Teaching pronunciation: toward intelligibility and comprehensibility
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
Abstract Pronunciation is a common topic of interest in ELT but teachers may be unsure of what features of pronunciation to prioritise, especially in multilingual classes. While research calls for explicit pronunciation instruction that focuses on improving intelligibility and comprehensibility, implementation is still a challenge. This article presents pedagogical applications following the new CEFR descriptors for phonological control. We discuss a 40-hour pronunciation course for international ESL students from diverse L1s in a Canadian university. Pronunciation instruction was delivered through controlled speech practice and drama tasks for practice of extemporaneous speech. Students completed weekly audio recordings, received extensive feedback and completed self-reflections. Moreover, the teacher assessed pre- and post-course recordings to identify change over time. Results show that students developed awareness of pronunciation features that can contribute to more intelligible and comprehensible speech and that a listener’s lack of familiarity with speech diversity can play a role in how speech is perceived.
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