Discourse Prosody and Teachers' Stated Beliefs and Practices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, research has demonstrated the important role that prosody (i.e., stress, rhythm, intonation) plays in the intelligibility of speakers of English as a second language (ESL). Yet the impact of this research on teacher cognition—the beliefs and knowledge that teachers possess in relation to their classroom practices—has received limited attention. This article explores how research into English prosody has influenced pronunciation instruction in the ESL classroom, teachers' knowledge and beliefs about this instruction, and what teachers believe to be the most effective way to improve their knowledge base in this area. In particular, the opinions of teachers of beginning, intermediate, and advanced classes are investigated. Through semistructured interviews with five instructors and the pronunciation journal of the author, these issues are examined. Results show that research into English pronunciation has clearly influenced the teaching and prioritization of features of pronunciation for instructors with graduate education that has included a course dedicated to pronunciation or pronunciation pedagogy. However, even with this education, teachers may lack confidence in teaching different aspects of pronunciation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it