already teach.</p> <hd id="AN0171902884-25">A Appendix MATERIALS USED FOR IN‐CLASS INSTRUCTION</hd> <hd1 id="AN0171902884-26">Texte</hd1> <p>Quand j'étais petite, ma meilleure amie s'appelait Anaïs. En fait, je ne me rappelle même pas du jour où nous nous sommes rencontrées. Nos parents passaient beaucoup de temps ensemble, donc nous avons vraiment grandi toutes les deux avec l'espoir de ne jamais devoir être séparées.</p> <p>Anaïs et moi aimions jouer au salon de thé: nous mangions des desserts, surtout des beignets, juste sortis du four du boulanger. Nous prétendions que nous étions aussi habillées comme des avocates (c'était son travail de rêve!). On adorait collectionner des crayons de papier et les utilizer pour faire des mots croisés. Nous avions un jeu différent pour chaque saison.</p> <hd1 id="AN0171902884-27">Règles</hd1> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr valign="bottom"><td align="center">/e/ comme « et »</td><td align="center">/ɛ/ comme « frère »</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd1 id="AN0171902884-28">Activités</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Répétez</item> <p></p> <item> a. chez ≠ chaise</item> <p></p> <item> b. ses ≠ sept</item> <p></p> <item> c. ces ≠ c'est</item> <p></p> <item> d. nez ≠ naît</item> <p></p> <item> e. les ≠ laid</item> <p></p> <item> f. des ≠ dès</item> <p></p> <item> g. thé ≠ tête</item> <p></p> <item> h. p ≠ paix</item> <p></p> <item> i. mes ≠ mais</item> <p></p> <item> j. pré ≠ près</item> <p></p> <item> k. clé ≠ clair</item> <p></p> <item> l. l'aîné≠ les neiges</item> <p></p> <item> m. décidé ≠ décidait</item> <p></p> <item> n. céder ≠ cédait</item> <p></p> <item> o. été ≠ était</item> <p></p> <item> p. b ≠ belle</item> <p></p> <item> 2. /e/ ou /ɛ/? Identifiez les sons voyelles /e/ ou /ɛ/ puis répétez les phrases.</item> <p></p> <item> 1. Je sais qu'elle voulu appeler Thérèse et André, mais évidemment, elle ne les a pas trouvés.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Elle achetait du maïs et des fraises chez un paysan quand elle s'est fait mal.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Il s'agit de détecter les signes d'un racisme qui déshonore tant de pays déjà et dont il faudrait au moins préserver le nôtre.</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0171902884-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Familiarity with the PACE approach is likely to have only increased since its inclusion as one of the ten core practices presented in <emph>Enacting the Work of Language Instruction: High‐Leverage Teaching Practices</emph> (Glisan & Donato, [16], [17]), a two‐volume ACTFL guide written specifically for teacher education.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0171902884-30"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adair‐Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (2002). The PACE model: A story‐based approach to meaning and form for standards‐based language learning. The French Review, 76 (2), 265 – 276.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baran‐Łucarz, M. (2012). Individual learner differences and accuracy in foreign language pronunciation. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 289 – 303). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref67" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2022). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.2.09). <ulink href="http://www.praat.org/">http://www.praat.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref64" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bougary, L. (2009). La baguette magique: Incontournable symbole de la France, elle est sur toutes les tables, à tous les repas. France Guide (French version), 2009, 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref65" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Buck, G. (1989). Written tests of pronunciation: Do they work? ELT Journal, 43 (1), 50 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Buss, L. (2016). Beliefs and practices of Brazilian EFL teachers regarding pronunciation. Language Teaching Research, 20, 619 – 637.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref70" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell, G. P., & Curran, J. M. (2009). The interpretation of elemental composition measurements from forensic glass evidence III. Science & Justice, 49 (1), 2 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref54" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chapelle, C. (2020). Standard language hegemony in French language teaching in the United States. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 8 (1), 191 – 220.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref74" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran, J., & Hersh, T. (2021). Hotelling: Hotelling's T^2 test and variants. (R package version 1.0‐8). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hotelling</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darcy, I. (2018). Powerful and effective pronunciation instruction: How can we achieve it? CATESOL Journal, 30, 13 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence‐based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foote, J., Trofimovich, P., Collins, L., & Urzúa, F. (2016). Pronunciation teaching practices in communicative second language classes. Language Learning Journal, 44 (2), 181 – 196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M. (2012). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giachetti, L. F., & Meyer, H. (2021). Défi francophone 1. Éditions Maison des Langues.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glisan, E. W., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the work of language instruction: High‐leverage teaching practices (Vol. 1). The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glisan, E. W., & Donato, R. (2021). Enacting the work of language instruction: High‐leverage teaching practices (Vol. 2). The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> González‐Bueno, M. (2019). Suggestions for teaching Spanish voiced stops /b, d, ɡ/ and their lenited allophones [β̞, ð̞, ɣ̞]. In R. Rao (Ed.), Key issues in the teaching of Spanish pronunciation: From description to pedagogy (pp. 60 – 83). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> González‐Bueno, M. (2021). S‐PACE to teach L2 grammar: Adding structure to the PACE model. Applied Language Learning, 31 (1–2), 29 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfried, T. L. (1982). Perception of French and American English vowels: A cross‐language study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansen, A. B., & Juillard, C. (2011). La phonologie parisienne à trente ans d'intervalle–les voyelles à double timbre. Journal of French Language Studies, 21 (3), 313 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hotelling, H. (1931). The generalization of student's ratio. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 2 (3), 360 – 378.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huensch, A. (2018). Pronunciation in foreign language classrooms: instructors' training, classroom practices, and beliefs. Language Teaching Research, 23 (6), 745 – 764.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huensch, A. (2019). The pronunciation teaching practices of university‐level graduate teaching assistants of French and Spanish introductory language courses. Foreign Language Annals, 52 (1), 13 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendall, R. R. (2004). The perception and production of Portuguese mid‐vowels by native speakers of American English (Order No. 28108645) [Master's thesis, Brigham Young University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2010). Language awareness and second language pronunciation: A classroom study. Language Awareness, 19 (3), 171 – 185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kissling, E. M. (2013). Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for FL learners? The Modern Language Journal, 97, 720 – 744.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta‐analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345 – 366.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levis, J. M. (2015). Learners' views of social issues in pronunciation learning. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 9 (1), A42 – A55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lord, G. (2008). Podcasting communities and second language pronunciation. Foreign Language Annals, 41 (2), 364 – 379.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyche, C. (2010). Le français de référence: éléments de synthèse. In S. Detey, J. Durand, B. Laks, & C. Lyche (Eds.), Les variétés du français parlé dans l'espace francophone: ressources pour l'enseignement (pp. 143 – 165). Ophrys.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manley, J. H., Smith, S., McMinn‐Reyna, J. T., & Prévost, M. A. (2019). Horizons (7th ed.). Cengage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, I. A. (2020). Pronunciation can be acquired outside the classroom: Design and assessment of homework‐based training. The Modern Language Journal, 104 (2), 457 – 479.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, I. A., & Sippel, L. (2021). Is giving better than receiving? The effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation skills. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 7 (1), 62 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinsen, R., Montgomery, C., & Willardson, V. (2017). The effectiveness of video‐based shadowing and tracking pronunciation exercises for foreign language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 50 (4), 661 – 680.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, J., & Tano, C. (2019a). Portails: Introductory French 1. Vista Higher Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, J., & Tano, C. (2019b). Espaces: Rendez‐vous avec le monde francophone (4th ed.). Vista Higher Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morin, Y.‐C. (1986). La loi de position ou de l'explication en phonologie historique. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 15 (2), 199 – 231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagle, C., Sachs, R., & Zárate–Sández, G. (2018). Exploring the intersection between teachers' beliefs and research findings in pronunciation instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 512 – 532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagle, C. L. (2021). Assessing the state of the art in longitudinal L2 pronunciation research: Trends and future directions. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 7 (2), 154 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ollivier, J., & Beaudoin, M. (2011). Grammaire française (5th ed.). Modulo.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, D. J. (2014). Phonetics and technology in the classroom: A practical approach to using speech analysis software in second‐language pronunciation instruction. Hispania, 97 (1), 47 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is "big"? interpreting effect sizes in L2 research: Effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878 – 912.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">www.R-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Studio Team. (2021). RStudio: Integrated development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC. <ulink href="http://www.rstudio.com/">http://www.rstudio.com/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasi‐experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 842 – 854.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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, 595 – 633.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied linguistics, 11 (2), 129 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3 – 32). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strange, W. (2007). Cross‐language phonetic similarity of vowels. Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, 17, 35 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schumacker, R. E. (2015). Using R with multivariate statistics. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valdman, A., Pons, C., & Scullen, M. E. (2020). Chez nous: Branché sur le monde francophone (5th ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Violin‐Wigent, A., Miller, J., & Grim, F. (2013). Sons et sens: La prononciation du français en contexte. Georgetown University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English: Volume 3: Beyond the British Isles (3). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, W., Weber‐Fève, S., Lair, A., & VanPatten, B. (2020). Encore: Intermediate French (2nd ed.). Cengage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yates, L., & Zielinski, B. (2011). Teaching English pronunciation for adult learners: Eight reasons not to teach pronunciation (and why they are all wrong). In H. P. Widodo & A. Cirocki (Eds.), Innovation and creativity in ELT methodology (pp. 109 – 120). Nova Science Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zielinski, B., & Yates, L. (2014). Pronunciation instruction is not appropriate for beginning‐level learners. In L. Grant (Ed.), Pronunciation myths (pp. 56 – 79). University of Michigan Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Céline Rose and Adam F. McBride</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref92"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1392184
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: French Pronunciation Instruction Using the PACE Model
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rose%2C+Céline%22">Rose, Céline</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6568-1781">0000-0001-6568-1781</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McBride%2C+Adam+F%2E%22">McBride, Adam F.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0256-6636">0000-0002-0256-6636</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Foreign+Language+Annals%22"><i>Foreign Language Annals</i></searchLink>. Fall 2023 56(3):532-551.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22French%22">French</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pronunciation%22">Pronunciation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech+Instruction%22">Speech Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Teachers%22">Language Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonemes%22">Phonemes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/flan.12711
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0015-718X<br />1944-9720
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: As an overwhelming amount of research has demonstrated that educator preparation programs do not adequately prepare instructors to teach pronunciation, this study aims to help teachers of foreign languages to implement and improve pronunciation instruction (PI) in their classroom by adapting PACE (Presentation, Attention, Co-construction, and Extension), the commonly used model for grammar instruction. The present study explores the efficacy of this model in improving learners' ability (1) to associate target phonemes with the appropriate phonological context and (2) to produce target phonemes distinctly in a spontaneous speech task. Data suggest that a modified PACE model for PI can be effective in both intermediate- and advanced-level courses. The possibility of adapting an existing and well-known method for teaching grammar would allow teachers to implement and/or improve their PI with minimal additional training.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1392184
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1392184
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/flan.12711
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 532
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: French
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pronunciation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Speech Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonemes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: French Pronunciation Instruction Using the PACE Model
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rose, Céline
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McBride, Adam F.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0015-718X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1944-9720
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Foreign Language Annals
              Type: main
ResultId 1