Pronunciation Learning Strategies to Improve EFL Learners' Pronunciation. The Case of Second-Year EFL Students at Mostaganem University

Table of Contents

Dedication

Acknowledgments

Abstract

List of Tables

List of Abbreviations

General Introduction

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Language Learning Strategies (LLS)
1.2.1 language Learning Strategies Definitions
1.2.2 Classifications and Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies
1.3 Pronunciation Learning Strategies (PLS)
1.3.1 Pronunciation Learning Strategies Definitions
1.3.2 Classifications and Taxonomies of Pronunciation Learning Strategies
1.4 The Significance of Pronunciation Learning Strategies in EFL Context
1.5 Conclusion

CHAPTER 2: : METHODOLGY
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Research Method
2.3 The Sample
2.4 Procedures
2.5 Method of Data Analysis
2.5.1 Qualitive Approach
2.5.1.1 Interview
2.5.1.1.1 Phonetics Teachers’ and Oral Expression Teachers’ Interview Questions
2.5.1.1.2 Students’ Interview
2.5.1.1.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Interview
2.6 Conclusion

CHAPTER 3: EE: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Findings
3.2.1.1. The Use of Memory Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)
3.2.1.2. The Use of Memory Strategies by Students (S)
3.2.2.1. The Use of Cognitive Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)
3.2.2.2. The Use of Cognitive Strategy by Students (S)
3.2.3.1. The Use of Compensation Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)
3.2.3.2. The Use of Compensation Strategy by Students (S)
3.2.4.1. The Use of Metacognitive Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)
3.2.4.2. The Use of Metacognitive Strategy by Students (S)
3.2.5.1. The Use of Affective Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)
3.2.5.2. The Use of Affective Strategy by Students (S)
3.2.6.1. The Use of Cooperation Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)
3.2.6.2. The Use of Cooperation Strategy by Students (S)
3.3 . Analysis
3.4 Conclusion

General Conclusion

References

Appendices

Dedication

I dedicate this work to my beloved parents, who cared and loved, sisters, brothers as well as everyone who believed in me and supported me through every step of way of finishing this study.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my immense gratitude to my supervisor, Mrs. Zohra Latifa KAID OMAR, for her support, patience, and valuable advice. Thank you for inspiring me to conduct this research.

Thanks go to the board of examiners who accepted to evaluate my work.

I would like to thank all my teachers at Abdelhamid Ibn Badis University for their helpful guidance and ideas during the research process.

Abstract

Pronunciation instruction for EFL learners is crucial for effective communication. This study investigates the learning strategies employed by EFL university teachers to enhance the pronunciation skills of their students whose first language is Arabic. Particularly, it attempts to explore the learning strategies that EFL university teachers use to improve learners’ pronunciation. Semi-structured and unstructured interviews were used with six teachers of phonetics and oral expression as well as twelve students to elicit qualitative data about the pronunciation learning strategies they use. The findings revealed disparity in the use of pronunciation and language learning strategies. As a recommendation, EFL teachers must acquire a deeper understanding of diverse teaching methods and techniques to enhance student pronunciation.

Keywords :EFL pronunciation instruction, Arabic-speaking EFL students, pronunciation learning strategies.

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Oxford’s Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies (Oxford, 1990, p. 17)

Table 1.2: Pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) and tactics based on Oxford (1990)

Table 1.3: Peterson’s (2000) classification of pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) within the framework of Oxford’s (1990) learning strategies (LS)

Table 1.4: Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle, Eckstein’s (2007) equivalent stages of pronunciation acquisition and examples of pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) used at each stage

Table 1.5: A summary of selected taxonomies for pronunciation learning strategies

List of Abbreviations

EFL: English as a foreign language

ESL: English as a Second Language

LLS: Language Learning Strategies

PLS: Pronunciation Learning Strategies

OET: Oral Expression Teachers

PT: Phonetics Teachers

S: Students

General Introduction

Teaching and learning the pronunciation of the English language involves identifying current or potential teaching and learning skills within the learning process. Learning strategies, including language learning strategies and pronunciation learning strategies, have clearly established that pronunciation learning is an essential contributor to English language mastery (Peterson, 2000). However, there are conflicting views and an overall lack of research regarding how to best teach and learn pronunciation in highly dynamic environments where subject pronunciation is rapidly and continuously evolving, for example, pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) research.

Arab EFL learners, such as Algerians, tend to commit a variety of mispronunciation instances when speaking English according to their level and exposure to the target language. It is observed that EFL students at Mostaganem university represent a lack of pronunciation qualities that can reflect the inappropriateness and invalidity of their PLSs. The latter factor triggered the present inquiry to initiate a practical investigation of the reasons and effects.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the usefulness of PLSs in improving EFL students’ speaking. The research aims to present a uniform understanding of PLSs and address the negligence by teachers and learners and their reliance on language learning strategies (LLS). Particularly, this study targets the PLSs addressed by EFL teachers at Mostaganem University when instructing phonetics and oral expression.

The following research questions:

1- What are the most commonly used pronunciation learning strategies among second-year EFL students at Mostaganem University?

2- To what extent are the implemented pronunciation learning strategies effective in enhancing EFL students’ pronunciation?

The current study hypothesizes that:

1- Second-year EFL students at Mostaganem University do not use pronunciation learning strategies very frequently.

2- The diversity of language learning strategies used by EFL students enhances their pronunciations effectively.

In this study, the qualitative approach is employed. An interview adopted from Berkil’s (2008) contribution is used as a research instrument. First, interviews are conducted with six teachers; three of them teaching phonetics and three teaching oral expression at the department of English, Mostaganem University. Second, interviews are conducted with twelve second- year EFL students. The combination of qualitative tool contributes to determining which PLSs EFL students missed and to compare PLSs that are employed with those that are disregarded. The choice of methods is critically based on teachers and learners’ views and perceptions of the usefulness of PLSs.

The current study is divided into two parts, a theoretical part and a practical part. The former comprises two sections. The first section, entitled ‘language learning strategies’, starts off by defining LLSs in all of the four skills of English. Furthermore, it provides a brief background as well as classifications of LLSs given by a number of researchers. The second is entitled ‘Pronunciation Learning Strategies’. It provides its definitions and different classifications accompanied with examples of each strategy. Besides, it presents a comparison between LLSs and PLSs in similarities and differences which will highlight the research gap. The second chapter is devoted to the description of methodology. It describes the research design, methods and participants. The third chapter presents the collected data and provides the qualitative analysis and interpretation. It also cites and discusses the major findings.

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of earlier research on language learning strategies (LLS) and pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) and their involvement in improving the pronunciation of English learners.

1.2 Language Learning Strategies (LLS)

1.2.1 language Learning Strategies Definitions

Approaches to defining the LLS construct have changed through time. Numerous attempts have been done to define LLS, causing confusion and resulting in different designs which created fogy results (Griffiths, 2008b). In the 1990s, the most widely spread definitions proposed by O’Malley & Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990) were backed with taxonomies and tools for measuring LLS. Afterwards, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, more systematic approaches to define LLS were adopted (cf. Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2008a, 2013; Oxford, 2011)

Rubin (1975, p.43) provided a broad definition of LLS as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge”. Later, Rubin (1987, p.22) said that LLS “are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner construct”. She also proposed that LLS could include any set of tasks, procedures, plans, or routines that learners use to facilitate the process of obtaining, storing, retrieving, and using information (p. 19). Conversely, Bialystok (1978) claims that language learning strategies are an “optional means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language”, in other words, the learner uses language learning strategies just to become more potent, not to learn easily or effectively.

Further definitions implicate that of Schemeck (1988), who asserted that a strategy is “the implementation of a set of procedures (tactics) for accomplishing something” and a learning strategy is “a sequence of procedures for accomplishing learning” (p. 5). “Behaviours and thoughts that a learner engages during learning and that are intended to influence the learner’s encoding process”, Weinstein and Mayer (1986). Additionally, Rigney (1978) states that a learning strategy is (a cognitive strategy) that is “used to signify operations and procedures that the student may use to acquire, retain, and retrieve different kinds of knowledge and performance” (p. 165).

Similarly, O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Krupper, and Russo (1985) define LLS as "operations or steps used by a learner to facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval, or use of information" (p. 23). This implies that LLS deployment triggers cognitive processes within a learner, resulting in greater effectiveness and success in FL learning.

Two definitions have been theorized in 1990 which have shown beyond doubt a beneficial and proven in LLS research (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). In one interpretation, LLS was posited as a source of LLS “are steps taken by students to enhance their own learning” (Oxford, 1990, p. 1), as well as stating “operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information” (ibid., p. 8). LLS was later redefined by Oxford (1999) as “specific action, behaviours, steps, or techniques that students used to improve their progress in developing skills in a second or a foreign language. These strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of new language” (p. 518). Despite the broad range of what LLS refers to (actions, behaviours, steps, or techniques), the question of whether they are used purposefully or partially has not yet been resolved. In addition, a shortage in data about whether strategies are used intentionally by EFL students.

According to these definitions, the alteration through time is noticeable: from the concentration on the outcome of Language learning strategies to a greater emphasis on the processes and characteristics of LLS.

Defining language learning strategies is not an easy task, Wenden and Rubin (1987) claim “the elusive nature of the term” (p.7). There are many issues brought to light by Ellis (1994) when he tried to describe the term strategy as “fuzzy” and “not easy to tie down” (p. 529). The first issue is that Ellis (1994) believes that it remains open to question whether learning strategies are classified as behaviouralS, mental, or a combination of both. In contrast, Oxford (1989) describes them as primarily behavioural, whereas Weinstein and Mayer (1986) describe them as both behavioural and mental.

In summary, O’Malley et al. (1985) elucidate language learning strategy as follows: There is no consensus on what constitutes a learning strategy in second language learning or how these differ from other types of learner activities. Learning, teaching and communication strategies are often interlaced in discussions of language learning and are often applied to the same behaviour. Further, even within the group of activities most often referred to as learning strategies; there is considerable confusion about definitions of specific strategies and about the hierarchic relationship among strategies (p. 22).

As has been seen in O’Malley’s description (1985), learning strategies concerning language are significant in educational research, and in foreign language learning research specifically. A large number of researchers and authors in this field have attempted to classify learning strategies that interfered and contradicted with one another; more researchers need to be done to clarify the types of learning strategies to understand in which ways to be applied, to ensure an effective, and applicable process of EFL learning.

1.2.2 Classifications and Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies

As has been indicated above, language learning strategies have been defined and classified by several researchers and scholars. Still, the majority of these attempts to classify language learning strategies express more or less the same categorization of language learning strategies with no major changes. Below, a comparison will be made between Oxford's (1990), O'Malley and Chamot's (1990), Rubin's (1981), and Tarone's (1980) taxonomies of language learning strategies. These authors’ work in the field of LLS research has been fundamental for all subsequent studies, and their classifications are still regarded as the most valid and influential ones for teaching English as a foreign language.

Over the past four decades, LLSs have been studied extensively. The literature presents several attempts to classify LLSs (Ellis, 1994; Naiman, Froanhlich, Stern, & Toedesco, 1978; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanarez, Russo, & Küpper, 1985; Oxford 1990; Wenden & Rubin, 1987). Oxford’s (ibid.) popular taxonomy, by far the most widely used, can be divided into two different macro-types: direct or indirect, where the direct encompasses memory, cognitive and compensation strategies, and the Indirect comprises metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. A large portion of LLSs is designed to develop language competence holistically, rather than as skill-specific strategies as might be the case with pronunciation, for instance. Direct strategies "require the brain to process the language" in slightly different ways, while indirect strategies are those that “underpin the business of language learning... without (in many instances) directly involving the target language” (Ellis, 1994.p. 135). There are three kinds of strategies within the latter: metacognitive strategies refer to how learners regulate their learning process, affective strategies refer to how learners regulate their emotions, motivations, and attitudes, and social strategies refer to how learners interact with others to learn.

The classification system designed by O’Malley et al. (1985) has been expanded by Oxford (1990) in the late 1980s. Oxford’s contribution to the study of language learning strategies is magnificent, Wakamoto (2009). Because the six-scheme strategy classification system she proposed and the strategy questionnaire she developed are still widely used today. Oxford differentiates between direct LLS, “which directly involve the subject matter,” and indirect LLS, which “do not directly involve the subject matter itself, but are essential to language learning strategies nonetheless” (1990, p. 71).

Oxford’s summarization of the three types of direct LLS: memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. First, memory strategies “aid in entering information into long-term memory and retrieving information when needed for communication.” Second, cognitive LLS “are used for forming and revising internal mental models and receiving and producing messages in the target language.” Third, compensation strategies “are needed to overcome any gaps in knowledge of the language” (Oxford, 1990, p. 71). Oxford’s description of the three types of indirect LLS (1990): metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies. Metacognitive strategies “help learners exercise executive control through planning, arranging, focusing, and evaluating their own learning.” Affective LLS “enable learners to control feelings, motivations, and attitudes in relation to language learning.” Social strategies “facilitate interaction with others, usually in discourse situation” (Oxford, 1990, p. 71, Aljuaid, Hind Thallab K, 2015).

Table 1.1 Oxford’s Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies (Oxford, 1990, p. 17)

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

Attributed to the interfered ideas, establishing definitions and classification systems for language learning strategies is not straightforward, due to the lack of agreement on what is considered a feature of language learning strategies, and however it is defined or classified, it will become a conflict with one another of opposite definitions, terms, and classification systems.

The inclusion of memory and compensation strategies in Oxford’s (1990) classification is more beneficial in comparison with O’Malley’s and Chamot’s classification. As a result, the classification of overlapping characters will be taken into consideration in the learning strategies and communication strategies (Wakamoto, 2009).

To shed more light on Oxford’s taxonomy (1990) of classifying language learning strategies into two strategies: direct and indirect. Direct language learning strategies are for the assistance of learners due to their nature of helping them to store and recover information. Direct strategies are classified into three strategies: first, memory strategies, are fundamentally 9 items, for adding new memories and retrieving them when needed for communications (grouping, representing sounds, structured reviewing, using physical response). Samida (2005) claims that the advantage of this strategy is that it is based on simple principles such as making associations, laying things out in specific order, and reviewing the learned material. Accordingly, the memory strategy is the most efficient tool for learning new vocabulary in a foreign language. An example of a memory strategy provided by Oxford (1990) is the ability of storytellers to remember long stories by relating different parts of speech to various rooms in a house or temple by association, thereby making the process of retrieving the story a walk around that house from room to room. A second memory strategy used in SLA is linking words with a certain tune, grouping, explaining and contextualizing new words. As an example, words denoting food items may be categorized into breakfast, lunch, and dinner to simplify the learning process.

Second, cognitive strategies (14 items) are used for linking, analysing, and classifying new information with existing schemata. In cognitive strategies (14 items), new information is linked, analysed, and classified with respect to existing schema. These strategies pertain to deep processing, forming and revising internal mental models, as well as receiving and producing messages (e.g., repeating, getting the idea quickly, analysing, and taking notes). By repeating, analysing, or summarizing, the target language is distorted or manipulated (Aljuaid, Hind Thallab K, 2015). Samida (2005) underlined those cognitive strategies are effective only when it’s a tool for producing a new expression in the target language. Taking the example of learning words with the -ough spelling, words such as through, though, and trough all share this component, yet they sound different. Therefore, to learn them more quickly and effectively, learners can employ phonetic spellings for them such as throo, thow, tuff, etc.

Third, compensation strategies (6 items) such as guessing and gestures. Such a strategy is used for compensating unknown information or missed ones, by switching to the mother tongue, getting help, and using different clues, and synonyms. Compensation strategies are used by learners for comprehending the target language whenever there is insufficient knowledge (Walker, 2008). Compensation strategies are for finding an alternative solution in situations described with a lack of information, solving it by relating to life experience by interpreting data through guessing. Compensation strategies have two types, first, guessing strategies which include the use of linguistic clues and concentrating on nonverbal cues such as gestures and expressions. Second, overcoming strategies which include switching to one’s mother tongue, using gestures, avoiding communication, and coining new words (Walker, 2008).

Indirect language learning strategies co-exist with direct strategies by assisting the learner in systematizing the learning process. Indirect strategies are classified into three strategies. Firstly, metacognitive strategies (9 items) are used for organizing, planning, concentrating, and evaluating one’s learning, for instance, linking new data with existing ones, exploring practice opportunities, and self-monitoring (Aljuaid, Hind Thallab K, 2015). Oxford (1990) defines metacognitive strategies as “actions which go beyond purely cognitive devices, and which provide a way for learners to coordinate their own learning process” (p. 136). Metacognitive strategies can be divided into subcategories as centring, arranging, planning, and evaluating, which enables learners to plan their language learning efficiently. Centring one's learning is inseparably tied to focusing on specific learning tasks, such as paying attention to individual linguistic details. A well-organized study space, a dictionary purchase, and knowledge of how language is learned are all aspects of arranging and planning one's 49 learning. Learners should be aware of their mistakes and correct them to avoid repeating them in the future, along with evaluating their progress in correcting their errors (Walker, 2008).

Secondly, affective strategies (6 items) are used for controlling emotions, attitudes, and motivations, for instance, lowering anxiety, encouraging oneself, and discussing feelings with others. These factors can influence learning in a significant way, in which these factors can be grouped into three sets of strategies; lowering anxiety, self-encouragement, and taking one’s emotional temperature (Aljuaid, Hind Thallab K, 2015).

Samida (2005) claims that good language learners should have the ability to manage their attitudes and feelings about learning, which will develop a conscious comprehension of the effects of their negative feelings about the learning process. She adds according to researches which were conducted in order to determine whether the amount of anxiety affects the level of performance she discovered that a certain natural amount of anxiety can be helpful for learners as it assists in reaching the optimal level of academic performance. Nevertheless, excessive anxiety has collateral damage on the learners because it potentially hinders the language learning process. As a result of anxiety, students tend to feel pressured to perform well in front of others to impress the teacher, making them start before they are fully prepared (Samida, 2005).

Thirdly, social strategies (6 items) include asking questions and cooperating with others to facilitate interaction in the learning process: e.g., asking for clarification, cooperating with others, and developing cultural awareness. In order to learn a language, social strategies are essential, because language is used in 53 forms of communication, and communication occurs between people. This group includes three sets of strategies: asking questions, cooperating with others, and empathizing with others.

Social strategies are employed to raise cooperation between learners and to reinforce contact between teachers and foreign language learners (Takac, 2008, Aljuaid, Hind Thallab K, 2015). As a consequence, social strategies engage learners in an environment where foreign language practice is possible without their direct participation. Taking into account the fact that learning a language is generally a social process, Walker (2008) suggested that L2 students pay special attention to asking native speakers to clarify meaning, slow down their rate of speech, and repeat words to enhance their language learning experience. The purpose of cooperation as a social strategy is to increase one's understanding of the language by working together with other language learners. To empathize with other people, one must examine the new culture from the perspective of native speakers, and attempt to understand it from the perspective of other people, not just from their own. According to Samida (2005), asking questions is one of the most important SLA skills because it helps learners understand the meaning of a foreign language and facilitates conversation by generating a response from their partner, thus demonstrating interest and involvement.

Moreover, classifications as Rubin’s (1981 in Michonska-Stadnik, 1996, p. 33) disperse LLS into two genres: direct and indirect. The former are classified into sub-six groups: clarification and verification, as example, a learner asks how to use a new word in the target language and repeats it to internalize its meaning; monitoring is when a learner recognizes and corrects his/her mistakes; memorization, e.g., a learner is taking notes and using techniques would help him/her remembering phrase or word; inductive inferencing, e.g., a learner tries to estimate the meaning from the context; deductive reasoning, e.g., a comparison made by the learner between SL and TL; and practice, e.g., a learner experience new sounds, imitate the pronunciation of TL. Strategies which contribute indirectly to learning involve two subgroups: creating opportunities for practising the target language, e.g., the learner aims for chances to interact with native speakers of TL; and production tricks, e.g., a learner uses synonyms to avoid breakdowns in communication in the TL.

As a matter of classification of these strategies from direct and indirect strategies, numerous attempts have been made to define language learning strategies and there are no differences between these definitions. Tarone (1980, p. 419) proposed two types of strategies: the “strategy of language use” and the “language learning strategy”. She identifies within the strategy of language use two types of strategies: communication strategies and production strategies. According to Tarone (1980), communication strategies are a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared. She defines language learning strategies as an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language. Tarone’s classification is well-elaborated about LLS which attracts the learner’s goal in using strategies. However, it is challenging to delineate these strategies whenever the learner has more the one purpose in using strategies.

Learning strategies are often used as a reference to two concepts, i.e., general approach and specific actions (Ellis, 1994, Magadalena Szyszka, 2016). The general approach is a seen as comprehensive plan for a student carefully prepared to achieve learning goals. Macaro, (2006) claims that a strategic plan is conceived on the essence of a learner’s metacognitive knowledge and experience. Consequently, specific actions taken by learners which “is any individual processing technique one uses in service of the plan” (Derry, 1988, p. 2), compared with the term tactics because strategies are used as a broader term for sets of specific tactics in the process of learning L2 pronunciation.

1.3 Pronunciation Learning Strategies (PLS)

1.3.1 Pronunciation Learning Strategies Definitions

Defining pronunciation learning strategies has been at the bottom of the priorities of scholars, therefore, few attempts to define PLS. A definition proposed by Peterson (2000) of PLS depicts Oxford’s (1990) definition of learning strategies, by describing pronunciation learning strategies as “steps taken by students to enhance their own pronunciation learning” (p. 7). The following steps express Peterson's general approach to pronunciation learning as a series of strategies and tactics that are used as specific tools to achieve strategic learning success. Thus, this definition assumes that a strategy consists of a broader design or plan for achieving a high-level goal and coordinating some tactics (Dornyei, 2005, p. 165).

Pawlak (2010) defines pronunciation learning strategies as “deliberate actions and thoughts that are consciously employed, often in a logical sequence, for learning and gaining greater control over the use of various aspects of pronunciation” (p. 191). The PLS consciously chosen by a learner are not only used during the learning process, i.e., for the development of declarative knowledge but also to contribute to procedural knowledge by using pronunciation aspects in communication (Pawlak, 2010). For this study, this definition will serve as a working definition, since it emphasizes the conscious aspect of PLS as applied by learners at various stages of pronunciation learning and development. Consequently, only learners who are aware of their actions and thoughts during the process of improving their pronunciation can analyse their use of PLS consciously.

1.3.2 Classifications and Taxonomies of Pronunciation Learning Strategies

Pronunciation learning strategies are conscious actions and thoughts, mostly used in a logical sequence (Pawlak, 2010). Peterson (2000) stated that PLS is a sequence of actions and thoughts, and also compared PLS to steps L2 take to acquire L2 pronunciation. For comprehending these steps, they may be categorized as behavioural and mental (Dornyei, 2005, p. 167), the awareness of these steps should be highlighted because their appropriate usage can improve the process of learning (Dornyei, 2005, p. 167). Nevertheless, “recent state-of-art papers devoted to pronunciation and learning strategies either ignore the relationship between the two altogether or gloss over this issue with a brief comment” (Pawlak, 2006, p. 125). Broadly speaking, pronunciation learning strategies are marginalized in the research and classification of language learning strategies. However, PLS categorization has recently been made by Calka (2011), Eckstein (2007), Osburne (2003), Peterson (2000) and Wrembel (2008), and will be presented accordingly.

Assuring the continuation of this discussion, tactics are seen as "A tactic is an application of a strategy to meet a particular objective in a specific situation". (Oxford, 2011, p. 31). Concerning language learning, a language learning strategy is perceived to be a more general plan containing one or more tactics, whereas a tactic is achieving a specific goal in a particular situation. Despite the distinction, several researchers employ it equivalently, for instance, a definition of strategy by MacIntyre and Noels (1996) “any tactic or plan that a learner believes will assist her/him in acquiring some part of the language” (p. 373). Nevertheless, fresh publications have been differentiating both terms, strategy and tactic (cf. Griffiths, 2013; Oxford, 2011). Naiman (1978) created a taxonomy which is considered to be one of the earliest strategies and has been quoted by Michonska-Stadnik (1996), which includes five groups: an active approach to language tasks, viewing language as a system, viewing language as a means of communication, appropriate emotional balance in the process of language learning (management of affective demands) and a constant readiness refereeing to the testing and monitoring TL performance, consequently, it may not serve the goal of teaching properly ((Cohen & Macaro, 2007).

Table 1.2 Pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) and tactics based on Oxford (1990)

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

When researching the field of pronunciation learning strategies, Peterson (2000) claims that a distinction has to be made between strategies and tactics, because perceiving PLS as a general approach and pronunciation learning tactics as specific actions will support the effectiveness of more general strategies. Peterson (2000) collected twenty- two pronunciation learning tactics, moreover, she continued the research in which twenty-one new tactics “that had perhaps never before been documented as pertaining specifically to pronunciation learning” (p. 10) emerged. Peterson (2000) has classified forty-three pronunciation learning tactics based on Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy in twelve pronunciation learning strategies such as representing sounds in memory, practising naturalistically, formally practising with sounds, analysing the sound system, using proximal articulations, finding out about target language pronunciation, setting goals and objectives, planning for a language task, self-evaluating, using humour to lower anxiety, asking for help, and cooperating with peers (Table 1.2).

Representing sounds in memory as the first strategy refers to Oxford’s direct memory strategy and is illustrated by one tactic mentioned by Peterson (2000): creating rhythms to remember how to pronounce words.

Table 1.3 Peterson’s (2000) classification of pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) within the framework of Oxford’s (1990) learning strategies (LS)

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

According to Peterson (2000), one tactic for remembering how to pronounce a word is to invent songs or rhythms that represent the sounds in memory. This strategy refers to Oxford's direct memory strategy. Peterson's list of naturalistic practices, formally practising sounds, and analysing the sound system contains a longer list of twenty-nine pronunciation tactics used by pronunciation learners. Compensation strategies which are considered as direct strategies are represented by one strategy, i.e., the use of proximal articulation, with no instances of pronunciation tactics. Oxford’s indirect metacognitive strategies are outlined by Peterson’s four pronunciation strategies: Finding out about a target language pronunciation, setting goals and objectives, planning for a language task, and self-evaluating, along with seven pronunciation tactics. Indirect affective strategy has one tactic which is to have a sense of humour regarding mispronunciations. Indirect social strategies have two tactics which are asking for help and cooperating with peers (asking someone else to correct one’s pronunciation, asking someone else to pronounce something, studying with someone else and teaching someone else) (Peterson, 2000). According to Eckstein (2010), mispronunciations created by learners are considered a mispronunciation, and thus communicating with native English speakers requires intelligible pronunciation. Furthermore, Peterson’s taxonomy provides a significant contribution to the learner’s pronunciation while learning the English language.

However, Peterson’s attempt to classify PLS detects a significant imbalance in the number of tactics belonging to a specific PLS. Cognitive strategies have the largest number of pronunciation tactics, in which affective pronunciation strategies are outlined by one tactic, and there is no one tactic found within compensation pronunciation learning strategies. Nevertheless, Peterson assures that the number of learner pronunciation tactics remains open and requires further investigation (Magdalena Szyszka, 2016).

Additionally, Osburne (2003) attempted another classification relying on interviews and think-aloud protocols conducted among L2 learners. Eight PLS listed their main focus on the following aspects: local articulatory gesture and single sound e.g., a reference to the articulatory position of a sound),individual syllables (e.g., focus on syllable division), clusters below syllable level(e.g., reference to clusters not existing in L1), prosody (e.g., attention to stress, intonation, and rhythm), individual words (e.g., focus on the pronunciation of particular words), paralanguage (e.g., clarity, volume, and speed of speech), and memory and imitation (e.g., mimicking the interviewer). To categorize PLS, data from retrospective protocols have been subjected to a content analysis. Before establishing mutually acceptable groupings, raters identify tentative groupings.

Eckstein (2007) presents a taxonomy of PLS comparing the four stages of learning to the four stages of pronunciation acquisition within SLA theory, in which his taxonomy is based on Kolb’s (1984 in Eckstein, 2007), in which the initial concrete experience of learning should be followed by reflection on this experience. Such reflection stimulates the process of abstract conceptualization, which is then checked by the learner.

The first stage is concrete experience is consistent with input and practice, the second is noticing/feedback, and abstract conceptualization compared to hypothesis forming, while testing of new concept mirrors the process of hypothesis testing (Table 1.3)

Table 1.4 Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle, Eckstein’s (2007) equivalent stages of pronunciation acquisition and examples of pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) used at each stage

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

In each of these learning areas, different pronunciation learning strategies are triggered, which may contribute to the learning/acquisition of pronunciation. As part of the input stage, seven PLS are recommended, including intent listening, listening to others' articulatory gestures, active listening, eagerly listening to new sounds, ensuring optimal contact with L2 pronunciation (by using TV, movies, radio), retaining sounds in memory and focusing on single syllables. Concrete experience is reflected also in the practice stage, where nine PLS are potentially used. Reading aloud, practising new sounds, imitating native speakers and L2 prosody, speaking aloud, memorizing word pronunciations, using facial muscles to practice L2 pronunciation, repeating sounds after recording, and practising sounds in isolation and later in context are all examples.

The second stage is noticing and feedback according to Eckstein (2007) are used to improve the seven applications of PLS. The learner may use noticing as noticing differences between L1 and L2 pronunciation, focusing on the suprasegmental features, intent listening, identifying errors, focusing on the articulatory gestures of others, listening and inferring key sounds, and acquiring general knowledge of phonetics. Additionally, feedback has seven applications of PLS which are self-monitoring, focusing on suprasegmental of L2 speech, using phonetic symbols and transcriptions, monitoring negative interference, active listening seeking help, and cooperating with peers.

The third phase, abstract conceptualization, chimes with hypothesis forming, which involves mental processing consisting of the devising of new conceptualizations of TL properties based on available input (Ellis, 1994).

Eckstein (2007) proposes a final construct, hypothesis which is based on Kolb’s construct “action based on new conceptualization”. Eckstein’s construct comprises eight PLS. The learner may use to facilitate pronunciation acquisition by repeating new words according to a new hypothesis, skipping difficult words in order not to disturb the process of learning, rehearsing sounds aloud, to get familiar with the sounds, using proximal articulations, slower rate of speech or clear speech to train the muscles of the mouth. Moreover, repeating new by new hypotheses, rehearsing sounds and skipping difficult words, as well as increasing or decreasing voice volume. Increasing the volume or decreasing it at a specific point can also lower language anxiety. The hurdle of this taxonomy is the misinterpretation of the PLS that some of them are connected, e.g., acquiring general knowledge of phonetics is connected with the act of noticing as well as hypothesis forming.

Another classification was made by Wrembel (2008), where he classifies PLS and pronunciation teaching strategies (PTS) together. His classification was based on O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) taxonomy of LLS, which categorizes learning strategies into cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-affective. Cognitive strategies in the frame of PLS and PTS are portrayed as repetition (e.g., drills, imitating the articulatory gestures of native speakers or teachers, and dialogue reading), practising (e.g., giving speeches or presentations, talking aloud to oneself), resourcing (e.g., using transcription, consulting a dictionary to check pronunciation), memory (e.g., inventing rhythms, colour associations), imagery (e.g., learning based on vowel charts, drawing intonation contours), directed physical feedback (e.g., tapping out a rhythm, kinaesthetic feedback), deduction (e.g., acquiring general knowledge of phonetics, contrastive analysis) and grouping (e.g., consciously applying rules, colour associations). Metacognitive strategies consist of four PLS, self-management of pronunciation n (e.g., through establishing pronunciation priorities, and planning pronunciation learning), self-monitoring/self-evaluation (e.g., through recording and listening to one’s pronunciation), selective attention, which might be associated with ear training or discrimination exercises, and directed attention focusing on intent listening or pronunciation training in the language laboratory. Socioaffective strategies are affective strategies such as lowering anxiety and interacting with others while practising pronunciation (Magdalena Szyszka, 2016).

Wremble’s (2008) main aim is to highlight and raise awareness among teachers and learners. However, a distinction between PLS and PTS is not clear, which this taxonomy fails to indicate. The basis of this failure is that the affective PLS are represented by one tactic: using humour to lower anxiety.

As shown in Table 2.4, the majority of the PLS classifications are based on either Oxford (1990) or O'Malley and Chamot (1990) language learning taxonomies or a combination of both. In addition, all of them, with the exception of Eckstein's (2007), overtly adopt four broad LLS categories to PLS: cognition, metacognition, social and affective. In one taxonomy (Peterson, 2000) memory and compensation strategies constitute a separate set. As a result of the discrepancies between the taxonomies listed above, it is evident that the number of pronunciation learning tactics studied so far is not finite, mainly because PLS research is still in its early stages (Berkil, 2008), and the taxonomy should be treated as tentative and open to modification as further research is conducted (Pawlak, 2010). PLS categorisation should be left as broad as possible, underpinned by narrower tactics that individual pronunciation learners employ (Magdalena Szyszka, 2016).

The application of previous taxonomies, however, exhibits discrepancies. The following table shows the discrepancies between the selected taxonomies for pronunciation learning strategies:

Table 1.5 A summary of selected taxonomies for pronunciation learning strategies

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

In Peterson’s taxonomy (2000), the 6 LLS developed by Oxford (1990) are memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social; among them, we find 12 PLS and 43 pronunciation learning tactics within each of these 12 PLS. Osburne’s taxonomy (2003) contains seven PLS (memory and imitation, paralanguage, individual words, global articulatory gesture, prosody and individual sounds) which are based on the think-aloud protocols’ research study. Kolb’s (19987) taxonomy was adopted by Eckstein (2007) stating the learning cycle with its 4 stages of pronunciation acquisition (input/practice, noticing/feedback, hypothesis forming and hypothesis testing); PLS is used at each of the stages. The last taxonomy of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) was approved by Wremble (2008) which is characterized by 14 boarder pronunciation learning and teaching strategies within O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-affective LLS.

1.4 The Significance of Pronunciation Learning Strategies in EFL Context

Without a doubt, as Oxford (1990) states on page 236, "strategies can increase learners’ language proficiency, self-confidence and motivation." According to Thu (2009), there are two main reasons why strategies are important: first, research on language learning and teaching (LLS) has provided additional insight into the cognitive, social, and affective processes involved in L2 learning; second, strategic training can help learners become more efficient and independent. Research looking into the PLS field (Berkil, 2008; Bukowski, 2004; Eckstein, 2007; Osburne, 2003; Pawlak, 2006, 2008, 2010; Peterson, 2000; Samalieva, 2000; Sheppard et al. 2007; Thu, 2009; Vitanova & Miller, 2002; Wrembel, 2008) assure the value of learning strategies in L2 pronunciation acquisition.

Pronunciation instruction has a relationship with both the emotional domain and the socio-affective aspect of learning a second language (Vitanova & Miller, 2002). For instance, the most commonly utilized PLS in Berkil's (2008) research falls into the emotive category, as she argues, they could represent a learner's identity in pronunciation. Furthermore, Wrembel (2008) asserts that the deliberate use of efficient PLS is thought to impact motivation and confidence in L2 pronunciation acquisition, two factors that are typically significant in L2 learning (Dornyei, Csizer, & Nemeth, 2006).

Eckstein (2007) claims that PLS may serve as predictors of pronunciation performance, he found three essential predictors of pronunciation: noticing others’ mistakes, adjusting facial muscles, and seeking pronunciation help. That is to say, most participants whose pronunciation score is high utilize PLS more than others. An investigation done by Tominaga (2009) says that a successful pronunciation practice is based on imitation of native speakers, combined with independent pronunciation practice is used among good pronunciation learners. Additionally, these strategies may serve as tools for improving teaching and learning processes inside classrooms.

Since PLS is both teachable and learnable (Bukowski, 2004; Eckstein, 2007; Vitanova & Miller, 2002), pronunciation instruction may immediately employ it. They could work well as tools for more autonomous and learner-centred pronunciation acquisition. PLS training exposes students to a variety of PLS, allowing them to select the ones that best suit their needs as individual learners (Vitanova & Miller, 2002) or as aids in their learning of L2 pronunciation (Wrembel, 2008). PLS's pedagogical and psychological background of pronunciation often encourages autonomy in pronunciation learning, allowing students who have access to it to independently work on their pronunciation outside of the classroom.

Nevertheless, the pronunciation acquisition process is complex, and frequently seen as more dependent on factors concerning learners than teaching (Jones, 2002; Tominaga, 2009), it is important to question how learners approach pronunciation learning. Otlowski (2003), believes that this approach is linked to learners' strategies. The appropriate strategies used may result in independent learning, because of the limitation in the time given in the classroom for pronunciation teaching (Oxford, 2003) that:

If there is harmony between (a) the student (in terms of style and strategy preferences) and (b) the combination of instructional methodology and materials, then the student is likely to perform well, feel confident, and experience low anxiety. If clashes occur between (a) and (b), the student often performs poorly, and feels unconfident.

The statement above suggests a connection between the use of strategies and L2 performance, even though it is an oversimplification unsupported by research findings. It also highlights the significance of a learner's pronunciation level in the classroom, the latter of which is the main focus of the study presented in this dissertation.

Although there was an immense increase in interest in studying pronunciation, the existing research is still insufficient in instructing proper English pronunciation (Peterson, 2002; Suwartono, 2014). According to Pawlak (2010), there is an increasing need to further investigate the effectiveness of PLS because the existing research has focused mainly on the identification and description of LLS. Furthermore, few researchers highlighted the factors influencing PLS choice and use in the ESL and EFL classrooms. This denotes a gap in research about PLS learning strategies used in the EFL classroom.” (p. 32). Baker and Haslam (2012), claim that the number of L2 English [pronunciation] strategies frisk in EFL contexts pales in comparison to those done in an EFL environment.

Sustaining this distinction, a strategy in pronunciation is viewed as a “specific, applied way or ways in which a strategy is being used to meet a goal in a particular situation and instance” (Oxford, 2011, p. 31). More specifically, a tactic is an action taken in a particular situation to learn L2 effectively, whereas a language learning strategy is perceived as a more general plan comprising either one or several tactics. Despite this distinction, some researchers use the terms interchangeably. For example, MacIntyre and Noels (1996) define a strategy as “any tactic or plan that a learner believes will assist her/him in acquiring some part of the language” (p. 373). Nevertheless, using Pronunciation learning strategies is more accurate than language learning strategies (Griffiths, 2013; Oxford, 2011).

As it was thought that developing a feeling of responsibility leads to successful learning, the subject of language learning has received substantial attention as a result of the move from teacher-centred to learner-centred standards and the emphasis on learner autonomy. (Page 50 in Erbay, \., et al., 2016). 17 Moreover, Szyszka agrees, viewing PLS as a “powerful instrument for more learner-centred and independent pronunciation acquisition” (2017, p. 48). PLS are essential resources for enhancing pronunciation acquisition and preserving the effectiveness of L2/L3 learning. Therefore, giving students access to PLS might motivate them to work on their pronunciation on their own (Tominaga 2009).

1.5 Conclusion

The way a learner utilizes language with a typical accent is called pronunciation. The acquisition of oral proficiency necessitates the use of appropriate instruments that ensure and accelerate the process of pronunciation learning. Given that EFL teachers and students are accustomed to depend mostly on language learning strategies. As a result, techniques for learning pronunciation are seen as ways to improve pronunciation. Adding a repertoire of powerful PLS to the learners' knowledge will help them communicate clearly, pronounce words correctly, make their speech understood by others, and comprehend the speech of others. Additionally, while creating, assessing, and analysing speech, segmental and suprasegmental characteristics of pronunciation must be taken into account.

CHAPTER 2: : METHODOLGY

2.1 Introduction

Following a theoretical background on pronunciation learning strategies and their relationship to language learning strategies, this chapter outlines the methodological steps used in the current study. It begins by describing the research approach that fits the study followed by the sample of the research and its characteristics. Then, it explains the methods used to collect data and provides a detailed description of the procedure. After that, the method used for data collection is explained. Finally, the chapter concludes by acknowledging the major limitations of the research method.

2.2 Research Method

The current study adopts the qualitative approach because it aims to explain pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) role in improving the EFL Arabic-speaking students’ pronunciation and how their pronunciation is affected by concentrating on language learning strategies (LLS).

2.3 The Sample

A specified population is required for gathering data that is appropriate for the sort of study being conducted. Research requires a specific population to obtain relevant data for the study. Due to the high population size, the researcher picked a sample to better represent the knowledge of the entire community. According to Cohen et al. (2000, p. 92), the quality of research depends not only on methodology and instrumentation but also on the appropriate sampling strategy used. The sample is equally significant as the study approach.

Taking into account the study's goal, which was to determine the efficiency of pronunciation learning strategies in improving the pronunciation of EFL Arabic-speaking students and how they may improve their pronunciation, the sample was chosen from a large population. The sample consists of five oral expression teachers, four phonetics teachers, and twenty English second-year students with a license degree. The reason for choosing the oral expression and the phonetics teachers from their expertise in teaching, they have taught oral expressions and phonetics for multiple years and the students have studied oral expression and phonetics courses for 2 terms in their first year and one term in the second year.

2.4 Procedures

The data collection process was organized, unbiased, and divided into 3 phases in order to enhance the credibility of the study. The first interview was with the phonetics teachers to interrogate if they use language learning strategies (LLS) or pronunciation learning strategies (PLS). The second interview was with the oral expressions teachers to question if they use language learning strategies (LLS) or pronunciation learning strategies (PLS). The third interview was with students of second-year of the license degree with inaccurate pronunciation in specific sounds to see if they have been taught through language learning strategies (LLS) or pronunciation learning strategies (PLS).

2.5 Method of Data Analysis

As a result, the research's option is interview as qualitative method. The qualitative approach is used in research performed in natural settings, with the researcher serving as a collection tool. This strategy is primarily related to why inquiries, in which the collected data takes the form of words and phrases and can be exploratory and use deductive approach; an deductive approach is often used when a researcher has very little or no idea of the research phenomenon and the participants use.

2.5.1 Qualitive Approach

The qualitative approach uses the researcher as the data collection instrument, where he becomes more biased in the subject matter. Besides, the data collected are in the form of words, even though it is rich in data but also time-consuming. Furthermore, the participants have also a subjective perception concerning the issue being dealt with in this approach, because it captures their feelings and emotions. Consequently, an interview was used in this approach for phonetics teachers, oral expression teachers, and English language second-year students at the Foreign Languages department of English , where more explanation to clarify questions was used when needed to adopt and avoid vagueness.

2.5.1.1 Interview

The interview is the tool used in this study for collecting data. The aim is to obtain qualitative data from participants through a set of open-ended questions. These questions were directed to English language students in their second year at the Foreign Languages department of English due to their study of phonetics and phonology for at least three semesters. Additionally, the researcher is free to reword the questions and request clarification as necessary.

Pronunciation learning strategies are divided into six strategies. Each strategy will have two questions in order to be tested in both semi-structured and unstructured interviews. The first strategy is memory, which will be represented by two questions. The second strategy is cognitive strategy, which will be represented by two questions. Thirdly, compensation strategy will be represented by two questions. Fourthly, metacognitive strategy will be represented by two questions. Fifthly, affective strategy will be represented by two questions. Additionally, cooperation strategy will be represented by two questions.

Even though conducting an interview like this while taking notes might be challenging, it is still feasible to gather reliable qualitative data; consequently, recording is preferred in order to avoid missing anything important.

2.5.1.1.1 Phonetics Teachers’ and Oral Expression Teachers’ Interview Questions

The interview questions regard the six strategies: First, the memory strategy Q1: Do you recommend to your students the use of symbols to recall the words’ pronunciation? Q2: How do you advise your students when they are unable to remember words’ pronunciations? Secondly, cognitive strategy, Q3: How do students react when you advise them to listen more and more? Q4: When students encounter difficult pronunciations in paragraphs, how do you overcome this issue? Thirdly, compensation strategy, Q5: When students have problems producing or articulating specific sounds, do you use synonyms as alternatives? Q6: Do you recommend students consult other students whenever facing a challenging word. Fourthly metacognitive strategy, Q7: How do you deal with students with inaccurate pronunciations? Q8: Do you recommend your students to evaluate their performance regularly? Fifthly, affective Strategy, Q9: When students pronounce words inaccurately, do you recommend using a sense of humour or making fun of the students' mistakes? Q10: Do you encourage your students to speak whenever they are afraid of making mistakes or their pronunciation is not perfect? Sixthly, cooperation strategy, Q11: Do you encourage your students to correct their classmates in case of mispronunciations? Q12: Do you think peer-correction works better than teacher- initiated correction? If yes, can you elaborate?

2.5.1.1.2 Students’ Interview

In regard to the first strategy, the memory strategy, Q1: I use phonetic symbols or my own codes to remember how to pronounce words. Q2: I memorize words’ pronunciation when I associate them with a situation which they were used in. Secondly, cognitive strategy, Q3: I try to imitate my teacher’s pronunciation or native speaker’s. Q4: I read out loud words, paragraphs, or passages. Thirdly, compensation strategy, Q5: I avoid using words which I have difficulty in pronouncing them. Q6: I use synonyms of words that I have difficulty in pronouncing them. Fourthly, metacognitive strategy, Q7: I notice my pronunciation problems and I try to overcome them. Q8: I purposely focus my listening particular sounds. Fifthly, affective strategy, Q9: I use a sense of humour whenever making mispronunciations. Q10: I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid that my pronunciation is not perfect. Sixthly, cooperation strategy, Q11: I ask someone else to correct my pronunciation. Q12: I tutor, teach or help someone else learning pronunciation.

2.5.1.1.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Interview

Due to the face-to-face interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee, the interview is likely most advantageous in that it is dependable and collects data directly. The participant is able to offer a great deal more details and clarification. In order to obtain rich, detailed narratives and the data they want for their project, researchers might customise the questions they pose to the interviewee, as explained by Kabir (2016, p. 221). Stated differently, scholars possess the entitlement to provide further illustrations and clarifications when necessary, so fostering in-depth and passionate conversations.

However, because they could cancel or reschedule, it can be challenging to prepare an interview, including determining the ideal time and location. A potential problem in the study might be the participants' lack of awareness about the issue, since some may not be aware of the study itself. This could lead to a lack of information being gathered throughout the data collection procedure. In addition, it takes a long time and requires a lot of work and energy; the researcher must be understanding and patient in the face of any potential difficulties.

2.6 Conclusion

To acquire authenticity and reliability, an exploratory methodology is used to depict and explain the main acts carried out, and the current chapter sheds light on the practical part of the research. The methodology used explained the sample, the steps, and the qualitative approach that allowed for the use the instruments; the interview, to collect a variety of data regarding PLS for enhancing the EFL Arabic-speaking students. Furthermore, an analysis and recommendations based on the data collection will be included in the upcoming chapter.

CHAPTER 3: EE: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

3.1. Introduction

The study findings analysis will take up this chapter. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the importance of pronunciation learning strategies and how they affect the pronunciation of EFL Arabic-speaking second-year students when compared to language learning strategies. An interview was conducted with oral expression and phonetics instructors as well as second-year students at Abid El Hamid Ben Badis University-Mostaganem of the academic year 2023-2024 in order to respond to the research questions and validate the premise of the current study.

3.2. Findings

With total 12 second-year students, 3 teachers of phonetics, and 3 teachers of oral expressions who have been interviewed during the months of April and May, which where the classes of phonetics oral expressions were taking place.

3.2.1.1. The Use of Memory Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)

Firstly, Q1 answered according to PT1 to use IPA symbols and that they can transcribe words to know how they are pronounced. In regards to Q2, the reply was, they may not necessarily forget; they may simply don’t know. I ask them to check a dictionary or to use the Forvo platform, where they can listen to native speakers pronouncing those sounds. PT2 Q1, for the purpose of helping pupils recall the symbols or codes taught in the classroom. Concerning Q2, to solve such an issue, always check the dictionary, which comes from a lack of motivation to search. PT3 Q1 answer is to write words on the board, especially the difficult ones, and check students’ pronunciation in order to be corrected if not. Concerning the Q2 answer, the student has to determine which type of learner he or she is to connect their memory to remember the words’ pronunciation.

Q1 answer, according to OET1, encourages students to use such a strategy and adds that it is significant to use it to convey the meaning whenever the meaning is lost. Q2’s response is that every session, there is a word of the day that is brought in by either the teacher or students, posted on the board, and rehearsal-like. OET2 Q1, the response is that the approach is useless and that the strategy is unfamiliar. In response, Q2 suggests reading and writing to address this issue and ensure frequent word usage. OET3, Q1’s response is to recommend it if the teacher is a phonetics teacher and still thinks it depends on the learning style of the students. Q2, according to OET3, is to translate the word into Arabic or French and then to pronounce the word to be repeated by the students.

3.2.1.2. The Use of Memory Strategies by Students (S)

According to student number 1 S1, the first response to Q1 attempts to write down the sound by imagining it, while the second response focuses on mimicking the teacher’s tone of voice production. S2 response to Q1 is that S1 do not use symbols to remember sounds, and Q2's response is that S2 often focus on the teacher’s pronunciation. S3 Q1, the student uses symbols usually to remember the words’ pronunciation; Q2 replied that the student cannot remember memorising words’ pronunciation by associating them with situations. According to S4, the student’s first answer to Q1 is that they always use symbols to recall how to pronounce words; however, for Q2, they learn how to pronounce new words, particularly those that are challenging. Regarding Q1, the response states that S5 occasionally uses phonetic symbols to help remember word pronunciation. Q2’s response is affirmative, and an example of that is the word knowledge. S5 used to pronounce it as /'nailid 3/ instead of /'nnlid 3/. According to Q1’s response and Q2’s response S6, the student is unable to readily recall word pronunciations, despite both questions’ claims that they can distinguish between sound transcriptions and memorise them.

Considering Q1, S7 stated, ‘’I don’t; instead, I learned how to pronounce words by randomly watching and listening to films, podcasts, and videos. In addition, students responded in Q2 to the question by relating terms to context. According to Q1’s statement S8, “Yes, I typically use my codes; I only use phonetic symbols when necessary.” Q2 also agrees, saying, “Yes, this has made it very easy for me to remember words.”. S9 and S10 responded to Q1. I have a code that I use to remind me of each phonetic symbol that I use. Regarding Q2's response, S9 and S10 have set the word's pronunciation to memory and utilised it in the appropriate context. About Q1 S11, it is stated that you should not employ phonetic symbols because it is difficult to distinguish between them and short-term memory prevents you from memorising word pronunciations. For Q1, S12 provided a response that "using phonetic symbols and revising them regularly to remember the words' pronunciation." As for Q2, having a strong memory aid in associating words' pronunciation with meaningful contexts.

3.2.2.1. The Use of Cognitive Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)

Firstly, PT1 in regard to Q3 answer is that students just nod their heads, in addition, Q4’s that student were asked to check the words up. Students love to listen, especially in the classroom, however the percentage of students who practise listening decreases when they are not in the classroom PT3 and PT2 Q3's response. Furthermore, Q4's response states that rather than pausing to inquire for the proper pronunciation of a challenging word, many students simply guess the pronunciation.

According to OET1, Q3 said that they would want to listen, but only if it took place within the classroom. Q4 also responded that they could attempt pronouncing it, and if that did not work, they could ask their peers or the instructor for advice. Indeed, Q3's according to OET2 is a great strategy to employ in order to improve cognitive capacity. To pronounce the term correctly, go to the dictionary or the teacher's explanation for Q4. (Q3 response from OET3) is students' responses vary depending on how motivated they are, but for the most part, they value my advice because I always tell them to own up to their mistakes and look for additional resources, like podcasts, audiobooks, and native speakers, to help them get better at listening. Q4 also responds, saying that the teacher emphasises proper pronunciation and articulation through repeating the word slowly and clearly, and that they should repeat it several times to get it right.

3.2.2.2. The Use of Cognitive Strategy by Students (S)

In response to Q3 and Q4, S1, S2, and S3 stated, ''We routinely imitate native speakers and even professors. Furthermore, Q4 noted, "We change the content to speaking and pronunciation activities when we have to study." About Q4, S3 said, ‘’I read out loud if I am well prepared for the paragraph. ‘’ S4 responded, "Yes, I do," to Q3. I constantly strive to sound like my professors and native speakers. Lately, I have been attempting to pick up a British accent. Regarding Q3 and Q4, S4 and S5 read aloud every time to check for mispronunciations and make any necessary modifications, and to mimic our teachers rather than native speakers." S6 Concerning Q3’s answer said, ''Yes, I try to imitate native speakers, mostly British.’’, furthermore, Q4’s reply is that S6 do not read out loud.

Regarding Q3, S7 said that "imitating native speakers is a daily routine for me." However, since I find answering Q4 to be a little challenging, reading out loud is not the best option for me. S8 answered Q3: ''No, I do not. I have come to terms with the idea that I will never have a native pronunciation, but I still make an effort to pick up on it from my professors. About Q4, S8 stated, ‘’No, I don't. I find that reading out loud makes it more difficult for me to focus and comprehend what I'm reading; instead, I would much rather listen and repeat. According to S9, S10, S11, and S12, Q3 and Q4 respond, "Generally, we mimic native speakers by listening to them and repeating words." Q4 responded, "We do not always read out loud paragraphs and books."

3.2.3.1. The Use of Compensation Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)

Firstly, Q5 answered according to PT1 I gave them similar sounds in their mother tongue to compare with. In regards to Q2’s reply, no, I do not recommend consulting other students whenever they face difficult words. Students have been instructed to consider alternatives when required and to not stick with one interpretation while answering Q5 PT2. Regarding Q6, PT2 consistently advises pupils to confer with one another. PT3 Q5’s answer is that students are given minimal pairs, which is always challenging for them, especially in the smiling sounds. Concerning Q6, answer that PT3 usually encourages students to do peer correction.

Q5's answer, according to OET1, stated that the students are given words and their alternatives to be used whenever they forget one. Q6’s response is that students have been recommended to consult each other whenever possible. "It is not my specific skill to notice such mistakes and mispronunciations; unless a student is having difficulty pronouncing a word, I intervene to correct the mistake." OET2 Q5 stated. OET2 responded to Q6 that it is remarkably beneficial for students to consult each other. Yes, is Q5's reaction to OET3 Their vocabulary is expanded by this. Regarding Q6, according to OET3, I suggest my pupils look up synonyms or translations outside of the classroom or debate new words with their friends. I believe it is my responsibility to explain new terms. I think it's still critical to promote peer support outside of the classroom, even if some kids might not find it useful because they worry about being judged by their peers for not knowing.

3.2.3.2. The Use of Compensation Strategy by Students (S)

S1 responded to Q5 and Q6 by saying that avoiding complex vocabulary will not help, but I should still attempt to pronounce them and, if I can't, try to express the meaning by using an alternative term. Regarding Q5, S2 stated, "I don't avoid them; I just pronounce them as I know." In addition, S2 said in response to Q6: "I frequently use synonyms to convey the meaning."". Q5: "I rarely use difficult words because I do not want to mispronounce them," S3 stated. In response to Q6, "I sometimes use synonyms," S3 stated, "Yes, I do use synonyms whenever necessary to convey the needed meaning." "No, I don't avoid; I just give it a try, and then I check the pronunciation correctly," S4 said. "I avoid new or difficult words, especially in oral expression classes, and replace them with academic vocabulary," Q5 and Q6 went on to say. "No, we don't; we just pronounce them and try to explain the meaning by paraphrasing or using idioms," S5 and S6 responded to questions Q5 and Q6.

S7 said, "No, I keep trying to pronounce words until I get the hang of it," and went on to discuss Q6. I occasionally use synonyms, and it makes no difference whether I pronounce them incorrectly. "I do, but I like challenging myself and sometimes using them in an actual situation to get used to them," is how Q5 has been responded to, as stated by S8. Additionally, in response to Q6, I do my best to choose terms that are simpler to say and recall. S9 and S10 "I try to read the hard words, but sometimes I avoid pronouncing them," was Q5's comment. Q6's reply: "I use synonyms of words that I find difficult to pronounce." S11 and S12 in regard to Q5, said, ‘’ No, I always check in the dictionary for the correct pronunciation,’’, continued replying to Q6, ‘’ Sometimes I find difficulty in pronouncing words; I use synonyms to connect with the challenging word.’’

3.2.4.1. The Use of Metacognitive Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)

In reference to Q7, PT1 stated, "If students ever knew it was inaccurate, they would consult me or the dictionary." Moreover, Q8: "I would rather ask them to listen to native speakers more frequently. In response to Question 7, PT2 said, "I keep trying to help them to perfect the sound and to listen more to words' pronunciation from the dictionary." In addition, in Q8, students are encouraged to continuously evaluate their pronunciation skills. "I always advise students to mind their pronunciation because it may result in a misunderstanding or even conveying the wrong idea," PT3 said about Q7. That's not to assess, but to correct one another, is Q8's response.

Q7 stated that "they would want to listen, but only if the activity took place within the classroom," according to OET1. Q8 also mentioned that it's encouraged for pupils to routinely assess and monitor their pronunciation qualities. OET2 recommended reading books and listening to audiobooks as Q7. My approach to Q8 is to ask students questions to evaluate their performance and to teach them how to do so. (Q7 response from OET3): I correct pupils' mispronunciations without making them ashamed. I simply wanted to clarify that it is truly... rather than... I repeat the term correctly until they get it right. Q8 said, "Yes, I asked them to try speaking continuously for two minutes." Some of them challenge themselves by asking me questions to encourage them to talk more and attain the two-minute threshold. After two semesters, a few students can speak for four to six minutes with practice.

3.2.4.2. The Use of Metacognitive Strategy by Students (S)

S1 responded to Q7, "I sometimes mispronounce words, and I try to identify where the problem is," whereas Q8 said, "I usually focus on specific sounds that I find difficult to pronounce." S2 remarked, "I always try to perfect my pronunciation by focusing on my mispronunciations" in relation to Q7, and Q8's response was, "I usually concentrate on how sounds are produced." S3, S4, and S5 answered to Q7 and Q8 by saying, ''we do not focus on our mispronunciation, but rather on speaking more and how sounds are created. S6 stated in response to Q7 and Q8, ''I typically correct myself and have problems distinguishing between diphthongs.'' S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, and S12 claimed that ''we do notice our mispronunciations, and there is no need to stop and check them since it will slow us down; we rather focus on imitating native speakers, and it will enhance our pronunciation capabilities.’’

3.2.5.1. The Use of Affective Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)

In reference to Q9, PT1 claimed, "I often speak favourably of using the sense of humour about mispronunciations’’; moreover, in Q10, "I would rather ask them to listen to native speakers more frequently, and what is important is that they recognise mispronunciations and fix them.’’. In response to Q 9, PT2 stated that "students do not use affective strategies and never noticed them using the sense of humour inside the classroom, which is a result of not having strategies at all." Furthermore, in Q10, students are constantly pushed to focus on breaking the ice rather than mispronouncing words. PT3 stated regarding Q9, "No, I do not recommend or have never done so before." and about Q10, "I have noticed that male students use language more casually than females; they do not focus on how they will sound but rather on delivering the idea."

Students used their sense of humour to overcome stress and anxiety, according to OET1 Q9 and Q10. "I noticed students used their sense of humour as a defence mechanism and sometimes as a way to gain more time." OET2 ‘’I rarely saw students use their sense of humour upon their mispronunciations, though they are encouraged not to be anxious or afraid if their pronunciation is not perfect.’’ Regarding Q9 and Q10. (Q9 response from OET3): Always! Our oral expression classes are always funny. I emphasised to both groups that our objective is to develop their speaking abilities while still having fun. I stated that my goal is to teach everyone enjoyably. Q10 said, "Yes! One approach that I found useful was to correct them after they finished speaking. I only interrupt to ask further questions or comment on their opinions. In general, I believe that L2 speakers make less mispronunciation.’’

3.2.5.2. The Use of Affective Strategy by Students (S)

S1 responded to Q9, “I use the sense of humour to distract my mind from stress and anxiety,” whereas Q10 said, “Yes, of course.’’ S2 remarked, “I rarely use the sense of humour to overcome my stress” about Q9, and Q10's response was, “I have never done it before.” S3 stated, ‘’ I do use the sense of humour, but it depends on the situation,’’ about Q9; furthermore, about Q10, ‘’ I try to pronounce it, and I wait for someone to correct me if I mispronounced it.’’ S4 answered Q9, ‘’It is part of my daily routine to practice English in front of my classmates,’’; moreover, Q10, ‘’I always push myself to make mistakes because without mistakes I will learn anything.’’ Regarding Q9, S5, S6, and S7, ‘’ I never do; I try to correct the pronunciation so I get it right. I don’t feel embarrassed about making such mistakes because it’s not my mother tongue’’, Q10, ‘’Yes, but not always.’’

S8, S9, and S10 answered Q9 and Q10: ‘’ Yes, we do; it helps so we won’t feel embarrassed, and it is the best way to learn from our mistakes because our pronunciation is not perfect.’’ S11 and S12 concerning Q9 stated, ‘’If the case is to speak in public, no, we do not like to make fun of our mistakes; however, if we are alone, it is fine,’’ Q10: ‘’ We encourage ourselves to make mispronunciations to learn from our mispronunciations by being corrected.’’

3.2.6.1. The Use of Cooperation Strategy by Phonetics Teachers (PT) and Oral Expressions Teachers (OET)

PT1 answered questions 11 and 12, ‘’ Yes, I do. Yes, because it offers them the opportunity to recognise the mistake and suggest correction. This best aligns with a learner- centred atmosphere that is expected at university teaching. PT2 and PT3 said regarding Q11 and Q12, ‘’students are always recommended to look for help whenever necessary to improve and learn words’ pronunciation, moreover, students can look firstly for self-correction, peers correction, and teacher correction and it is a beneficial method.

OET1 answered Q11 and Q12, ‘’In oral expression classes, students ask for help either from the teacher or classmates, which is an effective way of improving students’ pronunciation and improvisation by trying to guess the words’ pronunciation.’’ OET2 and OET3 stated that in terms of pronunciation, a few students often ask us for guidance before speaking, but we also make it a point to correct them if they mispronounce a word after speaking. Furthermore. We are not sure if this approach is suitable for our students. While students are free to consult their peers, we believe it is ultimately our responsibility as the instructors to provide pronunciation guidance and correction regarding Q11 and Q12.

3.2.6.2. The Use of Cooperation Strategy by Students (S)

In response to questions 11 and 12, S1, S2, S3, and S5 stated, "We consult our friends but rarely our teachers to correct our mispronunciations whenever necessary." It's a bit late to instruct someone else because our expertise is limited.’’ S4, S6, S8, S9, and S12 stated, ''We constantly correct our mispronunciations with our peers, and teachers assist us improve our pronunciation whenever feasible.'' S7, (10), and S11 stated, ''We teach ourselves pronunciation, but if we need help, we approach our teachers. Furthermore, tutoring is a passion for us since we consider ourselves teachers to be.

3.3. Analysis

According to the findings of the study, regarding research question 1: What are the most commonly used pronunciation learning strategies? The most commonly used strategies among teachers and students are the cognitive, metacognitive, and cooperation strategies. Phonetics teachers and oral expression teachers stated that, with regard to metacognitive strategy, they constantly recommend students evaluate their pronunciation. For instance, PT2 stated, ‘’ "I keep trying to help them to perfect the sound and to listen more to words' pronunciation from the dictionary. In addition, in Q8, students are encouraged to continuously evaluate their pronunciation skills.’’ OET3 said, ‘’ I correct pupils' mispronunciations without making them ashamed. I simply wanted to clarify that it is truly... rather than... I repeat the term correctly until they get it right, and I ask them to try speaking continuously for two minutes. Some of them challenge themselves by asking me questions to encourage them to talk more and attain the two-minute threshold. After two semesters, a few students can speak for four to six minutes with practice.’’ Students’ responses were affirmative about the use of the metacognitive strategy (S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12), ‘’ ''We do notice our mispronunciations, and there is no need to stop and check them since it will slow us down; we rather focus on imitating native speakers, and it will enhance our pronunciation capabilities.’’ Peterson (2000) classified the metacognitive strategy into four tactics in order to be applied effortlessly inside classrooms.

Teachers of phonetics and oral expressions have used these tactics inside their classrooms, and they have been used by students for such as planning for language tasks, finding out about the target language pronunciation, setting goals and objectives, and self-evaluating. Notwithstanding the limitations of the cognitive method, metacognitive and cooperation strategies can assist students in understanding phonetics to greater degrees (Table 1.2). Additionally, they help pupils build relationships with their peers, which is related to the cooperation strategy. The impact of using such strategies enhances the students’ abilities to apply Peterson’s (2000) tactics, which are based on Oxford’s (1990) LLS, to acquire language easily.

In regard to cognitive strategy, which was the second rank in the most-used strategy, OET2 and OET3 had stated, ‘’ a great strategy to employ in order to improve cognitive capacity, emphasising proper pronunciation and articulation through repeating the word slowly and clearly, and that they should repeat it several times to get it right.’’ Peterson's list of naturalistic practices, formally practising sounds, and analysing the sound system contains a longer list of twenty-nine pronunciation tactics used by pronunciation learners (Table 1.3). Wrembel (2008) mentioned the cognitive strategy in his classification based on O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) taxonomy of LLS. Cognitive strategies in the frame of PLS and PTS are portrayed as repetition (e.g., drills, imitating the articulatory gestures of native speakers or teachers, and dialogue reading), practising (e.g., giving speeches or presentations, talking aloud to oneself), resourcing (e.g., using transcription, consulting a dictionary to check pronunciation), memory (e.g., inventing rhythms, colour associations), imagery (e.g., learning based on vowel charts, drawing intonation contours), directed physical feedback (e.g., tapping out a rhythm, kinaesthetic feedback), deduction (e.g., acquiring general knowledge of phonetics, contrastive analysis) and grouping (e.g., consciously applying rules, colour associations). The positive replies, whether by teachers or students, regarding cognitive strategy reflect the use of this strategy and prove a natural knowledge of its benefits on the students’ pronunciation performance

The cooperation strategy, which was in the third rank of the most used strategies, PT2 and PT3 stated in response to Q11 and Q12 that "students are always recommended to look for help whenever necessary to improve and learn words' pronunciation; additionally, students can look first for self-correction, peer correction, and teacher correction, which is a beneficial method,’’, in addition, four students statements supported the teachers comments: ‘’ S4, S6, S8, S9, and S12 stated, ''We constantly correct our mispronunciations with our peers, and teachers assist us in improving our pronunciation whenever feasible.'' As Peterson (2000) suggested in her taxonomy regarding the cooperation (social) strategy, there are two tactics that have been used by students: (asking someone else to correct one’s pronunciation, asking someone else to pronounce something, studying with someone else, and teaching someone else).

Regarding research question 2, which pronunciation learning strategy is the least used? Memory, compensation, and affective strategies were employed the least among the other strategies, according to the research. PT2 concurred, ‘’students do not use affective strategies and never noticed them using the sense of humour inside the classroom, which is a result of not having strategies at all.", as well as S11 and S12 answered affective strategy questions that, ‘’If the case is to speak in public, no, we do not like to make fun of our mistakes; however, if we are alone, it is fine,’’. Magdalena Szyszka (2016) claimed that using affective strategy can lower anxiety and raise interaction while practicing pronunciation. While practicing pronunciation, keeping a light-hearted attitude might help students realize that mispronouncing words is common. Eckstein (2007) proposes a final construct, a hypothesis that is based on Kolb’s construct, “action based on a new conceptualization." Eckstein’s construct comprises eight PLS. By repeating new words based on a new hypothesis, skipping difficult words, rehearsing sounds aloud to familiarize oneself with the sounds, using proximal articulations, a slower rate of speech, or clear speech to train mouth muscles, the learner will be able to facilitate pronunciation acquisition. In Eckstein (2007), a sense of humour is seen as a method of overcoming a psychological obstacle that interrupts learning rather than being embarrassed, which has not highlighted its benefits or has been ignored whether by teachers or by students.

The second least-ranked strategy was the memory strategy. PT1 stated that students do not revise or practice sounds in order to be memorized. OET2 believes that this strategy is useless, and I am unacquainted with it. (S2, S3, S7, and S11 shared their responses that they do not use phonetic symbols to memorize words. Peterson (2000) described the memory strategy as one tactic that represents sounds in memory. Osburne (2003), in his classification, described memory strategy practices as local articulatory gestures and single sounds, e.g., a reference to the articulatory position of a sound. Furthermore, practicing the memory strategy tactics can rectify the students’ competence in understanding sounds and producing them properly. The third least-ranked strategy was the compensation strategy. PT1 said, ‘’I do not recommend consulting other students whenever they face difficult words; however, they are instructed to consider alternatives.’’ In addition, OET2 claimed that this specific skill of noticing students’ mistakes while speaking, but whenever there are mistakes, I intervene to correct them. S4 said, ‘’ I avoid new or difficult words, especially in oral expression classes, and I cannot replace them with academic vocabulary.’’

The compensation strategy is one of the direct strategies described according to Peterson (2000) by one tactic: the use of proximal articulation with no instances of pronunciation tactics. (Table 1.2). The understanding of the compensation strategy is that teachers and students are unfamiliar with it; however, the solution for difficult words is not just to avoid them but also to compensate them by gestures or facial expressions.

Research question 3: How do language learning strategies affect the students’ pronunciation? As has been stated in the literature review chapter, Magdalena Szyszka (2016, p. 48), different researchers stated that the main focus was on language learning strategies, which resulted negligence of pronunciation competence, whether by teachers or students. Peterson (2000) claimed that the reasons behind such negligence are that the teaching process is teacher-centred, in which the teacher is not familiar with the strategy or thinks it is useless, as OET2 has stated in regard to memory strategy. This unfamiliarity about pronunciation learning strategies by teachers and students and their reliance on language learning strategies is the reason behind mispronunciations and not harnessing the PLS benefits.

Research question 4: What is the impact of using pronunciation learning strategies on the students’ pronunciation? The most commonly utilized PLS in Berkil's (2008) research falls into the emotive category; as she argues, they could represent a learner's identity in pronunciation. Furthermore, Wrembel (2008) asserts that the deliberate use of efficient PLS is thought to impact motivation and confidence in L2 pronunciation acquisition, two factors that are typically significant in L2 learning (Dornyei, Csizer, & Nemeth, 2006). Eckstein (2007) claims that PLS may serve as a predictor of pronunciation performance. He found three essential predictors of pronunciation: noticing others’ mistakes, adjusting facial muscles, and seeking pronunciation help. That is to say, most participants whose pronunciation score is high utilize PLS more than others (Table 1.2). An investigation done by Tominaga (2009) says that successful pronunciation practice is based on imitation of native speakers, combined with independent pronunciation practice, and is used among good pronunciation learners. Additionally, these strategies may serve as tools for improving teaching and learning processes inside classrooms. The findings have proved the benefits of using PLS since it is teachable and learnable. However, the significant element of activating the benefits of PLS is to change the classroom atmosphere from teacher-centred to learner-centred to ensure its effectiveness and reliability (Bukowski, 2004; Eckstein, 2007; Vitanova & Miller, 2002).

3.4 Conclusion

This chapter examines the information gathered from three phonetics teachers, three oral expression teachers, and twelve second-year students. The investigator's findings validated the hypothesis that teachers of phonetics and oral expression, as well as second-year students, are more likely to use language learning strategies than pronunciation strategies. In other words, there is a lack of understanding of pronunciation learning strategies, which would improve pronunciation acquisition and competency. Relatively speaking, a significant proportion of participants use PLS more than LLS; nonetheless, their use of PLS is based on intuition rather than prior knowledge.

General Conclusion

The modern view of foreign language teaching and learning assures the key role of learners in learning process. Traditionally, this role has long been concealed by dominant paradigm of early teacher-centred education. Thus, the interest in clarifying the competence of good learners has given importance to the successful use of strategies in learning foreign language. However, this role is still vague in the terms of mastering different aspects of pronunciation competence. Learning proper pronunciation of the global English language is crucial as supported by the literature. EFL speakers need to improve their phonetic competence.

In this light, this study attempted to investigate the use of PLSs and LLSs. Namely, metacognitive, cognitive and cooperation, affective, memory, and compensation strategies of English educated students at Abid El Hamid Bin Badis-University level by teachers of phonetics and oral expression and second-year students.

In comparison to affective, memory, and compensatory strategies, the study indicated that metacognitive, cognitive, and cooperative methods were employed more frequently. The latter is used to support the hypothesis that, since pronunciation learning strategies depend on the efforts of the students and are used spontaneously and without prior knowledge, EFL second-year Arabic-speaking students are more likely to use language learning strategies if they do not use them frequently. A contributing factor to this phenomenon is the teacher- centred teaching approach, which forms the cornerstone of language learning methodologies. However, a respectable portion of both teachers and students used pronunciation learning strategies.

Regarding the study's limitations, a review of the data revealed that, while using PLS in the classroom, there were disparities between the oral expression teachers' responses and the students' responses, with the students' responses contradicting the oral teachers' responses. In addition, conducting the interviews proved to be difficult due to their lengthy nature.

The importance of PLS and its effect on students' pronunciation performance were shown by this study. To improve both the quality of teaching and the learning processes, it is advised that the teaching process be shifted from being teacher-centred to being student- centred. Additionally, the literature review chapter demonstrated how pronunciation learning strategies can be implemented in the classroom by teachers of phonetics and oral expressions to ensure proficient pronunciation and comprehension of phonetics and its applications.

References

Ali, A. Z. M., Segaran, K., & Hoe, T. W. (2015). Effects of verbal components in 3D talking-head on pronunciation learning among non-native speakers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 313-322.

Aljuaid, H. (2012). Language learning strategies: Perceptions of female Saudi EFL learners. Paper presented at the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching, Lancaster, UK. Retrieved from http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/pgconference/v06/HindAljuaid.pdf.

Berkil, G. (2008). A closer look at pronunciation learning strategies, L2 pronunciation proficiency and secondary variables influencing pronunciation ability. (Unpublished MA thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara.

Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning 1. Language learning, 28(1), 69-83.

Calka, A. (2011). Pronunciation learning strategies - Identification and classification. In M. Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign language acquisition (pp. 149-168). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Derry, S.J. (1988). Putting learning strategies to work. Educational Leadership, 46, 4-10.

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge.

Eckstein, G. T. (2007). A correlation of pronunciation learning strategies with spontaneous English pronunciation of adult ESL learners. Brigham Young University.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Galaczi, E., Post, B., Li, A., & Graham, C. (2011, September). Measuring L2 English phonological proficiency: Implications for language assessment. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, The impact of Applied Linguistics (pp. 67-72).

Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W. A., Johnson, M. W., McCann, U. D., & Jesse, R. (2008). Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later. Journal of psychopharmacology, 22(6), 621-632.

Kupper, L. L., Janis, J. M., Karmous, A., & Greenberg, B. G. (1985). Statistical age-period-cohort analysis: a review and critique. Journal of chronic diseases, 38(10), 811-830.

Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for Language Learning and for Language Use: Revising the Theoretical Framework. Modern Language Journal, 90, 320-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x

MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1996). Using Social-Psychological Variables to Predict the Use Language Learning Strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 373-386.

Morley, D. (2016). Applying Wenger’s communities of practice theory to placement learning. Nurse Education Today, 39(April), 161-162.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner (Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, 14.

O’Malley, J. M. et al. (1985). Learning Strategies Used by Beginning and Intermediate ESL Students. Language Learning, 35, 21-44.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge university press.

O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G. L. O. R. I. A., Russo, R. P., & Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL quarterly, 19(3), 557-584.

Osburne, A. G. (2003). Pronunciation strategies of advanced ESOL learners.

Otlowski, M. (2003). Pronunciation: What Are the Expectations. The Internet TESL Journal 5(1). Retrieved From June 26, 2016, from: http://www.iteslj.org./ Article / Otlowski poronunciation.html.

Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of Language Learning Strategies: A Synthesis of Studies with Implications for Strategy Training. System, 17, 235-247.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Missing link: Evidence from research on language learning styles and strategies. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 438-458.

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Relationships between second language learning strategies and language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and selfregulation.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An Overview. GALA, 1-25.

Oxford, R., Crookall, D., Cohen, A., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M., & Sutter, W. (1990). Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training model. Foreign Language Annals, 23(3), 197-216.

Pawlak, M. (2010). Teaching foreign language pronunciation: Issues in research focus and methodology. Issues in accents of English, 2, 169-183.

Peterson, S. (2000), Pronunciation Learning Strategies: A First Look. Adults; Cognitive Style; Diaries; Interviews; *Learning Strategies; *Pronunciation; Second Language Instruction; *Second Language Learning; Spanish.

Rigney, J. W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. Learning strategies, 165-205.

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of Cognitive Processes in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 117-123.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. Learner strategies in language learning, 15, 29.

Rubin, J. A. (1975). Art is for all human beings especially the handicapped. Art Education, 28(8), 5-10.

Rubin, R. B., & Roberts, C. V. (1987). A comparative examination and analysis of three listening tests. Communication Education, 36(2), 142-153.

Russo, M. (1985). Technical change and the industrial district: the role of interfirm relations in the growth and transformation of ceramic tile production in Italy. Research Policy, 14(6), 329-343.

Samida, D. (2004). Protecting the Innocent or Protecting Special Interests-Child Labor, Globalization, and the WTO. Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y, 33, 411.

Schmeck, R. R. (1988). An introduction to strategies and styles of learning. In Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 3-19). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1985). Learning Strategies in English as a Second Language Instruction: A Teacher's Guide. Studies in Education (OIS.

Suwartono, Tono. (2014). Enhancing the pronunciation of English suprasegmental features through reflective learning method. TEFLIN Journal - A publication on the teaching and learning of English. 25. 80-93.

Szyszka, M. (2016). Pronunciation learning environment: EFL students’ cognitions of in-class and out-of-class factors affecting pronunciation acquisition. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition,4.

Takac, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Tarone, E. (1980). Communication Strategies, Foreigner Talks, and Repair in Interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417-431. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00326.x

Tominaga, Y. (2009). An analysis of successful pronunciation learners: in search of effective factors in pronunciation teaching. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 13, 127-140.

Wakamoto, (2009) Extroversion/introversion in Foreign Language Learning: Interactions with Learner Strategy Use.

Walker, H., Di Sisto, L. & McBain, D. (2008) Drivers and Barriers to Environmental Supply Chain Management Practices: Lessons from the Public and Private Sectors. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14, 69-85 http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.pursup.2008.01.

Weinstein, C. & Mayer, R. (1986) The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In: Wittrock, M., Ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, Macmillan, New York, 315-327.

Wenden, A. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language learning, 37(4), 573-597.

Appendices

Appendix A

Berkil’s (2008) Questionnaire

(Based on Peterson, 1997)

(Retrieved from Rouabah, 2018)

Phonetics teachers and Oral Expression Teachers interview Questions

1- Do you recommend to your students to use symbols to recall the words’ pronunciation?

2- How do you advise your students when they forget the pronunciation of specific words?

3- How do students react when you advise them to listen more and more?

4- When students encounter difficult pronunciations in a paragraph what words what do you do?

5- When students have problem in producing specific sounds, do you give them alternative words to refer to the challenging word or words?

6- Do you recommend students to consult other students whenever facing a challenging word?

7- How do you deal with students with inaccurate pronunciations?

8- Do you recommend your students to evaluate their performance regularly?

9- When your students pronounce words inaccurately, do recommend using the sense of humour or making fun of it?

10- Do you encourage your students to speak though they are afraid of making mistakes or their pronunciation is not good?

11- Do you encourage your students to correct their classmates in case of mispronunciations?

12- Do you think peer-correction works better than teacher-initiated correction? If yes, can you elaborate?

Appendix B

Berkil’s (2008) Questionnaire

(Based on Peterson, 1997)

(Retrieved from Rouabah, 2018)

Second-Year Students’ Interview Questions

1: I use phonetic symbols or my own codes to remember how to pronounce words.

2: I memorize words’ pronunciation when I associate them with a situation which they were used in.

3: I try to imitate my teacher’s pronunciation or native speaker’s.

4: I read out loud words, paragraphs, or passages.

5: I avoid using words which I have difficulty in pronouncing them.

6: I use synonyms of words that I have difficulty in pronouncing them.

7: I use a sense of humour whenever making mispronunciations.

8: I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid that my pronunciation is not perfect.

9: I notice my mispronunciations and I try to overcome them.

10: I purposely focus my listening particular sounds.

11: I ask someone else to correct my pronunciation.

12: I tutor, teach or help someone else learning pronunciation.

[...]