Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about second language pronunciation teaching, their experience, and speech assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teacher cognition has attracted increased attention among second language (L2) researchers and practitioners, likely because of its potential consequences for classroom practices, such as teaching and assessment. Prior research has revealed links between teacher beliefs about pronunciation teaching and teachers’ own experience (e.g. amount of teacher training and teaching experience). However, no research has to date focused on how teachers’ experience and their beliefs are intertwined, possibly affecting teacher assessments of L2 speakers’ pronunciation. For this study, 77 Japanese pre-service teachers of English completed an online questionnaire examining their beliefs about the teaching of English pronunciation and eliciting details about their L2 teaching and learning experience. Additionally, pre-service teachers assessed 40 Japanese secondary school students performing an extemporaneous speech task, rating these speakers for comprehensibility, accentedness, and fluency. Results showed that pre-service teachers could be categorized into two distinct profiles, defined by joint contributions of pre-service teachers’ experience (a mixture of language learning/teaching experience and pronunciation-related instruction) and their beliefs (teachability of L2 pronunciation and approaches to its teaching). Pre-service teachers with more experience appeared to be more skeptical about how (easily) L2 pronunciation can be learned and taught and also provided harsher accentedness ratings, compared to pre-service teachers with less experience, revealing links between experience, beliefs, and speech assessments. Taken together, the findings reveal how pre-service teachers’ experience might shape their beliefs and assessments, implying that teacher educators must encourage future teachers to hold positive views about the teachability of L2 pronunciation by shifting their attention toward communicatively oriented dimensions of L2 speech and by providing teachers with pedagogical skills to target these dimensions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".