Beliefs and practices of Brazilian EFL teachers regarding pronunciation
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
Interest in pronunciation learning and teaching has increased significantly in the past few years. Studies and resources in the area have proliferated, but it is important to know whether they have influenced teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL). The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs and practices of Brazilian EFL teachers. Convenience and snowball sampling were employed to recruit 60 participants, who completed an online survey on pronunciation teaching and learning. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse trends, while qualitative responses were coded for common topics. The findings suggest that the instructors had generally informed views about pronunciation and positive attitudes toward its teaching. Their teaching practices tended to be traditional: the predominant approach was to deal with word-level features, especially problematic sounds, through repetition as the need arose. Although most of the respondents claimed to be comfortable teaching pronunciation, they reported a wish for more pronunciation training, as have other instructors in prior studies (e.g. Burgess & Spencer, 2000; Foote, Holtby, & Derwing, 2011).
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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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