Luận án Doctoral dissertation in theory and methodology of teaching english to speakers of other languages

Nội dung text: Luận án Doctoral dissertation in theory and methodology of teaching english to speakers of other languages

1. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES HO CHI MINH CITY, 2024
2. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY Field of Study: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Field of Study Code: 9140111 Investigating the Verbotonal Approach in the Phonetic Correction of Vietnamese EFL Undergraduates’ English Prosody and Pronunciation with a Special Interest in Voiceless Consonant Sounds Independent Reviewer 1: Independent Reviewer 2: HO CHI MINH CITY, 2024
3. i DECLARATION I, at this moment, declare that the dissertation titled “Investigating the Verbotonal Approach in the Phonetic Correction of Vietnamese EFL Undergraduates’ English Prosody and Pronunciation with a Special Interest in Unvoiced Consonant Sounds” is a genuine and independent scientific research work conducted under the supervision. This dissertation is submitted to fulfill the Doctor of Philosophy degree requirements in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Except for the references cited in this dissertation, I confirm that no part of this dissertation has been published or used to obtain any other degree. All work and research presented in this dissertation are original and have not been submitted for any degree at any other university or educational institution. The dissertation’s data, information, and conclusions are accurate and truthful. All sources of information are appropriately cited, and all references are provided in compliance with academic standards. I assume full responsibility for the integrity and originality of this declaration. Ho Chi Minh City, 04th November 2024 Doctoral Candidate
4. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To complete this PhD dissertation titled “Investigating the Verbotonal Approach in the Phonetic Correction of Vietnamese EFL Undergraduates’ English Prosody and Pronunciation with a Special Interest in Unvoiced Consonant Sounds,” first and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the leadership and faculty members of the Postgraduate Management Office at Ho Chi Minh City Open University for imparting their in-depth knowledge in the field of English Teaching Theory and Methodology throughout my study period, which has provided a solid foundation for my doctoral research. Besides, I sincerely apologise for not updating the correct title of my PhD dissertation, “Investigating the Use of the Simplified Verbotonal Approach to Improve Vietnamese EFL Undergraduates’ Voiceless Sound Pronunciation.” Unfortunately, I could not make the necessary changes on time due to unforeseen circumstances. I understand this may have caused confusion or inconvenience, and I am genuinely sorry. I greatly appreciate your understanding and patience and hope it has not caused significant disruption. Once again, please accept my heartfelt apology. I am deeply grateful to my institution, colleagues, relevant organisations, family, and friends for their unwavering support and encouragement during my studies, research, and preparation of this dissertation. Given the limited time for research, this dissertation inevitably contains certain shortcomings and limitations. I sincerely hope to receive constructive feedback from esteemed professors, colleagues, and friends to improve this work further. Thank you very much! Ho Chi Minh City, 04TH November 2024
5. iii ABSTRACT Pronunciation of voiceless consonants presents a persistent challenge for Vietnamese EFL undergraduates due to the differences between Vietnamese and English phonetic systems. This study addresses these difficulties by implementing the Simplified Verbotonal Approach, a modified version of the Traditional Verbotonal Approach, which focuses on prosody while eliminating gestures and teacher guidance. The SVA uses filtering techniques and intonation patterns to improve auditory discrimination and learners’ awareness, promoting more accurate perception and production of voiceless consonants. A computer-based pronunciation platform delivers intervention, facilitating interactive and individualized learning. Seventy Vietnamese EFL undergraduates participated in this study, which was divided into experimental and control groups. A mixed- method approach incorporated quantitative data from pre- and post-tests and qualitative insights from learners’ logs and semi-structured interviews. The results showed significant improvements in the experimental group, with greater accuracy and intelligibility in pronouncing voiceless consonants at group, individual, and linguistic levels (words, sentences, and passages). Additionally, learners reported increased awareness and confidence in their pronunciation. This study provides both theoretical and practical contributions. This study theoretically contributes to language teaching by providing a “Simplified Verbotonal Approach,” demonstrating that voiced phenomena are applied to improve voiceless phenomena with the simplified principles adapted from Verbotonal Theory. The findings practically offer implications for educators and curriculum developers aiming to enhance English pronunciation instruction in Vietnam. Keywords: Computer-Based Pronunciation Platform, Filtering Technique, Intonation Patterns, Learners’ Awareness, Prosody, Simplified Verbotonal Approach (SVA), Voiceless Consonants.
6. iv CONTENTS DECLARATION .............................................................................................. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................. ii ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 1.1 Background to the Study ...................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problems .................................................................... 4 1.3 Research Aims and Purposes of this Study ......................................... 9 1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................. 10 1.5 The Significance of the Study ............................................................. 10 1.6 Scope of the Study ............................................................................... 11 1.7 Definitions of Key Terms .................................................................... 11 1.8 Organization of the Study ................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 15 2.1 Pronunciation in English .................................................................... 15 2.1.1 Aspects of Pronunciation ........................................................... 15 2.1.2 Intelligibility in English Pronunciation .................................... 34 2.2 English Pronunciation Instructions ................................................... 38 2.2.1 Evolution of the Pronunciation Teaching Approach ............... 39 2.2.2. Top-down Approaches in Teaching Pronunciation ................ 44 2.2.3 The Contemporary Pronunciation Approach .......................... 49 2.2.4 Lowpass Filtering ....................................................................... 56 2.2.5 Theories of Language Teaching and Learning Pronunciation ...................................................................................................... 58 2.3 The Traditional Verbotonal Approach ............................................. 60 2.3.1 Theories of the Traditional Verbotonal Approach .................. 61 2.3.2 Principles of the Traditional Verbotonal Approach ............... 64 2.3.3 Previous Studies .......................................................................... 71 2.3.4 A Discussion on Research Gaps................................................. 80 2.3.5 The Simplified Verbotonal Approach ....................................... 83
7. v 2.4 Conceptual Framework ...................................................................... 88 2.5 Summary .............................................................................................. 91 CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 93 3.1 Research Design ................................................................................... 93 3.2 Sampling ............................................................................................... 93 3.3 The Teaching Syllabus and Materials ............................................... 95 3.3.1 The Teaching Syllabus and Materials for C-GRP ................... 95 3.3.2 The Teaching Syllabus and Materials for E-GRP ................... 97 3.4 Teaching Procedures ........................................................................... 99 3.4.1 Teaching Procedure for Control Group ................................... 99 3.4.2 Teaching Procedure for Experimental Group ....................... 101 3.4.3 The Role of the Teacher ........................................................... 104 3.5 Research Instruments ....................................................................... 105 3.5.1 Pronunciation Tests (Pretest and Posttest) ............................. 106 3.5.2 Questionnaires .......................................................................... 107 3.5.3 Interviews .................................................................................. 108 3.5.4 Learners’ Logs .......................................................................... 110 3.6. Pre-Test vs. Post-Test Performance Evaluation of Both Groups 112 3.6.1 Performance Evaluation of Voiceless-Sound Word Test ...... 113 3.6.2 Performance Evaluation of Voiceless-Sound Sentence Test . 114 3.6.3 Performance Evaluation of Voiceless-Sound Passage Test ... 114 3.7 The Pilot Study .................................................................................. 116 3.7.1. Participants and Grouping ..................................................... 117 3.7.2 Data Collection and Instruments ............................................ 119 3.7.3 Expert and Participant Feedback ........................................... 121 3.7.4 Results of the Pilot Study ......................................................... 123 3.8 Procedure for Collecting Data .......................................................... 126 3.9 Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 128 3.9.1. Quantitative Data ..................................................................... 128 3.9.2. Qualitative Data ....................................................................... 132 3.10 Validity and Reliability ................................................................... 132 3.11 Ethical Considerations .................................................................... 140 3.12 Summary .......................................................................................... 142
8. vi CHAPTER 4 - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................................... 144 4.1. Effectiveness in Improving Voiceless-Consonant Pronunciation 144 4.1.1 Group-Level Comparisons ....................................................... 144 4.1.2 Individual-Level Comparisons ................................................ 161 4.1.3 Voiceless Consonant at Different Linguistic Levels ............ 171 4.2. The Learners’ Opinions on Using SVA ........................................... 179 4.2.1 Findings from Questionnaires ................................................. 179 4.2.2 Findings from Interviews ........................................................ 183 4.2.3 Findings from Learners’ Logs ................................................. 198 4.3 Evolution from Traditional to Simplified Model ......................... 201 4.4 Summary ............................................................................................ 206 CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION .................................................................. 207 5.1. Summary of the Findings ................................................................. 207 5.1.1 Effectiveness in Improving Voiceless-Consonant Pronunciation ............................................................................ 207 5.1.2 Learners’ Opinion on Using SVA in Their Voiceless Consonant Instructions ............................................................ 208 5.2 Contributions of the Study ............................................................... 208 5.2.1 Theoretical Contributions ........................................................ 209 5.2.2 Practical Contributions ............................................................ 211 5.2.3 The Final Product: A Pronunciation Teaching Model .......... 213 5.3 Implications ........................................................................................ 215 5.4 Recommendations ............................................................................. 218 5.4.1. Teachers .................................................................................... 219 5.4.2 Learners ..................................................................................... 220 5.4.3 Institutions ................................................................................. 222 5.4.4 Curriculum Designers .............................................................. 223 5.4.5 Stakeholders and Policymakers .............................................. 224 5.5 Limitation ........................................................................................... 224 5.6 Direction for Future Research ......................................................... 226 5.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 229 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 230 APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 251
9. vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 2.1: Intonation of Sentences 25 Figure 2.2: Conceptual Framework of this Study 91 Figure 4.1: Mean Scores of C-GRP vs E-GRP 145 Figure 4.2: C-GRP vs E-GRP Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean 149 Scores With SD, P-Values, and Effect Sizes Figure 4.3: Pre-Test vs Post-Test Mean Scores (C-GRP) 154 with SD, p-value, and Effect Sizes Figure 4.4: Pre-Test vs Post-Test Mean Scores (E-GRP) 156 with SD, p-value, and Effect Sizes Figure 4.5 Mean Changes, P-values, and Effect Sizes for C- 162 GRP and E-GRP Figure 4.6: Regression, No Change, and Progress: C-GRP 164 vs E-GRP Figure 4.7: Improvement Ratio: C-GRP vs E-GRP 166 Figure 4.8: The Study’s Final Model 206
10. viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 3.1: Syllabus of the Control Group 96 Table 3.2: The Content Input into the Website 97 Table 3.3: Research Instruments and Their Alignment with 111 Research Questions Table 3.4: The Researcher’s Adapted Scales 115 Table 3.5: Correlation of Rater 1 & Rater 2 in C-GRP Tests 137 Table 3.6: Correlation of Rater 1 & Rater 2 in E-GRP Tests 138 Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics 144 Table 4.2: Mann-Whitney U Test (Independent samples test) 148 Table 4.3: Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test – C-GRP 154 Table 4.4: Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test – E-GRP 156 Table 4.5: Change Score Analysis of Descriptive Statistics and 161 Mann-Whitney U Test Table 4.6: Change Score Analysis Breakdown 163 Table 4.7: Improvement Ratio 166 Table 4.8: Voiceless Consonant at Different Linguistic Levels 171 with P-values Table 4.9: Results of the Questionnaire 179
11. ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CALL: Computer-Assisted Language Learning CAPT: Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training C-GRP: Control Group E-GRP: Experimental Group ELF: English as a Lingua Franca L1: First Language L2: Second Language LMA: Laban Movement Analysis SVA: The Simplified Verbotonal Approach TVA: Traditional Verbotonal Approach TESOL: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages TOEIC: Test of English for International Communication
12. 1 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION The Simplified Verbotonal Approach is a new approach proposed by a researcher for teaching pronunciation. It is a simplified version of the Traditional Verbotonal Approach, designed to be easier for learners and stakeholders to implement. This approach emphasises the relationship between perception (how sounds are heard) and production (how sounds are spoken). By focusing on prosody filtering—highlighting subtle differences in the acoustic features of voiceless sounds—the approach helps learners gradually become more aware of these variations. Over time, what starts as a conscious effort to recognise these sounds becomes an automatic process in the brain, leading to improved individual sounds or phonemes. The researcher uses intonation-pattern exercises involving varying pitch levels to enhance learners’ awareness. A website created by the researcher is also provided for learners, allowing them to study at their own pace without disruptions and teacher guidance. This approach encourages self-directed learning, giving learners control over their learning journey. Therefore, the chapter begins by introducing the study’s background and establishing the research’s context and relevance. It then outlines the objectives that guide the investigation and the research questions that drive its inquiry. Following this, the significance of the study is explored, highlighting its potential impact and contributions to the field. The chapter also addresses the scope of the study, clarifying its boundaries and focus areas. Finally, the organisation of the dissertation is explained, providing an outline for the subsequent chapters. 1.1 Background to the Study English has become a global lingua franca, used across various fields, including non-English-speaking countries (Alam, 2023). Non-native speakers account for 80% of English communication worldwide (Beneke, 1991), and as a result, English develops divergent forms influenced by local factors such as culture, history, and regional accents. Among the four core language skills—listening, speaking, reading, and writing—speaking, particularly pronunciation, is most affected by these
13. 2 variations since it is powerfully shaped by a learner’s mother tongue or first language (Piske et al., 2001). Historically, pronunciation has been overlooked within second language acquisition (SLA) studies, with more focus on grammar and vocabulary (Gilakjani, 2016). However, since 2005, a shift has occurred, with greater emphasis on pronunciation as essential for clear communication (Thomson & Derwing, 2015). Proper pronunciation is critical for intelligibility, while poor pronunciation can impede understanding (Kelly, 2006). As English continues to serve as a lingua franca in global communication, the focus has moved away from achieving native-like accents toward ensuring mutual understanding (Derwing & Munro, 2005). This shift calls for more inclusive and practical standards of pronunciation that prioritise clarity and intelligibility rather than conformity to native-speaker norms. In Vietnam, English teaching approaches reflect global trends such as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and the Task-based Approach (TBA), both of which emphasise practical communication skills, including speaking and listening, and it is possible to enhance pronunciation from these skills (Pham, 2007; Tran & Phan, 2021). Additionally, the Flipped Learning Approach (FLA) has been increasingly adopted (Nguyen, 2023), particularly for teaching pronunciation, allowing students to study pre-class materials and engage in interactive activities during class. However, the success of this approach relies heavily on teachers’ preparation and the quality of instructional materials (Kraut et al., 2019). Despite these advancements, several challenges persist in teaching pronunciation in Viet Nam. Teachers often prioritise grammar and vocabulary over oral skills, and large class sizes limit opportunities for individual attention, which is critical for addressing specific pronunciation issues (Nguyen, 2023). Furthermore, most pronunciation instruction in Vietnam focuses on segmentals—individual sounds like /θ/ and /ð/—while neglecting suprasegmental features such as intonation, stress, and rhythm (Tran & Nguyen, 2020; Nguyen & Newton, 2021; Nguyen & Bui, 2021).
14. 3 As a result, learners are not receiving the comprehensive pronunciation training needed to improve their overall communicative competence. Particularly, teaching voiceless consonants presents specific challenges for Vietnamese learners due to significant phonological differences between the two languages. English voiceless consonants such as /p/, /t/, /k/, /f/, /θ/, /s/, /ʃ/, /h/, and /tʃ/ require precise airflow and articulation (McMahon, 2002), which are often unfamiliar to Vietnamese speakers. A common issue is the lack of aspiration in voiceless stops like /p/, /t/, and /k/, which leads to confusion in communication, as Riađo (2021) suggested that these sounds are often produced without the necessary burst of air that distinguishes them from their voiced counterparts (/b/, /d/, /g/). To compare the acoustic features of Vietnamese with those of English, particularly regarding voiceless consonants, there are significant factors in how the two languages differ in their phonological systems. In English, voiceless consonants such as /p/, /t/, and /k/ (voiceless) have specific acoustic characteristics, especially in the transitions from consonants to adjacent vowels. Ladefoged (1996) stated that the rapid shifts in formant frequencies, mainly the rising and falling patterns during vowel articulation, are vital in identifying these sounds. Voiceless stops are aspirated, meaning a burst of air follows their release, which adds an acoustic cue for listeners. Ladefoged and Johnson (2014) also indicated that the voiceless consonant’s acoustic identity often comes from its effect on the surrounding vowel through formant transitions. Vietnamese stop consonants differ both phonetically and acoustically. Vietnamese has both voiceless stops (/p/, /t/, and /k/) and voiced stops (/b/, /d/, /g/). Still, one important distinction is that Vietnamese voiceless stops are generally unaspirated, meaning they lack the burst of air found in English voiceless stops, as Horn and Pham’s (2004) findings. This lack of aspiration makes the acoustic realisation of stops in Vietnamese less marked by the burst of air that typically characterises English stops. Hence, Vietnamese learners are not familiar with pronouncing these voiceless sounds. Additionally, Nguyen and Newton (2021) indicated that Vietnamese is a tonal language; pitch is crucial in distinguishing word
15. 4 meaning. This tonal nature affects the acoustic structure of Vietnamese syllables, including how vowels and consonants are realised. At the same time, English relies heavily on formant transitions for identifying stops; the tones in Vietnamese can interact with these transitions, sometimes making the distinction between stops more dependent on the tone carried by the vowel rather than solely on the consonantal feature (Edmondson & Nguyen, 1997). In Vietnamese, Horn and Pham (2004) stated that the closure of stops at the ends of syllables, especially voiceless stops, is often unreleased, creating a different acoustic profile than in English, where such stops are generally released. Hence, the teaching and learning of voiceless consonants in English and Vietnamese pose several challenges due to the phonological differences between the two languages. One major issue is that English voiceless stops are aspirated, while Vietnamese voiceless stops are unaspirated. This often leads to difficulties for Vietnamese learners of English, who may need help to produce the required burst of air, making it harder to distinguish between voiced and voiceless consonants, impacting both intelligibility and accuracy. Additionally, Vietnamese is a tonal language, where the pitch is crucial for meaning, unlike English, which does not rely on it. As a result, Vietnamese learners may need to rely on tonal cues to focus on precise consonant articulation. This can lead to incomplete pronunciation when Vietnamese learners speak English, affecting their clarity. Furthermore, pronunciation training may not adequately address these specific issues, and limited opportunities for practice and feedback hinder learners’ progress in overcoming pronunciation difficulties. To address these challenges, more targeted instruction training is essential for improving learners’ pronunciation skills in Vietnam. 1.2 Statement of the Problems For pronouncing voiceless consonants, Vietnamese learners of English encounter considerable difficulties when it comes to mastering pronunciation due to significant differences between the phonetic and tonal systems of the two languages. In Vietnamese, meaning is often conveyed through pitch variations within individual
16. 5 words, whereas English relies on features like intonation, stress, and rhythm across entire sentences, as Nguyen’s (2019) findings. These linguistic contrasts make it challenging for learners to produce voiceless consonants, often replaced with more familiar sounds in the first language. Thus, Nguyen (2014) stated that incorrectly producing voiceless sounds impedes clear communication. Moreover, the contrastive analysis between English and Vietnamese voiceless consonants reveals notable differences that challenge Vietnamese learners. English has 24 consonants, classified by voicing, manner of articulation, and place of articulation. These consonants can appear at the beginning, middle, or end of words and include sounds like plosives, affricates (/ʧ/, /ʤ/), and fricatives. English consonants are also categorised as either fortis (strong) or lenis (weak), depending on the vowel sound that precedes them and the syllable structure. Due to these differences, many Vietnamese learners struggle to pronounce specific English voiceless sounds. According to Nguyen (2021), Vietnamese has 30 consonants, including 22 initial and eight final consonants. These final consonants consist of six plosives, such as /p/, /t/, /k/, /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/, and two semi-consonants. Vietnamese syllables may maintain the sound of the primary phoneme, resulting in “zero consonant endings” (Nguyen, 2021, p. 63), or change the sound, leading to semi-consonants or full consonants at the ends of words. Vietnamese consonants are categorised based on tongue positions, such as flat, retroflex, or dorsal, focusing on the manner of articulation. In contrast, English categorises consonants more by the place of articulation, like palatal alveolar or dental. Regarding plosives, Vietnamese differentiates between aspirated, unaspirated, voiced, and voiceless sounds. Fricatives in Vietnamese are classified as obstruent or non-obstruent, but English includes some absent fricatives, such as dental and palato-alveolar fricatives. Therefore, the analysis underscores the importance of helping learners identify and differentiate these sounds. Teachers should focus on guiding students in comparing and distinguishing similar Vietnamese and English sounds while providing practical methods to help them remember and correctly pronounce difficult English sounds. As
17. 6 Nguyen (2021, p. 65) emphasises, “We must help our students compare and differentiate similar sounds and find easy methods to support them in remembering and pronouncing hard sounds in a second language.” Conventional approaches to teaching pronunciation often encounter shortcomings, particularly their inability to cater to the diverse needs of learners or foster active participation in the learning process. These approaches typically emphasize teacher-centered delivery and rote memorization, which restrict opportunities for learners to develop higher-order skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and applying knowledge in real-world contexts. Edwards (2017) emphasizes that such approaches often fail to accommodate individual learning styles and paces, making it difficult to effectively support students with varied abilities and learning preferences. Moreover, these limitations are especially evident in pronunciation instruction, where conventional approaches treat pronunciation as a mechanical or physical skill. However, as Couper (2017) argues, pronunciation is inherently a cognitive phenomenon involving complex mental processes such as sound perception, categorization, and the formation of mental representations. These approaches are less effective in building learners’ long-term retention and practical communication skills without addressing these aspects. These limitations of these teaching pronunciation approaches resonate with the challenges faced in Vietnam’s conventional approach to pronunciation instruction, where repetitive practices and a lack of focus on suprasegmental elements hinder learners’ ability to achieve natural and intelligible English pronunciation. The conventional approach to pronunciation teaching in Vietnam predominantly emphasises repeating words without sufficient attention to crucial suprasegmental elements, such as stress and intonation (Thanh, 2019; Nguyen & Newton, 2020). Moreover, large student numbers in many classrooms limit teachers’ ability to provide individual feedback, allowing pronunciation errors to persist (Nguyen, 2023). As a result, learners struggle to attain a natural and intelligible pronunciation in English. Moreover, in the conventional approach to teaching pronunciation, the emphasis is placed on practice and the use of
18. 7 physical aspects in articulation. Learners often undergo repetitive exercises to improve their ability to produce accurate sounds. However, throughout this process, the influence of the native language is a significant factor. When learners attempt to produce correct English sounds, they must navigate the differences between their native and target languages. As a result, pronunciation errors such as omission (leaving out sounds), substitution (replacing sounds with similar ones from their native language), or assimilation (adjusting sounds according to the rules of their native language) frequently occur in the process of learning English. These phenomena reduce learning effects and make it more challenging for learners to develop proper pronunciation skills, as Jenkins (2000) stated. Although technology offers potential solutions and overcomes these issues, several limitations remain. Existing tools for Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in learning and teaching pronunciation face numerous challenges that limit their effectiveness. Many CALL tools do not offer personalized feedback, making it difficult for learners to address specific pronunciation issues. Similarly, Rato et al. (2015) indicated that commonly used software for speech perception studies in pronunciation, such as E-Prime, DMDX, and MATLAB, are often proprietary and expensive, limiting their accessibility to educators and learners, particularly in resource-constrained settings. This issue is especially critical in developing regions, where high costs create significant barriers to accessing advanced pronunciation software, as Foote (2017) notes. In addition, many tools, including programs like Praat, Alvin, Percy, and WebExp2, require users to have expertise in programming languages such as Python, Lua, or XML, making them inaccessible to professionals with limited technical skills (Rato et al., 2015). While there are more affordable options, these tools often depend heavily on teacher support or teacher guidance to be effective, reducing their practicality for learners engaging in independent study. Furthermore, Current Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training (CAPT) technologies face notable challenges, particularly in providing reliable and intuitive feedback for pronunciation errors. According to Fouz-González (2015), CAPT
19. 8 struggles to process non-native accents accurately, resulting in inconsistent or incomplete feedback that can undermine learner confidence. Visual feedback methods, such as spectrograms, are often too complex for learners without training in phonetics. Additionally, many existing tools focus heavily on segmental features, such as individual sounds, while neglecting crucial suprasegmental aspects like rhythm and intonation, essential for natural and effective communication (Fouz- González, 2015). To address these challenges, it is essential to shift the instructional focus from simply teaching the physical articulation of sounds—how to position the tongue or control airflow—toward enhancing learners’ auditory perception of sounds. Learners can gradually develop more accurate pronunciation by improving their ability to distinguish subtle variations between English and Vietnamese sounds. This perceptual training allows their subconscious brain to take over, making the production of sounds more natural and less dependent on conscious effort, preventing the inference of the mother tongue. This approach aligns with the brain’s division of labour, where the conscious mind initiates actions like deciding what to say. At the same time, the subconscious handles more automatic functions, such as retrieving vocabulary and grammar, particularly in informal communication (Odisho, 2014). For more structured speech, however, the conscious brain takes a more active role, which can lead to hesitations as it carefully selects words and monitors grammar. In addition, Odisho (2014) stated that the subconscious brain plays a crucial role in storing long-term memories, including linguistic habits. As learners practice, tasks that initially require conscious effort, such as pronunciation, are gradually transferred to the subconscious brain, allowing these actions to become automatic. This process of habit formation helps ease the cognitive load on the conscious brain, freeing it to focus on more complex tasks. Ultimately, improving pronunciation in Vietnamese learners of English requires an approach that combines perceptual development with habitual practice.
20. 9 This allows the subconscious brain to handle pronunciation automatically, producing more fluent and precise speech. To summarise, a new approach to teaching pronunciation for Vietnamese learners should emphasise improving their auditory perception rather than merely focusing on the physical aspects of sound production, such as the placement of articulators and manner of articulation. This approach would enhance learners’ ability to distinguish subtle differences between English sounds and those in Vietnamese, thereby helping them develop more accurate pronunciation over time. Auditory perception training could involve listening prosody, which uses intonational-pattern exercises and could be supported by an affordable computer-based platform that allows learners to practice pronunciation independently. This would enable learners to engage with pronunciation exercises at their own pace, promoting self-directed learning. Additionally, consistent practice would foster the formation of pronunciation habits, gradually transferring the burden of pronunciation from the conscious brain to the subconscious. This shift would allow learners to achieve more natural, fluent speech without overloading their cognitive processes, making pronunciation more effortless in casual and formal contexts. A critical component of this approach is to emphasise suprasegmental features or prosody, like intonation, stress, and rhythm, which are often neglected in conventional teaching (Nguyen & Dang, 2022). By focusing on auditory perception, utilising accessible technology, and promoting habitual practice, this new approach can effectively address Vietnamese learners’ pronunciation challenges. 1.3 Research Aims and Purposes of this Study This study aims to investigate the use of the SVA in teaching voiceless consonants to Vietnamese non-English major undergraduates. To achieve this aim, two objectives have been established: To investigate the effectiveness of SVA, which has been adopted and adapted from the TVA, in improving the pronunciation of voiceless consonants among Vietnamese non-English major undergraduates at the group level performance,