Pronunciation or Listening Enhancement: Two Birds With One Stone

International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics
2015; 1(2): 13-19

Published online June 15, 2015 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
2015 Khate Sefid Press
Pronunciation or listening Enhancement: Two

Birds with One Stone
Saeideh Ahangari
Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
Email: ahangari@iaut.ac.ir
Samira Rahbar
Email: rahbarsamira@gmail.com
Saeideh Entezari Maleki

Email: s.entezarimaleki@gmail.com
Abstract This study aims to emphasize pronunciation
accuracy practice can improve the listening comprehension
of EFL learners. In order to ensure of homogeneity, the
researchers selected 42 participants out of 200 students
based on their result in an Oxford Placement Test (OPT)
exam. After the mean and the SD were calculated,
participants who scored 1 SD above and below the mean
(1SD
mean) were selected to conduct the study. After
selection of the participants they were randomly put into
two groups based on the time they preferred to attend the
classes. 20 of them were assigned to an experimental group
and 22 were assigned to a control group. Both groups took a
pre-test exam and their listening ability was checked via a
round of t-test, no significant difference was observed in the
result retrieved from the groups. Next, during 20 minutes in
each treatment session, the teacher provided the
experimental group with awareness about the correct form
of pronunciation and then had them practice as listening
and repeating from a model. By the end of 30 hours of
input, both groups were tested again by a listening post test.
Finally, the results proved that treatment has been
successful and pronunciation practice did lead to
improvement of listening comprehension ability. Therefore,
the group which received pronunciation practice has
achieved higher listening comprehension ability than the
one which has not received treatment.
I. INTRODUCTION
Among the four skills of foreign language learning,
listening is an important part of social interactions, and it
has been discovered that people understand new
messages more efficiently via listening than reading
(Luo, 2008).
Pronunciation and listening comprehension are
connected together by a unified system, within which
individual sounds are regularly related. That is why
pronunciation is receiving more attention in many
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms, and it
is believed that students should primarily acquire it as a
fundamental skill due to its effect on accuracy and
comprehension (Derwing et al., 2006). In other words,
pronunciation teaching and language learning strategy
may develop students' competence (Varasarin, 2007).
Pronunciation practice is very important in second
language learning and teaching, because as Ahangari
(2014) mentions On the one hand, confidence with
pronunciation allows learners to interact with native
speakers that is so essential for all aspects of their
linguistic development. On the other hand, poor
pronunciation can mask otherwise good language skills
condemning learners to less than their deserved social,
academic and work advancement (p. 82). Thus, use of
audio-lingual techniques such as listen and repeat will be
an efficient way to improve learners' pronunciation
(Brawn, 2010). Bennett (2007) also reconfirmed that the
key to develop students' pronunciation is listening, but
contextual listening that is both comprehensible to the
learners and relates to their lives beyond the classroom,
because learners should face different voices through
various styles of delivery. As a result, listening is an
important language skill that is developed in terms of
second language acquisition (SLA) (Dunkel, 1991; Rost,
2001; Vandergrift, 2007). However, despite its
Index Terms Pronunciation, Listening comprehension

ability
Received January 12, 2015; Accepted May 30, 2015

13

2015; 1(2): 13-19
importance, L2 learners often regard listening as a

difficult language skill to learn (Hasan, 2000; Graham,
2003). As Vandergrift (2007) claims, one of the reasons
might be that no one teaches learners how to learn
listening effectively. Therefore, listening can become a
cause of anxiety for L2 learners (Elkhafaifi, 2005). That
is related to the belief of SLA researchers, who claim as
input is converted into intake, learners make use of
listening for two main overlapping purposes:
comprehension and acquisition (Sun, 2008).
On the other side, Wong and Waring (2010) pointed
out that teaching repair practices, ways of addressing
problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding of the
talk, might help learners to listen to learn (p. 212).
Based on Khamkhien (2010), pronunciation is a global
construct, which includes segmental (e.g., consonant and
vowels) and suprasegmental (e.g., stress, intonation,
rhythm, rate, volume) aspects. Therefore, phonetic
instruction would make students more aware of their
pronunciations in EFL situations, where English is
contextually reduced and students do not have access to
real-life communication with native speakers of English
(Saito, 2007). Moreover, Pourhosein Gilakjani (2012)
claimed that pronunciation instruction is an important
element in foreign language teaching, because sounds
play an important part in communication. Therefore, to
prevent conversation breakdown, learners must be taught
repair practices. Meanwhile, Rost (2001) mentioned that
particularly for adult learners, the processes of learning
to listen (that is, learning to understand spoken messages)
and listening to learn (that is, learning the syntax and
lexis of the language through listening) do not coincide
(p. 97). Learning to listen is described as improving
comprehension abilities in understanding the language
process. While, listening to learn involves creating new
meaning and form linking and then repeating the meaning
and form linking, which aids the learners to become
prepared for paying more attention to the syntax and lexis
of the language through listening.
In addition to the above, acoustic input such as
phonological modification and prosody has been under
research as an important factor for L2 learners word
perception. A number of studies have variedly
investigated the area of phonology language acquisition
(e.g., Altmann, 2006; Waylan et al., 2006). However,
much of the focus of attention has been on how the
phonology of L1 constrains the perception of L2 at the
phoneme level (Field, 2008). For example, in Altenbergs
(2005) study, the results revealed that learners are
significantly worse than native speakers at using acoustic
phonetic cues, and thus some kinds of stimuli are easier
for learners to identify than others. However, as Rost
(2001) pointed a key difference between more
successful and less successful acquirers relates in large
part to their ability to use listening as a means of
acquisition (p. 94). The reason is that the
comprehensible input is critical for language acquisition

as well as comprehensible output (Swain, 1995).
Apart from what was said, Senel (2006) noted about
other factors affecting the listening instruction. He
presented that interference or negative transfer from the
first language is likely to cause errors in aspiration,
intonation, rhythm, and melody of the target language.
Another viewpoint, which is worth mentioning is
related to Brown (1992), who describes phonetic ability
as coding ability, which is a common view that some
people have a better listening skill for a foreign language
than others. Therefore, such people are able to
discriminate between the two sounds more accurately and
imitate sounds better than the others. However, despite
the students' exposure to a foreign language as children
and attuned to phonetic discrimination, some studies have
suggested that some elements of learning are a matter of
awareness of the different sounds (Kanoksilapatham,
1992). Consequently, learners pronunciation ability can
be enhanced by putting efforts and concentration on those
sounds. Burns (1992) confirms this mentioning that
practicing listening activities improve student's
pronunciation inside and outside the classroom. AdamsGoertel (2013) further claimed that second language
pronunciation can improve to be near native-like with the
implementation of certain criteria such as the utilization
of prosodic elements.
Among other research studies, Chung (2005), who
taught English pronunciation to enhance high school
students' listening skill in Korea, found that it had a
positive effect on their listening ability. Also, Ghorbani
(2011) discovered that phonetic instruction followed by
the learners checking of their pronunciation by the use of
phonemic transcription would enhance Iranian students
listening ability. Moreover, Habibi, Jahandar, and
Khodabandehlou (2013) explored that phonetics
instruction increased learners' listening after twelve
successive sessions of instruction in different listening
passages. However, Field (2008) discovered that English
function words are identified significantly less accurately
by L2 listeners, regardless of level or L1, than are content
words. In addition, as a result of his study Stahr (2009)
proposed that at least 98% lexical coverage of the spoken
text is needed for listeners to comprehend it. On the
whole, it should be considered that L2 listening is the
least researched of all four language skills yet
(Vandergrift, 2007). Therefore, this objective is to
examine the effect of pronunciation practice on listening
comprehension. In the current study the following
research question is addressed:
Does pronunciation practice improve Iranian EFL
Learners listening comprehension ability?
Consequently the research null hypothesis would be as
follow:
Pronunciation practice does not improve Iranian EFL
Learners listening comprehension ability.
14

2015; 1(2): 13-19
II. METHOD
As this course is a general English course in an

institute in which Communicative Language Teaching is
used and teachers had been trained to use the same
method and the same procedures in all classes, in both
classes all methods except for focus on pronunciation
practice in experimental group and control group were
the same. In the control group the learners received a
normal routine instruction as they always do. It means
when it came to listening activities teacher followed the
procedures in the book. However, in the experimental
group, in each session for 20 minutes teacher focused on
pronunciation practice in two phases. First by giving
learners awareness about the error of pronunciation and
then having the learners practice the correct form by
listening to their text book recording and repeating after
that. By the end of the term which as previously was
mentioned takes almost 2 months that is 30 hours of
input, the students in both groups were tested again by
the same listening test, which was held on their pretest.
The results were analyzed for further discussion via SPSS
system in order to check whether the difference between
groups was significant or not.
A. Participants
This study was conducted with 42 female Iranian EFL
students who had enrolled for a general English course in
Kish Institute of Science and Technology in Rasht, Iran.
In order to make sure of homogeneity, participants were
selected out of a pool of 200 based on their result in an
Oxford Placement Test (OPT) exam proficiency test,
because in the first phase of selection general proficiency
of participants was our concern. Having calculated the
mean (65) and the SD (15), participants with the score of
1 SD above and below the mean (1SD mean), it means
scores between 50-80, were selected to conduct the study.
After selection of the participants they were randomly put
into two groups based on the time they preferred to attend
the classes. 20 of them were assigned to an experimental
group and 22 were assigned to a control group.
B. Materials
The material used in this study were in two sorts:
Oxford Placement Test (OPT) which is a
standardized Cambridge exam so the reliability of
the test is not needed to be tested. This test was
used in the first stage of the study to select the
participants.
A test which was used to determine the ability of
the learners in listening comprehension, was the
listening part of the PET (preliminary English
test). It is the second level test of the Oxford
proficiency tests. It is an standard test and suitable
for the intermediate level of the students. Its
content validity was checked by two experts
through the matching of its content with the
content of the participants course syllabus. The
reliability of the test was estimated 0.73 through
Chronbach Alpha coefficient. A Pearson
correlation analysis was also done between the
PET test results and OPT test results, which
showed a good index of .77.
III. DATA ANALYIS

In order to analyze the statistics of this study
independent sample t-test has been used because a
parametric statistics is required in this research. There are
a set of assumptions that must be met to use parametric
tests the assumptions are as follow:
The data is normally distributed and means and
standard deviation are appropriate measures of
tendency. The raw scores obtained from
participants are normally distributed around mean.
The data retrieved from the study is interval data
as they are scores of a listening test calculated
from 20
Finally the scores observed from the study are
observation independent
Descriptive statistics, raw scores, means, and standard
deviation, as shown in table 1, was used in order to
investigate the findings of the study. As previously
mentioned, the participants of the study were aged
between18-40, age difference is not considered in this
study. Also as the participants were selected based on the
administration of a proficiency test, they were considered
to be homogenous and no pre-existing difference in terms
of general English proficiency is taken into account.
Apart from general proficiency participants needed to be
tested regarding their listening ability at the beginning of
the study to make sure the results obtained from the study
is due to the treatment not because participants were
better listeners before the study.
In analyzing the data, a statistical package (SPSS 18)
was used to generate the frequencies, percentages of each
C. Procedure
After selection of the participants from the existing
pool, two groups, one including 20 participants and the
other including 22 participants were formed. Both groups
took a pre-test exam and their listening ability was
checked in order to make sure that their listening ability
at the beginning of the treatment is in the same level.
Having checked the scores of the groups via a round of
T-test, no significant difference was observed in the
result retrieved from the groups at the beginning of the
study before treatment.
15

2015; 1(2): 13-19
variable and the relationships between them. A round of

T-test was applied between the scores of listening pre-test
of two groups and results are presented in table 1 as
below:
from pre-test to post test the others have improved for

one or two scores minimum. By looking at the mean of
control group we can see that the mean scores of the
control group has not been changed significantly from
pretest to posttest; as the difference is 0.1, which is
ignorable. This seems logical however, because in
traditional classrooms, in which no specific focus is on
improving listening, the participants can not improve
within two months. For more detailed information and
also discussion on the hypothesis of the study, table 4 is
presented as below:
TABLE 1. GROUP STATISTICS OF CONTROL AND

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS IN PRE-TEST
Group
Mean
control
experimental
22
20
Std.
Std.
Deviation Error Mean
14.272 1.579
.336
13.900 1.301
.291
TABLE 2. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST BETWEEN THE

SCORES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS IN POST
TEST
As can be seen in the table above before the start of the

study means of two groups are almost the same and
standard deviations differs slightly. The small number of
SD comparing to the mean, shows that groups are
homogenized. However, for further detailed information
table 2 presents the analysis of the scores below so that
we do not rely only on obtained means.
Equal
variances
assumed
TABLE 2. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST BETWEEN THE

SCORES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS IN PRETEST
Equal
variances
assumed
Df
1.275
40
Mean
Sig.(2tailed) Difference
.210
.572
TABLE 3. GROUP STATISCTICS OF CONTROL AND

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS IN POST TEST
control
experimental
22
20
Mean
Std.
Deviation
14.109 1.652
15.900 1.820
Df
Sig. (2- Mean

tailed) Difference
-2.03
40
.018
-1.090
In the table above the amount of sig two tailed is

0.018 which is significantly less than the predetermined
amount of p value which 0.05. Therefore, it can be
inferred that there is a significant difference between the
groups. From another point of view the amount of t is
2 which is higher that critical value so the null
hypothesis of the study is rejected. It can be concluded
that treatment has been successful and pronunciation
practice does lead to improvement of listening
comprehension ability. The group which received
pronunciation practice has achieved higher listening
comprehension ability than the one which hasnt received
treatment. The calculated Eta Squared was .09 which
shows a high effect, i.e. the 9% of the improvement of the
experimental groups listening comprehension was
because of the treatment they have received.
In this study another step which was taken was to
compare the result of post test of experimental group with
the one in their pre-test. The aim of this analysis is to
make sure that within experimental group each
participant has improved from the beginning of the study
to the end. In order to do so, the scores obtained from
pre-test and post-test of participants in experimental
group were analyzed through a paired sample t test. The
reason to use paired sample t test is having two sets of
scores from one group. The results of the test are
presented in table 5 as follow:
The two tailed sig of the test above is 0.2 which is

much higher that assumed p value which is 0.05, so it
can be inferred that there is no significant difference
between the groups.
In this section the statistical description of post test
scores of control and experimental group are presented in
order to compare the overall achievement of participants
in experimental group with the ones in control group to
see whether the treatment has been successful or not. In
order to do this comparison which is actually the answer
to the first question of the study another round of t-test
has been applied and the result are presented in table 3 as
below:
Group
Std. Error
Mean
.352
.407
Table 5. PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS OF THE

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
As it can be seen in the table above the mean score

obtained from experimental group which received
efficient amount of treatment is more than the mean of
control group with placebo treatment. By looking at the
raw scores of the participants, it can be inferred that apart
from one or two of them whose score didnt improve
Pre-test score
Post-test score
16
20
20
Mean
13.900
15.900
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation Mean
1.301
1.820
.291
.407

2015; 1(2): 13-19
As indicated in the table above the mean scores

obtained from the group at the beginning and end of
study differ about 1.6 scores. The mean score of
experimental group by the end of study is significantly
higher than the ones obtained at the start of study. Table 6
shows more detailed information about the t score of the
group for further clarification.
that of their native languages, and later imitate dialogues,

or perform plays (OBrien, 2004), and watch videos in
which yes/no questions are used (Hardison, 2005). All the
above conclusions are due to the fact that listening
comprehension is a prerequisite for acquisition; and
teachers need to allow the L2 to be acquired through
listening. That is because the final goal of developing
listening might be to enable learners to become
autonomous, and can reduce listening anxiety (Kurita,
2012). Additionally, it should be mentioned that accuracy
in the production of language is related to other factors
like age at first exposure to the language, amount of
formal instruction, residence in a foreign speaking
country, amount of out-of-class contact with the
language, as well as focus on pronunciation in class.
Therefore, in addition to having focus on pronunciation
and accent in the classroom, learners should be
encouraged to speak English outside the class and must
be provided with assignments that structure those
interactions (Shively, 2008). If content of the course is
integrated into the communication class, while the
content emphasizes the teaching of suprasegmentals, it
will help linking pronunciation with listening
comprehension, and will allow for meaningful
pronunciation practice. If the teacher coaches the speech,
rather than checking the pronunciation, all learners,
within their learner unique aims, can be expected to learn
the pronunciation of a foreign language well (Pourhosein
Gilakjani, 2012). However, according to Gilbert (2008),
teaching pronunciation includes different challenges. For
example, some teachers do not have enough time in their
classes to focus on this section of language. Moreover,
according to Pourhosein Gilakjani (2012), pronunciation
can be one of the most difficult area of a language for
EFL learners to master and one of the least favorite
subjects for teachers to do in EFL classroom. On the
whole, the researchers of this study reconfirm Gilbert
(2008) who believes that the skills of listening
comprehension and pronunciations are linked together. If
the learners cannot hear English well, they are cut off
from the language, they learn. If they are understood
hard, they are cut off from any dialogue with other
speakers.
Table 6. PAIRED SAMPLES T-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP ON PRE-TEST AND POST TEST
Paired Differences
Std.
Std.
Deviation Error
Mean
-1.800 1.056
.236
Df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
-7.621
19
.001
Mean
As can be seen in the table above the two tailed sig is 0

which is obviously less than predetermined value of P.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the result of groups
from beginning to the end of study is significantly
different. By considering the calculated effect size of
0.75, which shows a very high effect, we can say that
75% of the improvement for the experimental group from
pre-test to post-test was because of the pronunciation
practice they had.
IV. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

This study proved that the pronunciation practice can
have a significant effect on EFL learners listening
comprehension ability. The findings of the study also
revealed that the treatment was effective only on the
experimental group. However, the control group did not
develop its listening comprehension significantly from
pretest to posttest. This is due to no specific focus on
improving listening within two months. As already
mentioned all the participants were intermediate, female,
aged 18-40, who were selected based on the OPT exam
results. Such a result can be attributed to the 30-hours of
input enhancement, because the control group didn't
improve itself within the pretest and posttest. Such a
result can be a sign of emphasis on Grant (2010), who
previously claimed teachers and learners can cooperate to
complete a learner pronunciation profile that includes an
inventory of the sounds and stress intonation patterns that
the learner wants to change and a questionnaire about
when and how the learner uses English. This empowers
the idea that teachers should include prosodic training in
instruction through listening activities. Those prosodic
features of language, which are important to
comprehensibility, include word stress, intonation, and
rhythm (OBrien, 2004; Bailly & Holm, 2005; Gauthier,
Shi, & Yi, 2009). As an example, teachers can ask
students to listen for rising intonation in yes/ no
questions, or compare question intonation in English with
17

2015; 1(2): 13-19
Gauthier, B., Shi, R., & Yi, X. (2009). Learning

prosodic focus from continuous speech input: A neural
network exploration.
Language
Learning and
Development, 5(2), 94-114.
Ghorbani, M. R. (2011). The Impact of Phonetic
Instruction on Iranian Students Listening Ability
Enhancement. Asian ELT Journal, 52 (2), 24-34.
Gilbert, J. (2008). Teaching pronunciation: Using the
prosody pyramid. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Graham, S. (2003). Learner strategies and advanced
level listening comprehension . Language Learning
Journal, 28, 64-69. doi: 10.1080/09571730385200221
Grant, L. (2010). Well said. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Habibi, P., Jahandar, Sh., & Khodabandehlou, M.
(2013). The impact of teaching phonetic symbols on
Iranian EFL learners listening comprehension. Indian
Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 3 (3),
495-512.
Hardison, D. (2005). Contextualized computer-based
L2 prosody training: Evaluating the effects of discourse
context and video input. CALICO Journal, 22(2), 175190.
Hasan, A. (2000). Learners perceptions of listening
comprehension problems. Language, Culture and
Curriculum,
13,
137-153.
doi:
10.1080/07908310008666595
Kanoksilapatham, B. (1992). An analysis of English
pronunciation of third year English major students.
Silpakorn University: Nakhon Pathom.
Khamkhien, A. (2010). Thai Learners English
Pronunciation Competence: Lesson Learned from Word
Stress Assignment. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 1(6), 757-764, doi:10.4304/jltr.1.6.757-764
Kurita, T. (2012). Issues in second language listening
comprehension and the pedagogical implications. Accents
Asia, 5(1), 30-44.
Luo, C. P. (2008). An action research plan for
developing and implementing the students listening
comprehension skills. English Language Teaching, 1(1),
25-28
OBrien, M. (2004). Pronunciation Matters. Teaching
German, 37, 1-9.
Pourhosein Gilakjani, A. (2012). A study of factors
affecting EFL learners' English pronunciation learning
and the strategies for instruction. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science. 2( 3); 119-128.
Rost, M. (2001). Listening. In R. Carter & D. Nunan
(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to
REFERENCES
Adams-Goertel, R. (2013). Prosodic elements to
improve pronunciation in English language learners: A
short report. Applied Research on English Language,
2(2), 117-128.
Ahangari, S. (2014). The effect of self, peer and
teacher correction on the pronunciation improvement of
Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary
Studies, 5(1), 81-88
Altenberg, E. P. (2005). The perception of word
boundaries in second language. Second Language
Research, 21, 325-358. doi: 10.1191/0267658305sr250oa
Altmann, H. (2006). The perception and production of
second language stress: A cross linguistic experimental
study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of
Delaware.
Bailly, G., & Holm, B. (2005). SFC: A trainable
prosodic model. Speech Communication, 46(3/4), 348364.
Bennett, K. B. (2007). Teaching pronunciation: An
independent study course for teachers of adult English as
a second language learners. Northern Colorado
Professional Development Center.
Brawn, J. R. (2010). Teaching pronunciation get a
bad R.A.P.: A framework for teaching pronunciation.
Hankuk: University of Foreign Studies.
Brown, A. (1992). Approaches to Pronunciation
Teaching. London: Macmillan.
Burns, I. M. (1992). Pronunciation-Based Listening
Exercises. In: Avery P, & Ehrlich S., (Eds.), Teaching
American Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Chung, D. (2005). Learning strategies for listening
ability enhancement based on combinative change.
Modern English Education, 6(2), 46-59.
Derwing, T.M., Thomson, R.I., & Munro, M.J.
(2006). English pronunciation and fluency development
in Mandarin and Slavic speakers. System, 34, 183-193.
Dunkel, P. (1991). Listening in the native and second/
foreign language: Toward an
integration of research and practice. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 431-457
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and
anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 89, 206-220.
Field, J. (2008). Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the
input does a second language listener rely on? TESOL
Quarterly, 42, 411-432.
18

2015; 1(2): 13-19
speakers of other languages, (pp. 7-13). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.
Saito, k. (2007).The influence of explicit phonetic
instruction on pronunciation teaching in EFL settings:
The case of English vowels and Japanese learners of
English. Linguistics Journal, 3(3), 16-40.
Senel, M. (2006). Suggestions for beautifying the
pronunciation of EFL learners in Turkey. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 2(1), 111-125.
Shively, R. L. (2008). L2 acquisition of [], [], and
[] in Spanish: Impact of experience, linguistic
environment and learner variables. Southwest Journal of
Linguistics, 27(2), 79-114.
Stahr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and
advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign
language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31,
577-607. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990039
Sun, Y. A. (2008). Input processing in second
language acquisition: A discussion of four input
processing models. Teachers College, Columbia
University, Working Papers in TESOL & Applied
Linguistics, 8(1), 1-10.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in
second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp.
125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in
second and foreign language listening comprehension
research. Language Teaching, 40, 191-210. doi:
10.1017/S0261444807004338
Varasarin, P. (2007). An action research study of
pronunciation training, language (learning) strategies and
speaking confidence. Faculty of Arts, Education and

Human Development Victoria University.
Waylan, R., Guion, S.G. & Landfair, D. (2006).
Native Thai speakers acquisition of English word stress
patterns. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 35(3), 285304.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation
Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy. NY: Taylor &
Francis
AUTHORS
Saeideh Ahangari is an assistant professor of TEFL at
Tabriz Branch of Islamic Azad University. She has been
a language teacher for more than 20 years. Her main
interests are Applied linguistics, task-based language
teaching, and language testing and assessment. She has
published many papers and presented papers at
international conferences.
Samira Rahbar is a Ph.D. candidate of Teaching English
as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in Islamic Azad
University of Tabriz, Iran. She is a CELTA holder and
has been a TEFL teacher since twelve years ago. Her
main areas of research are language teaching and testing
with regard to the listening skill.
Saeideh Entezari Maleki is a Ph.D. candidate of
Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in
Islamic Azad University of Tabriz, Iran. She is a
Professor of Applied Linguistics in Islamic Azad
University North Tehran Branch. She has been teaching
English at undergraduate levels. Her main areas of
research are applied linguistics and teaching methodology
in language studies.
19

Pronunciation or Listening Enhancement: Two Birds With One Stone

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pronunciation or Listening Enhancement: Two Birds With One Stone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics

2015; 1(2): 13-19