RtICELT 2016 Conference Proceedings (Final.Ed.)

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Conference ProceedingsPathumtani,Thailand,May14,2016Page | 1

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Foreword On behalf of the Faculty of Liberal Arts, I would like to extend my warmestwelcome to all presenters, participants, and delegates who have come today for the 1stRMUTT International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016. International collaboration that showcases recent research in the field ofEnglish language teaching and networking is essential to address the diversechallenges of today’s English education. It is our university’s interest to be an activeparticipant in international engagement, particularly in the field of English language.We aim at addressing the challenges of internationalization to keep abreast with globaltrends. Today is truly an exceptional occasion for sharing our ideas and best practicesand establishing long-lasting friendships that will help build stronger bilateralrelationships between our co-hosts and RMUTT in the coming years. We are nurturing long-term working collaborative relationships withuniversities abroad, particularly those which have complementary research priorities,common challenges, and mutual interests. Finally, I would like to say that I am confident that our efforts andcommitment will bear the fruits of stronger working relationships among ourinstitutions. Thank you very much and once again welcome to RtICELT 2016 and welcometo RMUTT! Asst. Prof. Rungrudee Apiwathnasorn Page | 2 Chairperson, Steering Committee, RtICELT 2016Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Dean, Faculty of Liberal Arts H ost and Co-hosts RtICELT 2016Rajamangala University of Technology-Thanyaburi, Thailand Co-hosted by: Ifugao State University(IFSU), Philippines De La Salle University, Dasmarinas (DLSUD), Philippines National Pingtung University of Science and Technology (NPUST), Taiwan Rajamangla University of Technology Tawan-Ok (RMUTTO), ThailandSt. Robert’s Global Education and Management Service (SRGEMS), PhilippinesPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 3

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Managing Committee RtICELT 2016President of RMUTT Assoc. Prof. Dr. Prasert PinpathomratPresident, RMUTO Prof. Dr. Sin PanpinitPresident of IFSUPresident of DLSU-D Prof. Dr. Serafin L. Ngohayon Bro. Augustine Boquer FSC, Ed. DPresident of NPUST Chang-Hsien Tai, Ph.D.President of SRGEMS Robert Galindez, Ph.D.Chairs of Steering Committee Asst. Prof. Rungrudee Apiwatlunasorn Asst. Prof. Dr. Nisakorn Singhasenee Assoc. Prof. Surawong SrisuwatchareeChairs of Organizing Committee Assoc. Prof. Jaruwat Sirijaruwong Dr. Tawachai Chaisiri Dr. Lawrence Honkiss Ms. Rotsukon Songkhong Mr. Kumut Pattanu Ms. Chanoknad ChinsriPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 4

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Editorial Board Editorial Board and Staff Editor-in-Chief RtICELT 2016 Proceedings Associate Editor Associate Editor Dr. Lawrence Honkiss Associate Editor Dr. Tawachai Chaisiri Dr. Pornpimon Hart-Rawung Dr. Thitapa Sinturat Editorial StaffReview Editor Ms. Rotsukon SongkhongCopy Editor Mr. Kumut PuttanuCopy Editor Ms. Hannah DonovanCopy Editor Ms. Lauren WalczakLayout Editor Ms. Arlene RegatoCover File Editor Ms. Prapaporn LekdumrongsakGraphic Designer Mr. Monchatry KetmuniWebsite Manager Ms. Paranee PuakchitPrinting and Publication Manager Mr. Nikorn TeptongPublic Relations Mr. Puripan Lert-o-pasPublic Relations Ms. Kanokwan KusolwatrPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 5

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Local Reviewers (60%) List of ReviewersAsst. Prof. Dr. Kamonat Tamarackitkun RtICELT 2016Asst. Prof. Dr. Nisakorn SinghaseneeAsst. Prof. Dr. Pornpimon Hart-Rawung Rajamangla University of Technology ThanayaburiAsst. Prof. Dr. Atipat Boonmoh Rajamangla University of Technology ThanayaburiAsst. Prof. Dr. Patarapon Tapinta Rajamangla University of Technology ThanayaburiAsst. Prof. Dr. Saengchan Hemchua King Mongkut’s University of Technology ThonburiAssoc. Prof. Watcharapon Nimnual Kasetsart University, ThailandAsst. Prof. Witoon Tangpong Srinakarinwirot University, ThailandDr. Tawachai Chaisiri Rajamangla University of Technology ThanayaburiDr. Parichat Kluensuwan Rajamangla University of Technology ThanayaburiDr. Thitapa Sinthurat Rajamangla University of Technology ThanayaburiDr. Pimpika Thongrom Rajamangla University of Technology ThanayaburiDr. Aurapan Weerawong Rajamangla University of Technology Thanayaburi Rajamangla University of Technology ThanayaburiDr. Denchai Prabiandee Ministry of Education, Thailand Burapha University, ThailandInternational Reviewers (40%) Ifugao State University, PhilippinesProf. Dr. Nancy Ann Gonzalez Ifugao State University, PhilippinesProf. Dr. Faith Basilio Ifugao State University, PhilippinesAssoc. Prof. Dr. Alice Brawner National Pintung University of Science and Technology , TaiwanAssoc. Prof. Dr. Chin-Hui Chen Eulogio Rodriquez Institute of Science and Technology, PhilippinesDr. Robert Galindez De La Salle University Dasmarinas, PhilippinesDr. George Francisco De La Salle University Dasmarinas, PhilippinesDr. Merlyn Lee Masaryk University, Czech RepublicDr. Jan Chonavec University of New Castle, AustraliaDr. Heather SharpPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 6

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Summary of Papers RtICELT 2016Total number of papers 19Number of papers by Thai authors 7Number of papers by foreigner authors 12Foreign nations represented 4 1. The Philippines 2. Taiwan 3. Czech Republic 4. California, USAPercentage of local paper among all papers 37%Percentage of foreigner paper among all 63%papersPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 7

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Copyright © 2016 the Department of Western Languages, Faculty of LiberalArts at Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi (RMUTT) –Thailand and Authors/Contributors.All rights reserved. No part of this conference proceedings/publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior writtenpermission from the editor-in-chief and the publisher.Editor-in-Chief: Lawrence Honkiss, Ph.D.Address: Department of Western Languages, Faculty of Liberal ArtsRajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi (RMUTT)Email: [email protected]: www.larts.rmutt.ac.thFor Domestic and International Orders on CD-Rom Proceedings:An Author/Contributor of these proceedings receives free CD-Rom proceedings.Publisher: Department of Western Languages, Faculty of Liberal ArtsRajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi (RMUTT), ThailandPublishing Service: Triple Education Co. Ltd., Bangkok, ThailandFor International Orders on Paperback Proceedings (In-Print):Please contact:The Editor-in-Chief, RtICELTDepartment of Western Languages, Faculty of Liberal ArtsRajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi (RMUTT), ThailandPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 8

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Notes to Authors/Contributors of Proceedings:1. Unless otherwise noted by the authors/contributors by email communications tothe editorial board in advance that their works are subject to crown copyright, anymanuscripts published in proceedings have been irrevocably copyrighted: Copyright© 2016 by two copyright sharers—the authors/contributors and the Department ofWestern Languages, Faculty of Liberal Arts at Rajamangala University of TechnologyThanyaburi (RMUTT) – Thailand. The copyright transfer from authors/contributorsto the Department of Western Languages, Faculty of Liberal Arts at RMUTT coversall exclusive rights to store, reproduce, and distribute the contribution in part and as awhole by any means. By submitting an author’s/contributor’s revised manuscript,even the crown copyrighted materials also grant the Department of WesternLanguages, Faculty of Liberal Arts at RMUTT an exclusive right to publish,disseminate, and distribute in any forms including CD-ROM and in print.2. By submitting a revised manuscript to be published in this proceedings mean thatthe authors/contributors have taken responsibilities to obtain permissions from thecopyright owners and/or any legal representatives wherever a copyrighted text,photographs, tables, figures, and any kinds of materials are used in his/hermanuscripts published in this proceedings. In other words, this is theauthor/contributor’s responsibility, instead of Department of Western Languages,Faculty of Liberal Arts at RMUTT, to ensure that these published manuscripts arecopyrightable.3. Except republication of the same and/or similar version of a manuscript in aconference proceedings, the authors/contributors retain his/her rights to reuse anyportion of his/her work without any fee charges for future works of the their ownincluding all other forms of publications, i.e., books, chapters in a volume, reprints,monographs, working papers, general journal papers, international referred journals aswell as lectures and media presentations in educational- and/or academic settings thatare at least 40% revised and expanded from his/her current edition published in thisproceedings. A proper acknowledgement to quote and/or cite his/her original workpublished in these proceedings is highly recommended and appreciated.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 9

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Notes to Readers/Users when using any portion of these Proceedings:1. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty.While the authors/contributors and the editorial board has made their best efforts toensure the quality of manuscripts published in these proceedings, they make norepresentations and no quality warranties in regard to the correctness andcompleteness in the contents of this publication. The editorial board has disclaimedany applied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness for any specific use of thispublication. No warranties can be and should be created by marketing and salesrepresentatives on behalf of the editorial board. The authors/contributors andeditorial board are neither responsible nor liable for any losses and damages using thisproceedings.2. Online References.Readers/Users should be aware that references and/or resources from Internet mighthave been changed, modified, or removed from the time these proceedings wereprepared to be published on CD-ROM, in print and or during the interim.3. Standpoint.The 1st Rajamangla University of Technology Thanyaburi International on EnglishLanguage Teaching 2016 (RtICELT 2016) is published by the Department of WesternLanguages, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi(RMUTT). Views, observation, assumptions, conclusions, etc., expressed in thearticles appearing in this issue are purely those of the individual author/s and do notnecessarily reflect those of RMUTT.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 10

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Table of Contents PageCommonalities and Diversity in Effective Teaching 17Richard Watson ToddA drill’s no thrill: Experimenting with Different Approaches to 27Pronunciation Teaching in a Thai EFL ClassroomSandor DankaPerceptions of Thai and European Student-Teachers toward 41their Teaching Styles 61Krittaya Ngampradit 79Assimilating Cross Cultural Effective and Successful Career 87Development in ThailandManuel Juromay 102Language Performance in Writing of Email Users 120Jeng jeng M. Bolintao, Eilene B. Bugnay and Karen A. Puguon 132Bridging Gerontological Sociolinguistics and Social Work: APreliminary Study on Communication with Elderly Adults inLong-term Home Care ServiceChin-Hui Chen and Hung-yang LinESL Teachers’ and Students’ Preffered Writing TopicsVebus Ma. Hilaria Guarin-PabloAutonomy and Empowerment: An English Camp Case StudyRotsukhon Songkhong and Lawrence HonkissAttitudes of Undergraduate Students towards theImplementation of Weblog and www.youtube.com as KeyComponents in Task Completion Assigned in ‘01-320-017English For Career (1)’ CoursePornpimon Hart-RawungPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 11

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”English Language Needs of 144Residents Neighbouring Rajamangala University ofTechnology ThanyaburiPornpimon Hart-Rawung and Buntao PermkasetwitMeta-analysis of Researches in Language and Literature at 152Ifugao StateUniversity (IFSU), Cordillera Administrative Region, 162Philippines: 189An Input Towards Research-based Pedagogy 201Jeng jeng M. Bolintao, Alma C. Binwag and Luedane L. Loñez 218Multimodality in a Philippine TV Interview: TheCommunicative Role of the Nonverbal GesturesAnne Elizabeth A. GumiranIdentity, Diversity, and the Ownership of English:What Can Social Complexity Tell Us?Nathan Thomas and Christopher OsmentKeywords as a Clue to Disciplinary Identities in the DiscussionSections of Research ArticlesPunjaporn Pojanapunya and Richard Watson ToddLanguage Learning Strategies of Tertiary English LearnersJeng jeng M. BolintaoEFL Teachers’ Teaching Challenges and Strategies: An 233InvestigationVilma Badua-LiwanInteractional Feedback: Teachers’ Perspective 252Roma Marian GuadanaDigital Media and Reading 266Gloria C. SalazarLexicographic and Translation Studies in the Philippines: 287Trends and Future PerspectivesChristian George C. FranciscoPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 12

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” About the AuthorsRichard Watson Todd is Associate Professor in applied linguistics at KingMongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi and Head of the Centre for Researchand Services. He has a PhD from the University of Liverpool and is the author ofnumerous articles and several books. Most recently, he has been writing a monographon Discourse Topics.Sandor Danka is a full time lecturer at the Institute for English Language Educationof Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand. He holds an MA in English and aBachelor’s in Education. His research interests include developing technology-assistedaccent-reduction strategies, diagnosing areas of difficulty, and improving Englishlanguage learners’ pronunciation.Krittaya Ngampradit is an English lecturer at Kasetsart University (M.A. in AppliedLinguistics for ELT and B.A. in English with First Class Honors Degree) and adoctoral student at Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, the Czech Republic andChulalongkorn University (EIL Program). Her research interests include corpuslinguistics, translation studies, error analysis, and ELT.Manuel Juromay is currently working as an English teacher at Triam Udom SuksaSchool, 227 Phayathai Rd., Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330 Thailand (B.A. Theology;M.A. Christian Education; Ph.D. Inter-Cultural Studies) Harvest Time InternationalInstitute, 3176 Via Buena Vista, Laguna Woods, CA, U.S.A. His research interests arefocused on Inter-Cultural Studies, particularly in Cross- cultural assimilations foreffective and successful career development in Thailand.Jeng Jeng M. Bolintao is an Associate Professor I at Ifugao State University, MainCampus (PhD in Language Education at Saint Louis University, Baguio City; Masterof Arts – Language at Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya; BSE –English at Ifugao State University). Her research interests involve orthography,teaching-learning strategies, gender-fair language, and translation.Karen A. Puguon, MA is an Assistant Professor III of Ifugao State University, MainCampus (MA-Language at Saint Mary’s University and BSE – English at Saint LouisUniversity, Baguio City). She is the current Chairperson of the Bachelor of SecondaryEducation and Bachelor of Elementary Education programs. Her researches focus onlanguage acquisition, language, culture, and linguistics.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 13

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Eilene B. Bugnay, MAT is an Instructor at IFSU Main Campus (Master of Arts inTeaching-English at Ifugao State University, Nayon, Lamut, Ifugao and BSE Englishat Benguet State University, Benguet). Her research interests include Linguistics andEnglish for Specific Purposes.Chin-Hui Chen is an assistant professor at National Pingtung University of Scienceand Technology (Ph.D. and M.A. in language and communication research at CardiffUniversity, the UK, M.S. in Human Resource Management, National Sun Yat-SenUniversity, Taiwan). Her research interests include media representation of olderpeople, media discourse and ageing, critical discourse analysis of media texts,sociolinguistics, and communication strategies in talks with older adults.Tony Hung-Yang Lin is an Assistant Professor in Social Policy at Department ofSocial Work, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology (NPUST)(DPhil in Social Policy and Social Work at the University of York in the UK, MA inLabour Research at National Chengchi University (NCCU) in Taiwan, and BA withdouble majors in Sociology and Economics at National Taiwan University (NTU) inTaiwan). His fields of research focus mainly on social security systems as a whole. Hisrecent book is entitled ‘Social Security Law in Taiwan’, which is a monograph of theInternational Encyclopedia of Laws and is published by Kluwer Law International.Witoon Tangphong is an Assistant Professor of English at the Department ofLanguages, the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Rajamangala University of TechnologyThanyaburi. He holds an M. Ed. in TEFL and a B. Ed. in English. His researchinterests include errors analysis, problems in translating from Thai into English, andEnglish Instructional Models. His recent book is entitled English Structure.Rotsukhon Songkhong an English lecturer at Rajamangla University of TechnologyThanyaburi and a recipient of numerous University achievement awards. She hasgraduated B.Ed. in English Teaching and M.A. in Linguistics. She has first-hand andcrucial roles in conducting English camps on and off campus. Her research interestsinclude sociolinguistics, learner’s autonomy and English as an International Language.Venus Ma. Hilaria Guarin-Pablo is a Grade 9 English Teacher at Gov. FerrerMemorial National High School – Cavite, Philippines. (currently completing M.A. inESL; finished Certificate in Teaching Program; graduated with Bachelor of ArtsDegree in Political Science). Her research interests involve discourse analysis, languagetesting and reading. Her recent books are entitled: Personal Development and OralCommunication.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 14

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Pornpimon Hart-Rawung is an Assistant Professor of English at the Department oflanguages, the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Rajamangala University of TechnologyThanyaburi. She holds a Ph.D. in International Studies, a M.A. in Applied Linguistics,and a B.Ed. in English Teaching. Her research interests include curriculum design,material development, and self-directed learning.Buntao Permkasetwit is an Assistant Professor of English at the Department ofWestern Languages, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Rajamangala University of TechnologyThanyaburi. He holds a M.A. in Applied Linguistics. His research interests includecurriculum design, material development, and self-directed learning.Lawrence Honkiss is an English lecturer at Rajamangla University of TechnologyThanyaburi (Ph.D. Educational Management; M.A. in TEFL; B.S. in Commerce; B.S.Military Science). His research interests include corpus-based research,psycholinguistics, and lexical fossilization. He is currently working on a book entitled:Lexical Autism: A Mirror System Neuron Phenomenon and The Diamonds’ Secret: ThePhilosophy of Unicity Diamonds.Alma C. Binwag is an Assistant Professor II at IFSU Main Campus (PhD in Filipinoat University of La Salette, Santiago City; Master of Arts in Teaching – Filipino andBSE – Filipino both at Ifugao State University). Her research is focused on language,culture, instructional materials development, gender and development, and teaching-learning strategies.Leudane L. Loñez is an Assistant Professor IV at Ifugao State University, MainCampus (PhD in Filipino at Philippine Normal University, Echague, Isabela; Masterof Arts in Teaching – Filipino and BSE – Filipino both at IFSU Main Campus). Hisresearch interests include language and literature, culture, and educationalmanagement.Anne Elizabeth A. Gumiran is a teacher of English in Tagaytay City National HighSchool in the Philippines. She is currently pursuing her Master’s degree in English as aSecond Language at De La Salle University – Dasmariñas. Her research interestsinvolve Stylistics and Discourse Analysis.Nathan Thomas is an MA Applied Linguistics candidate at King Mongkut’sUniversity of Technology Thonburi and an MEd International Teaching candidate atFramingham State University. Before his graduate study, he earned a BA in English,Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 15

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”as well as various certificates in TESOL and TEFL. He is interested in SLA, silent andreticent learners, and complexity theory.Christopher Osment is a graduate of the Department of Linguistics at the Universityof Toronto. His interests include corpora and their use for discourse analysis,materials design, and curriculum development. He has been teaching for nearlysixteen years and has taught in Canada, China, Thailand, and Laos. Currently, he isworking at the Darunsikkhalai School for Innovative Learning at King Mongkut’sUniversity of Technology Thonburi.Punjaporn Pojanapunya is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at KingMongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. Her research interests includekeyword analysis, corpus linguistics, and corpus-based discourse analysis. Her recentresearch work (with Watson Todd, R.) is entitled Log-likelihood and odds ratio:Keyness statistics for different purposes of keyword analysis.Vilma Badua-Liwan is an EFL teacher in Thailand. She holds an M.A. in Englishteaching and B.S. in Education. Her research interests include paralinguistics, languageacquisition, and teacher education. She is currently working on her researches entitled:EFL Teachers’ Strategies in Formative Assessment; and Preschoolers’ acquisition of aForeign Language.Roma Marian Guadana, Michaela Gjmae Sobrevilla, and Nadine EmireyLacsina are English teachers in Junior High School and graduate students at De LaSalle University-Dasmarinas (M.A. - ESL, B.S.E. Major in English). Their researchinterests include teaching grammar, semantics and pragmatics, stylistics, and literature.Gloria Capacia Salazar is an English instructor at Dacanlao Gregorio AgoncilloNational High School in Calaca, Batangas, Philippines (Candidate for the degreeMaster of Arts in English as a Second Language at DLSU-D). Her research interestsinvolve reading, literacy acquisition, second language learning, reading/learningintervention strategies, and remediation programs.Christian George Francisco is an associate professor at De La Salle University-Dasmarinas, Philippines. He teaches courses on bilingualism, language research, andintercultural communication. His research centers on lexicography and translationstudies.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 16

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Commonalities and Diversity in Effective Teaching Richard Watson Todd King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi [email protected] much of the literature in applied linguistics focuses on content, methods andactivities, it can be argued that it is the individual teacher, and especially theirteaching persona, that has the greatest impact on the success of language education.In this presentation, I will examine the persona of effective teachers from twocontrasting perspectives on teaching. From the perspective of teaching as an art,teaching is an individual, subjective performance based around the teacher’spersonality. This perspective is related to teaching style, an opaque intangibleconstruct that may be best characterized through metaphors, such as the teacher asentertainer, challenger or tool provider. There is no evidence that any particular styleis related to learner success. From the perspective of teaching as a science, teaching isa generalized, empirical activity, the success of which depends on the teacher’sknowledge and skills. Within this frame, research has shown that certaincharacteristics, such as withitness, smoothness and variety, correlate with learnersuccess. The teaching persona so crucial for effective teaching can therefore be seenas having two contrasting components: the individual teaching style and the keycharacteristics related to effectiveness. All teachers should work to improve thesecharacteristics while retaining their personal style for diversity. To paraphrase LeoTolstoy: All good teachers resemble one another in their characteristics, eacheffective teacher is effective in their own style.What makes an effective language classroom? Attempts to answer this question overthe last 40 years have emphasized different aspects of classrooms as key toeffectiveness. This can be seen by examining the content of articles in the influentialEnglish Language Teaching Journal (ELTJ). Looking at articles from the 1980, 1990, 2000and 2010 issues, roughly two-thirds of articles have focused on issues directlyaffecting classrooms (the other articles examine other ancillary duties of teachers, suchas test design, second language acquisition, and the philosophy of language teaching).Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 17

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”The classroom-focused articles fall into four categories:1. Classroom practice, such as activities and approaches in teaching (sample article titles in this category include ‘The use of plays and sketches in the teaching of EFL to children’ and ‘Using a genre-based framework to teach organization structure in academic writing’).2. The language to be taught in classrooms (e.g. ‘Tense patterns in conditional sentences’ and ‘Hedged comments in ESL writing’).3. A focus on the teacher or teacher development (e.g. ‘Teachers as learners: beyond language learning’ and ‘Modelling in teacher education’).4. A focus on students (e.g. (‘Why are students quiet?’ and ‘Japanese students’ perceptions and observations’).The relative proportions of articles in these four categories have varied over the yearsas shown in Table 1. In the 1980s and 1990s, articles focusing on classroom practicepredominated with an additional concern for the language to be taught in the 1980s.In the 2000s, the focus on classroom practice was joined by a focus on the teacher,but more recently these have been replaced by a dominant focus on students.Table 1Major concerns in articles in ELTJ by decadeYear Practice Language Teacher Students1980 24 10 1 01990 7 3 1 02000 9 2 7 22010 6 5 4 9There are several possible reasons behind the shifts in emphasis shown in Table 1.They might reflect changes in understanding of what is important in languageclassrooms, they might be symptoms of shifts in the nature of publishing in journals,or they could simply illustrate changing fashions. Unfortunately, the last may be thePathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 18

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”most likely explanation (see e.g. Alexander, 1990; Halliday, 2007) which means that weneed to consider other approaches to finding out what makes an effective classroom.Classroom practice in terms of activities and methods does not seem to have muchinfluence on effectiveness. As long ago as 1976, Stevick pointed out that two logicallycontradictory methods could both produce excellent results. Language content is alsoproblematic in that it is often predetermined, such as from a needs analysis, and so isnot open to being manipulated to make classrooms more effective. Who the studentsare is also difficult to manipulate. Of the four main focuses in Table 1, it would seemto be the teacher that has the greatest impact on the effectiveness of classrooms.There is substantial anecdotal support for this typified by people’s stories of theeffectiveness of their past education. These are summarized by Leng (2004, p. 52)who says “All of us do harbour memories of teachers who had a positive or negativeimpact in our lives”. We might therefore rephrase the question ‘What makes aneffective language classroom?’ as ‘What makes an effective language teacher?’The nature of effective teachersGiven the impact of teachers on whether a language classroom is effective or not, it isnot surprising that the nature of effective teachers has been a focus in the literature.Initially, in the ELT literature, the features of effective teachers appear to have beenidentified intuitively. For example, Finocchiaro (1989) lists 22 such features (e.g.utilizing the strengths of students, using a single set of materials for multiplepurposes). More recently in ELT and from an early date in general education, thenature of effective teachers has been the focus of research. Most of this research hasfollowed one of two main paradigms. First, there have been surveys of what makes agood teacher with opinions elicited from students, pre-service teachers andexperienced teachers thinking back on their own schooldays. Second, there have beenobservations of classes with the goal of identifying teacher variables that distinguisheffective and ineffective classes.The findings from the survey research identify a wide range of facets of teachers thatare linked with effective teaching. Table 2 summarizes the results of five such studieswith factors identified as underpinning effective teachers ranging from overallteaching approach to the teacher’s personal characteristics to the teacher’s classroomskills.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 19

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Table 2Factors linked with effective teachers in survey researchResearch study Main findingsOxford (2001) Overall teaching approach is key with participatory approaches more effective than autocratic and laissez-faire approachesMullock (2003) Competent teaching skills (e.g. questioning), a good attitude towards students, and some personal characteristics are associated with effective teachersVan Avermaet, Colpin, Van Effective teachers have high expectations,Gorp, Bogaert, and Van den empathy, tolerance, flexibility and enthusiasmBranden (2006)Ghanizadeh and Moafian Factors related to teacher success include(2010) optimism, stress tolerance and good interpersonal relationshipsBerendt and Mattsson (2013) For Thai students, a good teacher provides a model, cares for students, and is like a parentThe research aiming to identify key teacher variables from class observations istypified by Kounin’s (1970) seminal study in general education. Kounin conductedextensive observations of 49 classrooms and judged their effectiveness based on levelsof student involvement. From this, he identified several teacher characteristicsassociated with effectiveness:• Withitness, or an awareness of what is happening in the classroom• Overlappingness, or the ability to do two things at once• Smoothness, or the flow of the lesson• Challenge arousal, or techniques for keeping students involved and enthusiastic• Variety.Although the teacher characteristics identified by Kounin bear some resemblance tofactors identified in the surveys of Mullock (2003) and Van Avermaet et al. (2006),Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 20

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”nothing clearly emerges as a key aspect of effective teachers from synthesizing all ofthe research studies. This may be due to different aspects of teachers being prioritizedunder different conceptions of teaching. For example, Pennington (1999) argues thatif we view teaching as an art, we are likely to place a greater emphasis on teacherpersonality, whereas if we see teaching as a science, the teacher’s knowledge andteaching skills are likely to be prioritized. Any research specifically designed toinvestigate teacher effectiveness is likely to favor a particular conception of teaching,albeit unconsciously. What is needed, then, is a source of data not specificallydesigned for but amenable to investigating teacher effectiveness, ideally with severaldifferent people controlling the data source to reduce the likelihood of oneconception of teaching predominating. Such a source can be found in feedbackreports on teacher observations conducted for quality assurance purposes.Data collection and analysisAs part of quality assurance at King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi,part-time language teachers were observed and feedback given to them. The dataanalyzed for this study consists of the feedback reports on 15 teachers which involvedeight different observers (providing a variety of conceptions of teaching guiding thedata). The guidelines for observing and for writing feedback reports were very openwith observers expected to write about a page of feedback, mostly positive but withsuggestions for improvement as appropriate.To analyze the feedback reports, initially a four-category coding scheme was inducedfrom the data. The four categories are:• Teacher style (e.g. supportive, caring, dynamic)• Teacher characteristics (similar to the characteristics of Kounin)• Teaching skills (e.g. explaining clearly, asking questions leading to discussion)• Activities (e.g. group-based decision-making game, lecture presentation of main content)The frequencies, counted by clause, of these four categories were calculated for thepositive feedback and for the suggestions. In addition, a keyword analysis comparingthe frequencies of words in the feedback report corpus against the British NationalCorpus (using Graham, 2014) was conducted to identify salient concepts in thefeedback reports which could guide the focus of the analysis.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 21

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”The content of the feedback reportsIn total in the feedback reports, there were 182 clauses that could be categorized, withmost of these being positive comments. Table 3 shows the proportions of clausesfalling into the four categories for positive comments and for suggestions which implya negative judgment.Table 3Proportions of the four categories in the feedback reportsCategory Style Characteristics Skills ActivitiesPositive 27.4% 22.0% 27.4% 23.2%commentsSuggestions 7.1% 57.1% 14.3% 21.4%From Table 3, we can see clear differences in the proportions between the positivecomments and the suggestions. While the positive comments are fairly evenly dividedamong the four categories, the suggestions emphasize the teacher characteristics ofKounin. This suggests that, while all of the categories can be indicative of an effectiveteacher, poorly manifested teacher characteristics are the mark of an ineffectiveteacher.Two categories were chosen for closer examination on the basis of a keyword analysisof the feedback reports. The highest ranking keywords are words generally associatedwith education (e.g. students, teacher, class, lesson). In addition to these, the top 50keywords include more keywords concerning teacher style (e.g. friendly, non-threatening,supportive) and teacher characteristics (e.g. attentive, pacing, logically) than keywordsconcerning teaching skills and activities. I will therefore examine the data concerningteacher style and teacher characteristics in more detail.Teacher styleTeacher style is an intangible construct closely associated with personality. Itsintangibility means that style may best be described using metaphors (Katz, 1996). Inthe literature on effective teaching, Oxford’s (2001) survey produces descriptions ofeffective teachers akin to teacher style. In her research, effective teachers using aparticipatory approach include teachers as challenger, entertainer and tool provider.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 22

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”She also identified certain ineffective teachers who were either autocratic (e.g. teacheras tyrant) or laissez-faire (e.g. teacher as sleep inducer).In the feedback reports investigated in this study, nearly all references to teacher styleare positive (97.9% of all clauses coded as teacher style). This commonality of positiveobserver judgments on teacher style, however, covered a wide range of differentstyles. Styles provoking positive comments include teacher as livewire (“The class wasvery dynamic, lively and active”), teacher as soother (“The class was calm and relaxedbut encouraged independent thinking”), and teacher as safe harbor (“e.g. The studentsfeel well-supported ... The teacher builds a good safe environment for them to takerisks”).A key issue here is that some of these positively rated styles are complete opposites,reminiscent of Stevick’s point that logically contradictory methods can both beeffective. For instance, teacher as livewire is the polar opposite of teacher as soother,yet both are viewed positively by the observers. Although from Oxford’s researchthere are styles that are ineffective, it appears that the majority of the diverse, indeedeven incompatible, teacher styles are effective.Teacher characteristicsIn contrast to teacher style where opposites can both be effective, there is a one-wayrelationship between teacher characteristics and effective teaching. A teacher withthese characteristics is far more likely to be viewed positively than one without them.Using the characteristics leads to a positive judgment, while suggestions forimprovement focus on cases where the characteristics are not apparent.This pattern can be seen in the following pairs of quotations from the feedbackreports for three of the characteristics:WithitnessPositive comment: “The teacher appeared fully aware and in control of what was happening. In return, the students were highly attentive.”Suggestion for improvement: “It was difficult for the teacher to monitor the students closely, and I noticed the students using their phones a lot.”SmoothnessPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 23

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Positive comment: “There were a couple of problems with the technology but the teacher dealt with these smoothly.”Suggestion for improvement: “Some students were late and interrupted the class, so the teacher may consider how to deal with latecomers.”Challenge arousalPositive comment: “She addresses particular students to make sure they are on task.”Suggestion for improvement: “There is some downtime for the other students which runs the risk of students’ focus and attention dropping.”The teacher characteristics, then, are essential for effective teaching. Teachers whopossess and manifest withitness, overlappingness, smoothness, challenge arousal andvariety are more likely to be perceived as effective teachers. These teachercharacteristics provide a common core for effective teaching. Although they areperhaps part of a teacher’s personality, there is evidence that the teachercharacteristics can be improved through self-analysis of videos of one’s own teaching(Snoeyink, 2010), and this should be a priority in helping teachers to become moreeffective.ConclusionIn searching for an answer to what makes an effective language classroom, I havefocused on what makes an effective teacher. From feedback reports based onobservations of teachers, two different aspects of teachers have been identified:teacher style and teacher characteristics. These two aspects differ in their relationshipto effectiveness in teaching. Effective teacher styles are very diverse, perhapsreflecting the personalities of different teachers. This diversity is something to betreasured, and teachers (as long as they are not autocratic or laissez-faire) should notbe pushed to change their styles. Teacher characteristics, such as withitness andsmoothness, on the other hand, are necessary, but not sufficient, components ofeffective teaching. Teachers need to be encouraged to develop these characteristics sothat they become a commonality across teachers.To conclude, I would like to paraphrase Leo Tolstoy’s well-known quotation abouthappy and unhappy families: All good teachers are alike in their characteristics; eacheffective teacher is effective in their own style.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 24

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”ReferencesAlexander, L. (1990) Fads and fashions in English language teaching. English Today, 6, 35-56.Berendt, E,. & Mattsson, M. (2013) Poles apart: Protocols of expectations about Finnish and Thai teachers. In M. Cortazzi & L. Jin (Eds.) Researching Cultures of Learning: International Perspectives on Language Learning and Education (pp. 222-247). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Graham, D. (2014). KeyBNC [Software]. Available from http://crs2.kmutt.ac.th/Key- BNC/Ghanizadeh, A., & Moafian, F. (2010) The role of teachers’ emotional intelligence in their success. ELT Journal 64(4), 424-435.Halliday, M. A. K. (2007) Language and Education. London: Continuum.Katz, A. (1996) Teaching style: A way to understand instruction in language classrooms. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.) Voices from the Language Classroom (pp. 57-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kounin, J. S. (1970) Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Leng, Y. L. (2004) Becoming and being a teacher: Attributes of effective teachers. In M. S. Khine, A. Lourdusamy, Q. C. Lang & A. F. L. Wong (Eds.) Teaching and Classroom Management (pp. 49-66) Singapore: Prentice Hall.Mullock, B. (2003) What makes a good teacher? The perceptions of postgraduate TESOL students. Prospect 18(3), 3-24.Oxford, R. L. (2001) ‘The bleached bones of a story’: Learners’ constructions of language teachers. In M. P. Breen (Ed.) Learner Contributions to Language Learning (pp. 86-111). Harlow: Longman.Pennington, M. C. (1999) Rules to break and rules to play by: Implications of different conceptions of teaching for language teacher development. In H. Trappes-Lomax & I. McGrath (Eds.) Theory in Language Teacher Education (pp. 99-108). Harlow: Pearson.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 25

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Snoeyink, R. (2010) Using video self-analysis to improve the “withitness” of student teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3), 101-110.Stevick, E. W. (1976) Memory, Meaning and Method: Some Psychological Perspectives on Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Van Avermaet, P., Colpin, M., Van Gorp, K., Bogaert, N., & Van den Branden, K. (2006) The role of the teacher in task-based language teaching. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.) Task-based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 175-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 26

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” A Drill’s No Thrill: Experimenting with Different Approaches to Pronunciation Teaching in a Thai EFL Classroom Sandor Danka Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand [email protected] pronunciation appears to be problematic in Thailand’s EFL classrooms. Manyinstructors believe in exposure and imitation, or have no confidence either in theirskill set or their ability – perhaps because of their own lack of training in phoneticsand phonology. Consequently, language teachers often hesitate to integrate tasks andactivities for clear speech – let alone offer an in-depth framework to improve theirstudents’ pronunciation. However, for Thailand to remain competitive in the globalarena, especially in the ASEAN Economic Community, it is imperative that moreemphasis be placed on strategies and techniques for intelligible English.This paper describes a 10-week pronunciation programme designed for Thaiadolescent learners of English and outlines their progress towards clearer Englishspeech. Treatment consisted of focused instruction at both phoneme- andsuprasegmental levels; of drills and controlled practice, as well as playful activities andcommunicative, fluency-building activities with little or no teacher supervision.Results indicated increased situational awareness and self-confidence, along withmodest improvements in phoneme clarity. In addition, although games, chants, songsand poetry are a lot of fun and drills have a bad behaviourist reputation, the repetitionof useful phrases and everyday expressions did appear to have benefits in the Englishclassroom.This research paper is divided into four main parts. Section 1 discusses the rationaleand target objectives, Sections 2 and 3 describe the programme and student reactionsto different approaches to training in detail, while implications and recommendationsfor pronunciation teaching methodology are outlined in the final chapters.Keywords: Pronunciation training, English as a foreign language, Teachingmethodology, Curriculum designPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 27

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”IntroductionPardon? Could you repeat that, please? Not being understood goes deeper than not gettingour message across. We get frustrated, lose heart, and would rather not jeopardize theimpression we want to make, that of a competent, intelligent professional. We wishwe could write our ideas down and dazzle our audience with bright, creative ideas.Failing that, we withdraw completely. I’m shy, we say, meaning I won’t tell you because Idon’t know how to say it properly. This state of affairs is not restricted to the EFLclassroom. Making a good impression is important wherever we are. We want to looksmart, witty and avoid being judged, even subconsciously, by our accent. However, ifwe are nervous, insecure, or believe our English is not good enough, we hesitatebecause we would hate to portray ourselves in a negative light. We don’t want peopleto think “He’s speaking slowly because he’s thinking slowly.”This paper is an EFL teacher’s personal account of encouraging a group of Thaiteenagers not to “be shy” again. By consciously varying pronunciation teachingtechniques, it was hoped that a supportive environment and a creative approach –continually varying what happens, when and for how long – would help students losetheir inhibitions and start to speak English. In addition, it was hoped that it wouldalso prevent loss of interest, since mechanical drills, a typical pronunciation lessonstaple, are rarely the highlight of a student’s day. Nevertheless, when combined withmeaningful activities and done in a more light-hearted manner, an accuracy-orienteddrill can provide a springboard for fluency building. Furthermore, it can result inincreased confidence among students who are struggling with a foreign language orare not risk-takers to begin with.ObjectivesThis study describes an experiment of developing and analyzing the impact of anumber of accent reduction techniques in a Thai junior high school setting. Targetphoneme pairs under investigation included speech sounds either not present in Thaior habitually mispronounced by Thai speakers of English. Consequently, it focused onthe substitution of the bilabial approximant /w/ for the labio-dental fricative /v/ andthe preference for the vowel /e/ in words or phrases that would normally require the/eɪ/ diphthong. The course syllabus also incorporated supra-segmental training, withemphasis on word stress, rhythm, and intonation.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 28

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Students who are weaker in English are often reticent to take part in discussions andshy away from answering direct questions. A secondary objective of the programmewas to involve these students in a non-threatening way. Students who seemed to lackmotivation were also indirectly “targeted” – seeing how much fun the others werehaving, it was hoped they would change their minds and join in.In addition to accent reduction, vocabulary building was another objective addressedby the programme. With an emphasis on the way target words and phrases arepronounced, students were directly exposed to the correct sound form. Their initialworkload was 30-30 words, which then dropped to 10-15 items per subsequentsessions, giving a total of around 200 words/phrases overall. When selectingvocabulary for instruction, two equally important goals were kept in mind: to findwords that students may not have seen or heard before, and to include items that theyknew, but were pronouncing incorrectly. Medieval and alternative were chosen for theunknown list, but love and vampire appeared too, surprising some students who hadpreviously thought they were pronouncing them well and had to re-form habits due toyears of incorrect use.This paper discusses the following research objectives:i) to measure programme efficiency;ii) to build vocabulary; andiii) to raise situational awareness regarding language choice.Theoretical frameworkPronunciation is probably one of the most problematic aspects of the Englishlanguage to master (Yates & Zielinski, 2009; Fraser, 2001). Foreign and second-language learners, regardless of their age, all seem to share this sentiment. Unlikeadults, however, who “feel the benefit of explicit help” (Yates & Zielinski, 2009:11),many younger students prefer a more playful approach to pronunciation teaching, onewhere learning takes place almost unnoticed. Pupils are baffled by detaileddescriptions of target sounds, especially if delivered with abstract vocabulary. Theyhave no use for the terminology, only the skill of speaking more clearly. Their learningmethods and relative cognitive maturity may be factors why the intuitive-imitativeapproach is more suitable in young learner and adolescent classrooms. The intuitive-imitative approach, as described by Celce-Murcia et al. (1996), is one that depends onPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 29

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”the learner’s ability to listen to and imitate the rhythms and sounds of the targetlanguage without explicit instruction.Drills and repetition in language learning, reminiscent of behavioural psychology andideas put forward by B. F. Skinner (1957), have fallen out of favour in today’scommunicative language teaching/learning framework. Trying to mimic target soundshas become but a minor step, not the ultimate goal. However, this paper argues that acertain amount of drilling of new sounds, especially if they are not part of thephonological system of the students’ first language (L1), should play an integral partof every pronunciation class. Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) highlight the unique sensoryand physiological challenges to learners, as English pronunciation requires motorcontrol mastery. Rogerson-Revell (2011) also points out that the articulation of newsecond language (L2) sounds requires new muscular habits. Scovel (1969), cited inOdlin (1989:138), argues that this new muscular habit-formation gets progressivelymore complex for more mature students, as the “motor control programmegoverning speech organs will change with the passing of years”, no longer allowing“the vocal tract to form [new] sounds.” An in-depth investigation of this argumentwhich echoes the Critical Age Hypothesis is beyond the scope of this paper and willnot be pursued here. However, in a weaker form, it appears to support the argumentthat drills and practice activities may be beneficial for language learners’ long-termarticulation development. Fraser (2001:18) concurs, adding that “learningpronunciation requires an enormous amount of practice, especially at early stages. It isnot unreasonable for learners to repeat a particular phrase or sentence 20 or 50 timesbefore being really comfortable with it.”There is no l’art pour art in an EFL classroom. English phonetics is not taught or learntfor its own sake; every activity must be designed to meet students’ needs andexpectations, as well as their present and future plans. Consequently, creativestrategies that integrate meaningful, task-based learning and student perceptions ofprogress are a first priority. When learners themselves notice the direct cause-and-effect relationship between phonetics and communication, or the practical use theirnew knowledge can be put to, when they feel that their speech clarity has improvedsignificantly, it creates a positive feedback loop that boosts motivation and inspiresfurther learning. Two such teacher strategies, described below, are fast-track progressand setting realistic goals.McNerney & Mendelsohn (1992), cited in Ferreiro & Luchini (2015), claim that apronunciation course should focus on supra-segmentals for the greatest impact onPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 30

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”comprehensibility. They claim that “[prosody] is less frustrating for students becausegreater change can be effected in a short time” (page 51). Activities that raiseawareness of word stress, rhythm, and intonation, the music of the language, cantherefore greatly increase intelligibility, while stress misplacement, for example, canseriously disrupt it. Cutler and Clifton (1984), cited in Field (2005), found no effect onintelligibility in the case of a shift to the left in two-syllable words, minor problems incases of shifts to the right, and serious problems with intelligibility when this shiftinvolved a change in vowel quality, i.e., from a full vowel to a schwa or vice versa.When listening to connected speech, speakers of English do not mentally processwords in sequence. Research in psycholinguistics indicates that “during the [listeningcomprehension] process, the stressed syllable is picked out of the speech stream andis used to search the mental lexicon. Feasible candidates are selected […] on the basisof this syllable, and are then judged by how well they fit with the unstressed syllablesthat appear to their left and right” (Dalton & Seidlhofer, 1994, page 39). If lexicalstress is incorrectly placed, the risk of misinterpreting content words is high, andintelligibility is jeopardized.When EFL teachers and researchers think of a “Thai accent,” they refer to a set ofphonological features which are unique to Thai speakers of English. Swan & Smith(2001) provide a comprehensive list of mother tongue interference and other uniquefeatures of learner speech which include phoneme substitution, addition and elision,incorrect word stress placement, and inappropriate rhythm and intonation. In herprosody pyramid model, Gilbert (2008) recommends focussing on supra-segmentalsin order to make students’ speech “listener friendly” (page 1). Rogerson-Revell (2011)also points out that even when learners can “reproduce individual sounds, […] assoon as they put them into connected speech, pronunciation errors occur again (page213).” Therefore, avoiding drilling decontextualized sounds in controlled practice(Neri et al., 2002) and introducing common, everyday phrases which are useful bothin- and outside the classroom can be highly advantageous to learners (Fraser, 2001).Setting and clearly communicating realistic objectives is not only a teaching strategy, itis also a prerequisite for any pronunciation course, regardless of its length. Nativespeaker mastery is not a reasonable goal, as it is exceedingly rare, and entails far morethan classroom instruction. In order to prevent frustration and dissatisfaction with theprogramme, students should aim at making themselves understood, even if theirutterances are accented to some extent. Derwing & Munro (2005) list three aspects offoreign-accented English: intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness. TheirPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 31

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”research results show that out of the three, mutual intelligibility is of “paramountconcern for second language learners” (page 380). Foote et al. (2010) concur,proposing intelligibility as the goal of pronunciation instruction.MethodologyThis study describes a phonological quasi-experiment carried out among Thai juniorhigh school students (n=24) over three months. Participant selection followedconvenience sampling, as it is generally the case in applied linguistics research in aneducational setting (Dörnyei, 2007); i.e., both the experimental and control groupswere randomly assigned to this researcher, but individual students within them were agiven at the outset, with no allowances for a truly random sample. Participatingstudents’ different English proficiency levels and motivations presented a uniquechallenge. As a result, this variable had to be taken into account at the research designphase in order to offer multiple methods and techniques to cater for this mix oflearning styles and attitudes.Target phonemes were chosen according to their perceived difficulty for students. Intheir seminal work on comparative analysis categorized by mother tongueinterference, Swan and Smith (2001) describe a number of phoneme and supra-segmental areas that Thai speakers of English find difficult to pronounce, partlybecause they are missing from the phonological system of their mother tongue.Consequently, the labio-dental fricative /v/ vs. bilabial approximant /w/ pair, as wellas the vowel /e/ vs. the /eɪ/ diphthong were chosen for this reason. In addition,because of its potential for entertaining, creative activities, its significant Thai/Englishcontrasts and the source of misunderstandings that it may cause, prosodic features(including word stress, rhythm and intonation) were also incorporated in the course.The pre-testing phase of the experiment consisted of students in the treatment andcontrol groups reading a short unseen text and a dialogue of five exchanges as abenchmark to compare future progress against. They were not interrupted, nor werethey given immediate feedback about their performance. After quickly browsingthrough the task, students read everything in one go, pausing only as necessary. Thetask included several examples of the target phoneme pairs, and was recorded digitallyusing MooO Voice Recorder®, a free computer software downloaded from the Internet.Working individually with teacher supervision, students read the passages withoutinterruption, which on average took them about 90 seconds. The post test repeatedPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 32

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”the same procedure. Although the text and the dialogue were different, they includedwords which students extensively practiced during the programme.During the execution phase, a creative mix of strategies and activities encouragedstudents to move beyond the accuracy stage and concentrate on fluency as well.Focusing only on accurately pronouncing individual phonemes, warns Pennington(1999), interferes with fluency and “can be counterproductive to intelligibility” (page434). The demographic characteristics of the sample predetermined theteaching/learning approach to be used in the classroom. As the average age ofparticipating learners was 13 years old, the intuitive/imitative approach was moreappropriate (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996, page 2), one without explicit phoneticinstruction. There were no descriptions of articulatory organs, nor charts of theInternational Phonetic Alphabet. Students were asked to listen carefully, to follow andto feel the placement of the tongue, the position of their lips, reminiscent of theconcept of proprioception in Adrian Underhill’s Sound Foundation Approach, theinternal awareness of which (speech) muscles are used, and with how much energy.Creatively varying teaching strategies in order to match students’ learning stylesincluded songs, poetry, games, tongue twisters, fluency-building exercises, and TotalPhysical Response (TPR) activities as well as more traditional pronunciation tasks ofminimal pairs and contextualized practice at the phrase, sentence, and discourse levels.A special session was devoted to English loan words in Thai, drawing students’attention to the fact that through phonological transfer from one language to the next,the pronunciation of such borrowed expressions may change – be it a shift in wordstress (as in HAppy in the original, but hapPY in the marketing campaign of a Thaitelecommunications giant), or adding/deleting sounds (in the case of difficultconsonant clusters, like str-, for example). Even though students appeared to be awareof the different forms, this training programme offered additional training insituational awareness, so that they would order /pɪ’sa:/ on the phone for delivery, butpronounce it /ˈpiːtsə/ when talking about their dinner in English class.Results and DiscussionQuantitative measures of student samples of the pre- and post tests included twolevels of analysis, one as they were speaking and another by listening to the digitalrecordings. Their supervisor watched their lips for the glide, and for spreading widefor the /eɪ/ diphthong, their lower lip touching the upper front teeth for /v/, whilekeeping score on a checklist. While this method was very demanding on thePathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 33

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”supervisor, it allowed for a quick pre-screening in order to anticipate difficulties thatneeded to be addressed during the course. Recordings of the post-test helpeddetermine the efficiency of the programme, whether students’ learning had improved,was impaired, or their pronunciation clarity was unaffected by participating in theexperiment. Digital recordings, evaluated with a target phoneme checklist similar tothat of the supervisor’s, were assessed by a native speaker of English with the help ofAudacity®, another free audio software downloaded from the Internet. Although thecontrol group remained identical throughout the duration of the programme, due toscheduling conflicts as well as other school or personal reasons, four people left thetreatment group, leaving a total of 20 students to complete it. After the post-test, 10participants were chosen from each class for diagnosis and evaluation, which in thetarget group meant a significant difference between their pre- and post results.During the input test, a number of students had difficulty reading multi-syllablewords, especially if they were new to them. Victoria, Vanessa, Venezuela – while it istrue that all of them contain the target /v/ sound, only around one-third of thestudents managed to pronounce them correctly. Despite all efforts, many of them stillreverted to old habits when reading Valentine in the post test – perhaps because that itwas recorded just a fortnight after Valentine’s Day, and echoes of the phrase being(incorrectly) heard on TV commercials and shopping mall announcements stilllingered. In addition, the items Asia and Vietnam have near-equivalent pronunciationin Thai, which also appeared to interfere with students’ correct reading.The glide in the /eɪ/ diphthong was absent in at least half the time in the pre-test;therefore, it received special emphasis during the training phase of the programme. Itwas definitely worth the effort: this error all but disappeared from students’ post tests.Familiarity with vocabulary items in the tests may have correlated with accuratepronunciation, as new or infrequently heard words gave many students a pause. Forinstance, holiday and vacation were both present in the pre-test, but while the formercaused absolutely no problem to the students (100 per cent accuracy rate), the latterwas correct in only one-third of cases. It would be interesting to see whether thisdiscrepancy is a result of the word holiday being preferred by speakers of BritishEnglish – many of the students’ course books were published by Oxford UniversityPress and quite a few of their foreign teachers had a British background – or simply acoincidence.Students who achieved noteworthy improvement started at the 30 or 40 per centmark and fought their way up to 60, sometimes even 90 per cent with their /v/Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 34

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”sounds. Two boys and two girls who were generally more active during theprogramme read their post tests more carefully and took longer to finish. Those thatremained within the same result bracket fell into two categories: one boy and one girlstarted weak, and perhaps due to their difficulties with English in general, failed toachieve significant progress. Another boy and girl started high and finished just asstrong. The weaker team hovered around 30 per cent accuracy, the stronger team inthe region of 70-80 per cent. With regards to the two students with scores thatplummeted: the girl started strong (90% of her /v/’s were correct), while the boy got60% right at the beginning. However, they both ended up with only 2 out of 10 astheir final result.In addition to clearer phonemes, the overwhelming majority of participating studentsmade an effort to observe correct word stress in their post test. Note that sentence-level intonation features were not applicable in this case; students were reading anunseen text aloud, and their English was not advanced enough to quickly scan andidentify content words and segments that would otherwise be emphasized in theconnected speech of a native speaker. However, multi-syllable words appeared tocause less difficulty and were mostly pronounced correctly, without too much effort.The original research design required members of the control group to undergo thesame pre- and post testing process but receive no training with the target sounds.While they had regular contact with the focus group – they attended the same highschool – programme activities were devised in a way to minimize transfer: whathappened in one classroom could not easily be repeated in another. A comparativeanalysis of their pre- and post scores seems to confirm the “zero/minimal progress”assumption for the overwhelming majority. There was an 80-90% accuracy for the/eɪ/ diphthong, and the two students who scored slightly lower (70%) were generallyweaker in English than the rest of the class. The /v/ vs. /w/ pair, on the other hand,seemed to pose a problem for many of them, with scores as low as 20%. Withoutexplicit instructions and extended practice, there was a preference for the /w/phoneme when they should have used /v/ instead. The one exception got 9 out of 10right, possibly due to extra tutoring, a series of private classes with a native speaker ofEnglish.Detailed results for the 10 students to represent the control group were the following:for /v/, three improved their /v/’s slightly, two made no progress whatsoever, andfive got worse. As for /eɪ/, four got better by 10%, two students made no progress,and three of them got worse by 10-20%. There was significant, 30% progress in onlyPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 35

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”one case - incidentally, by the same student who was the weakest in the /v/ section ofthe test. After the pre-recordings, she complained that she had found the vocabularyin the text too difficult, that these new words slowed her down and that she was onlyguessing how to say them correctly. Her observations were taken into account whenpreparing the post test, hoping that both groups could now focus on the sounds andnot be confused by unknown vocabulary. While acknowledging outliers – the studentwith extra-curricular English classes and her classmate at the other extreme withrather underdeveloped English skills – an in-depth analysis seems to indicate that thecomparison group on average scored lower in the post test; that despite someimprovement, their progress was not significant.Implications for the EFL classroomEven with the best intentions, phonetic drills and minimal pairs tend to be overdonein many language classrooms. Teachers are convinced of their value – justifiably so –but after a short while, students start yawning. Creatively mixing different kinds ofpronunciation activities, on the other hand, may keep student interest high.Participants also appreciated the chance to make decisions regarding course delivery,and feeling that their input was appreciated, a sense of ownership motivated them tostudy harder. For instance, they were shown six different ways to mark stressedsyllables in English words and asked which one they liked best. Their choice, then,was consistently followed from that point onwards.If the programme was repeated, there are a number of features that could beimproved to make it more successful. Firstly, the efficiency of pronunciation trainingis generally very difficult to judge objectively. Kim and Margolis (1999) caution thatteachers often state that they “feel that there is,” or “see” improvement (page 106). Inorder to avoid the inherent danger of subjective evaluations, two relativelystraightforward and discrete phoneme pairs, /e/ vs. /eɪ/, and /v/ vs. /w/ werechosen as targets at the project design phase. However, these speech sound variationscarry a low functional load – a factor that decides their importance in distinguishingbetween minimal pairs, for example – and as such, improving the clarity of theirarticulation does not contribute to significantly better English pronunciation. Evenwhen mispronounced, listeners have no problems understanding the play on words ina journal article by Gill (1997) entitled “Vite volves and wegetarian wampires.”The programme came to an end as the summer holidays began. Post-tests wereadministered during the last week of school, and several students, as well as theirPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 36

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”teacher, were not going to return for the next academic year. As a result, theexperiment measured short-term retention only, and there was no way to tell howmuch a participant would remember – and use confidently in their speech – in thelong run. Another study, one with a longitudinal design, would perhaps offer morereliable long-term data.In addition, there is room for improvement concerning the internal and externalvalidity of the experimental design. There were no control mechanisms built in toallow for additional variables, such as the maturity effect (although the programmelasted only three months, its adolescent participants’ cognitive development must betaken into account) or the environment (it was conducted in a Thai-English bilingualschool, with many subjects taught in English by native-speaking teachers). As a result,it would be difficult to prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship regardingimprovements in pronunciation. Moreover, final results may be perceived as applyingonly to this particular population sample and setting, thus jeopardizing externalvalidity. However, this author is convinced that this playful, creative approach and itsfindings may generally be applied to different groups and contexts. This time thesample size was admittedly small (n=24) for statistically significant results, but theprogramme was a success in the sense that it allowed the teacher to freely experimentwith strategies, approaches, and activities to make pronunciation classes moreenjoyable and to make students more aware of the importance of clear speech forinterpersonal communication in the globalized, English-speaking world of the 21stcentury.Motivation and positive attitudes, the efforts required to successfully achieve learningobjectives, are rarely factored into curriculum design. While it is customary to focuson identification of, and emphasis on, appropriate targets in class, we teachers shouldperhaps go beyond the obligatory swat (“by the end of the class/course, students willbe able to…”) line in our lesson plans and think critically. If we aim at gettingstudents to be conscious of, and take responsibility for, both the learning process andtheir own improvement, maybe we shall see more motivated and enthusiastic peoplein our classrooms. Improved student motivation and ability may result in unexpectedbenefits. On Day 1 of the programme, for instance, there was a very quiet, timid girlin the class who wouldn’t say a word, nothing beyond a soft whisper. However, bySession 10 she was different. She seemed to enjoy the activities and games, havingslowly emerged from her shell. Her improvement was evident not in her clarity ofspeech per se, but in the way she participated more actively in class, became lessPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 37

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”insecure, and would even contribute to discussions every now and then. Furthermore,participating students became more confident in monitoring their own speech. Severaltimes during the programme, many were observed saying words incorrectly, thenhaving realized their mistake, repeated them with the proper pronunciation.The final results of this experiment all point to the potential effectiveness of thepronunciation teaching strategies used in the study. It appears that teachers’ attitude,classroom atmosphere and student motivation may be three decisive factors thatdetermine teaching/learning outcomes. Instead of explicit instruction or cross-sectional diagrams of the articulators on the blackboard, it is often enough for a classof adolescent learners to be made aware of their own speech patterns and to beoffered phonologically correct alternatives, all in an environment where such attitudeis positively reinforced.ReferencesCelce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cutler, A. & Clifton, C. E. (1984). The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp. 183-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Dalton, C., & Seidlhofer, B. (1994). Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Derwing, T. M., & Munro M. J. (2005). Second Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: A Research-Based Approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ferreiro, G. M., & Luchini, P. L. (2015). Redirecting gals for pronunciation teaching: A new proposal for Spanish-L1 learners of English. International Journal of Language Studies, 9(2), 49-68.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 38

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399-423.Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programmes in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1-22.Fraser, H., & New South Wales. (2001). Teaching pronunciation: A handbook for teachers and trainers: three frameworks for an integrated approach. Sydney: TAFE NSW, Access Division.Gilbert, J. B. (2008). Teaching pronunciation: Using the Prosody Pyramid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gill, S. (1997). Vite volves and wegetarian wampires. Modern English Teacher, 6(3), 45- 46.Kim, D. D. I., & Margolis, D. P. (1999). Teaching English Pronunciation to Koreans: Development of an English Pronunciation Test – EPT. Proceedings of the KOTESOL PAC2 (2nd Pan-Asian Conference), 89-112.McNerney, M., & Mendelsohn, D. (1992). Suprasegmentals in the pronunciation class: Setting priorities. In P. Avery & S. Erlich (Eds.), Teaching American English Pronunciation (pp. 85-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002) The pedagogy-technology interface in Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(5), 441-467.Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pennington, M. C. (1999). Computer-Aided pronunciation pedagogy: Promise, limitations, directions. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 12(5), 427-440.Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English phonology and pronunciation teaching. London: Continuum.Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance. Language Learning, 19(3-4), 245-253.Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 39

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Learner English: A teacher's guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Yates, L., Zielinski, B., & Adult Migrant English Programme (Australia). (2009). Give it a go: teaching pronunciation to adults. North Ryde, N.S.W: Adult Migrant English Programme (AMEP) Research Centre, Macquarie University.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 40

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Perception of Thai and European Student-Teachers towards Teaching Styles: A Reminding Case in Point of Differences Krittaya Ngampradit Kasetsart University and Masaryk University [email protected], one of the crucial factors can contribute to students’ academicachievement is the characteristics of teachers in relation to their styles of teaching(Mazumder, Q. & Ahmed, K., 2014). This notion is supported by Shaari, A. et al.(2014); they stated that one of the main agendas that any educational institution aimsto achieve is student academic excellence, where such anticipatory attainment dependsnot only on students, but also on pedagogical styles of teachers. Considering itsimportance, teachers’ teaching styles then become the focus of this study. The presentstudy aims to identify Thai and European student-teachers’ perceptions toward theirteaching styles to determine the similarities and/or differences in the perceptions oftheir pedagogical styles across geographical and cultural settings. 38 student-teachers,19 from each of the different geographical groups, performed a self-assessmentregarding their teaching styles using a questionnaire proposed by Grasha (1996).Statistical analysis was then carried out, and the data were presented in percentageform. The results show that, with regard to their teaching characteristics, Thai andEuropean student-teachers identified themselves differently; they were incrediblydifferent without remark.Keywords: Perceptions, Student-teachers, Teaching stylesIntroductionA high quality in learning, as one of the longing aims of instructors, educators,institutions, and other parties involved with education, can be supported by teachersand their pedagogical behaviors (Ramsden, 2003, cited in Parpala and Lindblom-Ylanne, 2007). As such, there has been plenty of research trying to characterize theconcept of teachers with effective teaching. One outstanding study is the work ofMinor et al (2002); they explored the characteristics of effective teachers with effectiveteaching identified by preservice teachers. Main themes that they found are effectiveclassroom and behavior management; competent instructors; being knowledgeableabout the subject; being professional; being student-centered teachers, and so on.Considering these main themes, it can be seen that they fall upon the concept of aPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 41

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”more familiar cover-term, ‘teaching styles,’ or pedagogical behaviors. In addition,these emerging themes can also help strengthen the importance of teachingcharacteristics of teachers even though the definite concept of effective teachers witheffective teaching and what constitute them in particular is still under avacuum (Koster et al., 2005).In addition, there are a large number of researchers who believe that the relationshipbetween teaching styles of teachers and students’ learning styles contribute to qualityof learning and students’ academic achievement; therefore, much of the prevalentresearch in this regard has most of the time been centered on learning styles ofstudents alone, with little focus on teaching styles of teachers, which is actually thestarting point of departure and most important aspect in producing such longing aimsof every educational party. Furthermore, Grasha and Hicks (cited in Sukor et al.,2014) maintain that in order to guarantee the effectiveness of teaching, merely aninvestigation of learning styles of students is not enough, and there should be aforemost consideration of teachers’ teaching styles and the connections between thelearning styles of students and teachers' teaching styles as an integral element in theclassroom where efficacy in learning is emphasized.With respect to these statements, the body of research focusing on this significantaspect of teaching behaviors contributory to learning efficacy, particularly oneconducted on the same figures who both act as students and teachers at the sametime, still needs more expansion. This research is, therefore, conducted to fill the gapand to expand the existing research scopes and perspectives to investigate perceptionof teaching styles identified by Thai and European student-teachers.Literature ReviewViews on Teaching StylesPertaining to the concept of teaching styles, a number of frameworks discussing ithave been available to date, and more and more details are being constantly added.The following is a list of scholars and researchers who share their views on themeaning and concept of teaching styles. Teaching styles are viewed by Grasha (1996)as the pattern of belief, knowledge, performance, and behaviors of teachers when theyteach, while Cooper (2001) suggests that teachers’ teaching styles mean all activities,including teaching techniques which teachers generally use for teaching a certainsubject in their class. Conti’s views toward teaching styles focuses on the dimension ofconsistency; he describes teaching styles as the overall traits and qualities displayed inthe classroom by a teacher that are consistent in various situations (Conti, 1985).Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 42

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Fisher and Fisher (1979) similarly define teaching styles but in a more comprehensiveway. The term ‘style’ in their perspectives denotes a pervasive quality embedded in thebehavior of an individual, a quality which persists across changing content. In otherwords, they try to convey that styles have to be persistent even when he/she usesseveral different teaching techniques and methods.Stitt-Goheds (2001) added that the aspect of experience and its influence should beconsidered; he posits that teachers usually teach in the way they have successfullylearned from or have been taught based on the past experiences. All in all, acombination of those views and definitions cast light that teaching styles reflect allteaching approaches, techniques, and activities, no matter what terms are used, whichteachers constantly use in their class, and those are usually influenced by teacherowns’ beliefs, personal traits, characteristics, and behavior.Teaching Style CategoriesEach teaching situation requires different teaching styles; this variance is particularlytrue when considering teaching styles in conjunction with other relational variableslike students or even certain subject content. Hence, in order to meet the foremostinstructional goal and objective, that is, ‘effective teaching and learning efficacy’ inrelation to the expectations of students and other parties involved, teachers usuallyuse different teaching styles to a varying extent. The categories and classification ofteaching style types have been abundantly proposed by many renowned scholars andresearchers such as Lippitt & White (1965); Fisher and Fisher (1979); Byrne and Long(1976); and Grasha (1996). However, as mentioned at the beginning, even though theissue of effective teaching generatable by teachers, teaching behaviors in highereducation in particular, has long been discussed in various studies (e.g. Gibbs andCoffey, 2004; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2002; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2007; and Walls et al.,2002), those discussed teaching characteristics have clearly appeared to be in favor ofthe two main differing teaching approaches; that is; pedagogical behaviors rendered ineither teacher-centered direction or student-centered direction (Parpala & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2007).Accordingly, Grasha’s proposal is one whose directions of each teaching style areclearly dividable on a cline; that is, going towards either the teacher-centered orstudent-centered clines. Also, his offered teaching-style based questionnaire isconsiderably the most participant-friendly with clearly-defined and inclusivedefinitions and details (Briesmaster & Paredes, 2015); his framework is thus selectedfor this study. There are five main dimensions in his research-based proposal onteaching styles: expert, formal authority, personal model (or demonstrator), facilitator,and delegator. The first three types of teaching styles tend towards the teacher-Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 43

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”centered end, while the last two towards the student-centered end. Each teachingmodel together with its specific details is explicated as follows: Teachers with Expert teaching styles are the teachers who… ✓ try to preserve and portray their status as an expert among students by displaying detailed knowledge. ✓ have a large amount of knowledge and expertise that students need. ✓ always check to be certain that their students are academically well- prepared. ✓ attempt to challenge students to enhance their competence. ✓ feel anxious when transmitting information. 2) Teachers with Formal authority teaching styles are the teachers who… ✓ feel concerned about giving explicit positive and negative feedback to students place their teaching emphasis on content. ✓ preserve their teaching status among students due to their knowledge and role as a teacher. ✓ always defines theories, principles, concepts, and terms that students need to learn in conjunction with organizing them into a sequenced set of must-achieve goals / objectives. ✓ feel serious and follow the correct, acceptable, and standard ways to do things. ✓ tell their students to strictly follow the rules of conduct established by teachers themselves. 3) Teachers with Demonstrator (Personal model) teaching styles are the teachers who… ✓ encourage students to observe and notice how to do things and how to deal with tasks and then further encourage students to imitate the demonstrated ways and models; he circle always revolves.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 44

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” ✓ supervise, guide, and direct students by explicitly showing them how to do things. ✓ believe in using and teaching with personal examples. ✓ run teacher-centered classes with an emphasis on demonstration and modeling. ✓ form prototypes for their students of how to think, behave, and handle tasks.4) Teachers with Facilitator teaching styles are the teachers who… ✓ establish activities and tasks under the premise of establishing active learning, student-to-student collaboration, student-and-teacher rapport, and problem solving. ✓ guide students by asking questions; work with their students on projects under consultation; suggest alternative ways of doing things; and always give students a great amount of support and encouragement. ✓ use a variety of activities, most of which are provided by teachers. ✓ place emphasis on student-centered learning and teacher-student interaction. ✓ encourage students to have more responsibility and take the initiative for completing various tasks. ✓ develop a capability and responsibility in students for independent action that becomes their main aim.5) Teachers with Delegator teaching styles are the teachers who… ✓ provide choices and alternatives for students in designing and implementing class projects where they act in a consultative role. ✓ reverse their roles as a teacher, becoming passive teachers during students’ learning. They encourage their students to fully act as engaged participants in the tasks or class projects that students themselves selected.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 45

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” ✓ attempt to foster learner autonomy during the learning process; teachers are more concerned with developing students’ capability to fully become autonomous learners. ✓ encourage students to work independently on the tasks or projects or otherwise encourage students to work as part of autonomous teams. ✓ are always available according to the request of students; fully become a ‘resource’ to students, answering all questions when needed; and attempt to monitor students’ progress throughout autonomous completion of particular tasks.Research QuestionsBeing aware of the fact that different types of teaching styles are existent andimportant to the quality of learning of different school populations, this researchstudy aims to address and find answers to the following research questions: 1) What are the perceptions of Thai and European student-teachers towards their teaching styles? 2) What are the similarities and/or differences in teaching styles perceived by Thai student-teachers and those perceived by European student teachers?Research hypotheses: In conducting this research, the research findings’ assumptions are postulatedas follows: 1) It is presumed that Thai student-teachers identify themselves as teachers teaching in a teacher-centered direction (content emphasis). 2) It is postulated that European student-teachers, on the other hand, assess themselves as teachers teaching in a learner-centered direction (learning emphasis).Research MethodologyA. ParticipantsThe participants of this research study are 22 Thai student-teachers who are pursuinga degree in Doctor of Philosophy in Thailand while at the same time are also full-timeand/or part-time university teachers. Four of them are male and the other 18 arePathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 46

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”female. In respect to European student-teachers, there are 16 of them, 4 of whom aremale and the others female. In terms of their nationalities, four of them are from theCzech Republic, two are from Russia, and two are from Slovakia. The rest are fromEstonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Germany, and Ireland. All ofthem are either internal or external student-teachers studying in a doctoral studyprogram at Masaryk University, the Czech Republic. With respect to similarcharacteristics which both groups share, it can be seen that both groups are 1)student-teachers furthering their doctoral degree, and 2) student-teachers who areteaching general English courses for Bachelor degree students.B. Research Instruments and Data CollectionA structured 5-point Likert scale questionnaire developed by Grasha (1996) was usedin order to collect the data for this research study. At the beginning, 60 sets ofquestionnaires were sent electronically to all of the participants (30 for each nationalgroup); however, only 22 Thai student-teachers and 16 European student-teacherssent the questionnaires back to the researcher. An elaboration of the instruments isattempted below:Teaching Style Questionnaire: Self-Rated in Detailed Situations and Behavioral FocusAs aforementioned, the self-assessment questionnaire was adopted from Grasha’sTeaching Style Inventory questionnaire; the questionnaire is used to see the overallpicture of the assessment of their teaching routes by the student-teachers; that is tosay, into what teaching styles and their associated teaching directions the student-teachers would assess themselves. There are forty items in the Grasheanquestionnaire, all of which assess behaviors and attitudes and roles associated witheach type of the five previously-mentioned teaching styles. Participants were asked torate themselves on the extent to which each item could mostly describe their teaching,especially in certain situations. A five-point Likert’ scale was used where 1 means“Strongly disagree” with the statement(s), 3 means “Undecided”, and 5 means“Strongly agree” with the statement(s). Examples of the items which correspond toeach teaching style type are as seen below (see Appendix):Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 47

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Sample Item Determining Expert Sharing my knowledge and expertise withTeaching Style: students is very important to me. [6]Sample Item Determining Formal The course has very specific goals and Authority Style: objectives that I want to accomplish. [27]Sample Item Determining Personal Model Eventually, many students begin to think likeStyle: me about course content. [33]Sample Item Determining Facilitator Style: Students can make choices among activities in order to complete course requirements. [34]Sample Item Determining Delegator Style: Students typically work on course projects alone with little supervision from me. [5]C. Data AnalysisThe data obtained from the two groups were separately analyzed using SPSS.Focusing on the weight-laden teaching style that the teachers rated themselves, thedata gained from this self-judgment can show to which typical group of teachingstyles the overall answer of each teacher belongs. Then, statistical measures wereattempted for quantification, comparison, and contrast. In terms of data finalization,the mean scores of each interval for each of the five teaching styles were computedusing the following formula: The interval level = [Max – Min] / n = [5-1] / 5 = 0.80Therefore, each interval’s mean score used for interpreting the findings of this study is as follows: Mean Scores Perceived Mean Scores Perceived Mean Scores PerceivedScore 1.00 – 1.80 Criteria Score 2.61 – 3.40 Criteria Score 3.41 – 4.20 Criteria Strongly Undecided Moderately disagree agreeScore 1.81 – 2.60 Moderately Score 4.21 – 5.00 Strongly agree disagreePathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 48

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Then, descriptive statistics, frequency and percentage in particular, were used tocategorize and label the teaching styles identified by the participants, as a concludingpicture.FindingsPerceptions of Student-teachers towards their Teaching Styles Using the 40-Detailed Items AnalysisIn answering the first research question of this study aimed at exploring theperceptions of pedagogical styles of Thai and European student-teachers, Tables 1and 2 below help clearly visualize an overall picture.Table 1Thai Students-Teachers’ Perceptions towards their Teaching StylesTypes of Teaching No. of Respondent(s) Percent (%) StylesExpert 8 36.36Formal Authority 6 27.27Demonstrator 6 27.27Facilitator 2 9.09Delegator 0 22 0 Total 100According to Table 1, it is revealed that, as an overall picture, Thai student-teachersidentified themselves as teachers whose teaching goes towards a teacher-centereddirection, with the style of Expert as the teaching style rated the highest by Thaistudent-teachers at 36.36 %. The styles of Formal Authority and Demonstrator, whichare still considered in the group of teacher-centered cline, were reported as the mostsecond ranked categories by Thai student-teachers, with a percentage of 27.27 % forboth categories. Interestingly, the Delegator style type was not rated by any Thaistudent-teachers. These overall results particularly together with the highest rateditems (items [1], [11], and [16]; see Appendix) in the Expert teaching style type mightindicate that Thai student-teachers are concerned with sharing conceptual ideas andtheories related to the topics being taught with their students, as well as factualPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 49

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”information; they seem to believe that these are of importance for students’ furthertasks or even future study.Table 2Perceptions of European Students-Teachers towards their Teaching StylesTypes of Teaching No. of Respondent(s) Percent (%) StylesExpert 0 0Formal Authority 2 12.5Demonstrator 2 12.5Facilitator 6 37.5Delegator 6 37.5 16 100 TotalPertaining to Table 2, it is clearly shown that European student-teachers mostlyidentified themselves as teachers teaching in the direction of student-centerness, eventhough some of them went towards Demonstrator and Formal Authority teachingstyles. Facilitator and Delegator models were most frequently and equally rated with apercentage of 37.5%. Contrastively, the Expert style type, which was mostly rated byThai student-teachers, was not touched at all by European student-teachers, resultingin a frequency of absolute zero. Similarly odd, the Delegator style type, which was notrated at all by Thai student-teachers, was predominant among European student-teachers’ rating. Taking a closer look at the most frequently rated items in the twomost identified types of teaching styles (items [19] and [39] for Facilitator model, anditems [20] and [40] for Delegator model; see Appendix), it might be viewed thatoverall European student-teachers not only try to emphasize independence and highresponsibility in students, but also still choose to provide room for their students toconsult with them whenever students feel such requirement, not only about choicesof the project students are to work with but also about knowledge and mental supportwhich can help them throughout the course.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 50