Rasool Kord Noghabi
Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan Iran
rnoghabi@basu.ac.ir
Elzbieta B. Slawinski
University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Acknowledgment
Authors are very grateful to Ms. Ivy Huynh for her contribution as a coder of lectures.
Introduction
Teacher’s talk is an expected and extensive routine of classroom life. Many aspects of Instructional clarity as a preparation to the lecture were addressed already by many authors (e.g., Gliessman, Pugh, Brown, Archer, and Snyder, 1989; Metclaf, 1992; Hiller, 1971; Rogien, 1995; Rosenshine and Furst, 1971). In spite instructional clarity having waned from research studies in recent years, it is still alive with respect to bilingual instructions and their outcomes. The work is going in the American and World Universities with respect to the training of bilingual’s teacher and it contact with students. Bilingualism can affect the instructor clarity, because knowledge of English among bilinguals is usually not the same as that of the monolingual (English) instructors (e.g, Best, McRoberts, and Goodal, 2001; Snow, 1993; Strange, Yamada, Kubo, Trent, and Niski, 2001).
In order to provide students with correctly spoken English phonemes bilinguals have to retrieve important information from their auditory cortex and integrate them in their cognitive areas (e.g. Slawinski, 1999; Slawinski and MacNeil, 1994). The age at which English is learned by bilinguals and intensity of immersion into English are vital contributing factors to perception, articulation, and an understanding of English speech (e.g. Slawinski, 1999, Slawinski and Wiigs, 1999). Speakers of more than one language are switching their languages (codes) during communication. Code switching has been viewed as a strategy to compensate for insufficient language proficiency (Heredia and Altariba, 2001). Sidhu and Slawinski (2004) as well Xie and Slawinski (2005) indicate that proficient (competent) bilinguals demonstrate knowledge for the linguistic principles that allow grammatical words’ strings and prohibit ungrammatical words’ sequences for code switching.
Student must process as many as 25 to 30 phonetic segments per second (the average conversation rate of 125 to 180 words per minute occurs among speakers). Thus, phonemes spoken by bilingual instructors who also conserve an intonation contour of the native language could be misunderstood by students (e.g.,Archibald, 1998; Snow, 1993).
There is no one-to-one correspondence between the speech sounds distinguished in a language and their acoustical properties.
In spite of this, listeners are able to assign specific labels (e.g., the phoneme names of sounds) to different acoustical values on a continuum of speech sounds. As such, the perception of speech sounds is described as being categorical in nature and includes a phoneme boundary between categories of speech sounds (Liberman, Harris, Hoffman, & Griffith, 1957). However, the fact that different languages have different phoneme boundaries leads to questions about how the categorization of phonemes is affected by an individual’s fluency in more than one language (e.g., Flege 1988; Slawinski and Wiigs 1999).
Phonological representation of bilingual speakers led to development of two major hypotheses 1. Bilingual speakers may adopt intermediate articulation (production) and perceptual values as a type of compromise between the phonemic boundaries of their first language and second language (e.g., Flege and Eefting, 1987b). 2. Bilingual individuals develop two separate phonetic systems (e.g, Flege, 1988). To date, research on the production of similar sounds to native speakers by bilingual participants has suggested that differences in phoneme in the two languages may change as a function of proficiency (e,g.; Flege and Eefting, 1987a; Sidhu and Slawinski, 2005). However, there is some uncertainty as to the direction of this change.
When Rosenshine and Furst (1971) reviewed the studies of process-product variables, they found that the teacher’s clarity became a very important characteristic of a teacher. Hiller (1971) reported that knowledge of subject matter could affect a teacher’s clarity and especially her/his usage of vagueness terms. It was stated that the vagueness terms are an internal stimuli condition principally determined by a performer’s instant command of knowledge, by his/her motivation to communicate, and by his/her own evaluation of imperfect success. In the model of conceptual vagueness, he hypothesized that there exists interrelationships among vagueness terms, knowledge, emotion, and intended style of expression.
Hiller (1968) divided vagueness terms into eight categories of impreciseness that were followed by Smith and Cotton (1980) (see Appendix A):
1. Ambiguous designation
2. Approximation;
3.“Bluffing”and Recovery;
4. Error admission;
5. Indeterminate quantification;
6. Multiplicity;
7. Possibility;
8. Probability.
The teacher’s clarity can be quantified objectively by low-inference descriptors. Several researchers (e.g., Hiller, Fisher, and Kaess, 1969; Hines, Cruickshank, and Kennedy, 1985; Land 1981; Land, 1987; Smith, 1977; Smith, 1985a; Smith, 1985b; Smith, 1987; Smith and Bramblett, 1981; Smith and Cotton, 1980; Smith and Land, 1980; Smith and Land, 1981) have reported low-inference descriptors, associated with teacher’s behaviors. In these studies, two low-inference descriptors of the teacher’s clarity such as a usage of vagueness terms and utterances that included “Ah, Uh & Um” are described. Based on observations of teachers in natural classroom settings, the teacher averaged from two to five vagueness terms per minute of her/his talk (Smith and Land, 1981). Mean of 2.18 vagueness terms per minute of teacher talk with 40 percent of the teachers averaging between 2.5 and 4.0 such terms per minute was reported (Smith, 1977).
Another low-inference variable is the use by speakers sounds “Uh” “Ah” & “Um”. These sounds were labeled Verbal Fluency (Hiller, Fisher, and Kaess, 1969).
A significant positive correlation between teacher’s verbal fluency and student’s achievement was reported. For example, the usage of utterance “Uh” had a significant effect on the student’s achievement and perception (Land, 1981). However, Smith in his studies reported a lack of significant correlation between an occurrence of the teacher’s “Uhs” and student’s achievement.
It was shown that student perception of the teacher’s clarity mediates strongly. The effect of the teacher’s clarity on student satisfaction (path coefficient = 0.51, p< 0.001), and the effect of teacher's clarity on a student's achievement (path coefficient = 0.13), as well as the percent of variance in student perception and achievement can be accounted for by various teacher clarity variables, as well as the percent of variance in achievement (Land, 1987). However, the percent of variance accounted for by clarity was greater for perception than for achievement.
Therefore the purpose of this research was to determine the effects of:
1. bilingualism on two low-inference behaviors of instructor clarity (vagueness terms and utterance of “Ah”, “Uh” & “Um”),
2. bilingualism on student perception of the presentation.
3.preparation level on two low-inference behavior of instructor clarity (vagueness terms and utterance of “Ah”, “Uh” & “Um”)
4. preparation level of instructor on student perception of the instructional clarity.
Method
Participants
Twenty senior undergraduate female students ranging in age from 20 to 40 years with a median age of 22.5 years from the Department of Psychology at the University of Calgary participated in the first Experiment (first phase of the study:10 bilingual and 10 monolingual). Participants in the first experiment were randomly assigned to one of two groups, high-preparation and low-preparation (n = 10). A preparation of teachers led to the Experiment 2. Experiment 2: Each group included 5 bilinguals and 5 monolinguals. In the third experiment (second phase of the study) 80 junior undergraduate students (more than 91% female) from the Psychology department participated. Participants in the third experiment were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: bilingual teacher and high-preparation; bilingual teacher and low-preparation; monolingual teacher and high-preparation; monolingual teacher and low-preparation (n = 20 participants per each group). All students reported very good hearing and a lack of any neurological problems.
Procedure
Each participant in the experiment had an opportunity to familiarize with the same lecture’s topic by a maximum of 45 minutes. After a week the lecture was presented by them to no existing students and their lecturing performance was recorded using Sony Electret condenser microphone (ECM-270), “Revox” tape-recorder (B710 MKII), and anechoic chamber (IAC). In the experiment 2 participants were using the same procedure as in the experiment 1. The high-preparation group had 10 minutes to review the lecture plus 5 minutes to study the outline of lecture before the lecturing. Time for the low-preparation group was 2 minutes to review the lecture and 1 minute to study its outline. Participants in both treatments were allowed to look at the lecture’s outline as they were teaching.
In the third experiment the 20 tape-recorded lectures were transcribed and analyzed by two independent coders against Hiller’s vagueness term dictionary (Hiller, 1968) and the Vagueness Terms Checklist. Percentage of agreement (reliability) between two coders was checked on the total number of identification made in quantifying two variables (vagueness terms, utterances of “Ah, Uh and Um”). The reliability for vagueness terms was .864 and for utterances of “Ah, Uh and Um” was .962. Two levels of bilingualism (Experiment 1) and two levels of the preparation (Experiment 2) composed four experimental groups. One lecture from each group was selected for a use in the third experiment. Criterion for a lecture’s selection was as a closest value of a lecturer to the mean value of vagueness terms used by members of a particular group.
In the Experiment 3, the selected lectures (two levels of bilingualism and two levels of the preparation) were presented to junior undergraduate students. They composed four experimental groups. After the listening to tapes, participants in all groups of this experiment rated the lecture on an 11-item lecture response form (Appendix B).
Statistics
In the first phase of the study, there were two independent variables: bilingualism (bilingual and monolingual) and preparation (high versus low). Two 2 * 2 analysis of variance were performed on the measures of vagueness terms and utterances of Ah, Uh & Um. In the second phase of the study a randomized, post-test design was used.
The first phase of the study served as a choice of speakers. Evaluation of the first phase was based on a number of vagueness terms and utterances of “Au, Uh & Um” used by lecturers. The second phase of this study was designed to evaluate by students these speakers as potential teachers. Thus, the second phase was evaluating student’s perception.
Results
A 2 * 2 analysis of variance was performed on the measures of vagueness terms, utterances of Ah, Uh & Um, and the lesson evaluation scores. The means and standard deviations of these scores are shown in table 1. The results of the analysis of the ratio of vagueness terms to total of words indicated that the main effect due to bilingualism was significant F (1,16) = 3.778; p< 0.07. However, the main effects due to preparation level and the interaction between bilingualism and preparation were not significant.
Similar results were obtained for the ratio of vagueness terms to total of time. The main effect due to bilingualism was significant F (1,16) = 5.181; p< 0.03. However, the main effect due to preparation level was not significant. In addition, the interaction between bilingualism and preparation was not significant.
There were no significant results for ratio of utterances of Ah, Uh & Um to total of words. However, for ratio of utterances of Ah, Uh & Um to total of time, the main effect due to bilingualism F (1,16) = 3.888; P< 0.066 and the interaction between bilingualism and preparation F (1,16) = 3.549; P< 0.078 were close to significant. The ratio of utterances of Ah, Uh & Um to total of time for monolingual lecturers in the high-preparation group was higher than that for the monolingual lecturers in the low-preparation group, however, for bilingual lecturers in the high-preparation group was lower than that for bilingual lecturers in the low-preparation group.
The results of the analysis of the lecture evaluation scores are presented in table 2. These scores resulted from totaling the scores for all 11 items of lecture evaluation. The main effect due to preparation level was significant in favor of the high-preparation group, F (1, 76) = 8.437, p < .005. The main effect due to bilingualism and also interaction between bilingualism and preparation were not significant.
Cohen (1981) noted that pooling individual item ratings to obtain an overall rating gives only a crude estimate of student evaluation of lecture’s effectiveness. Therefore, each of 11 items of lecture evaluation was treated as a dependent variable and 2*2 analysis of variance was conducted. The bilingualism variable was significant in favor of monolingual lecturers for items such as “d” (coherent), “h” (speech easy to understand) and “j” (very clear lesson). The preparation level variable was significant for lecturers in high preparation group for list’s items such as “b” (decisive), “c” (explains fully), “e” (well prepared), “f” (confident), “g” (well organized) and “k” (clear and understandable explanation). Bilingualism nor preparation were significant for items “a” (precise) and “i” (speech soothing). Only item “h” (speech easy to understand) indicated a significant interaction between bilingualism and preparation level.
There was no significant relationship between student ratings and gender as well as between student ratings and studying in the first or second year.
Discussion
The results of the study indicate a significant relationship between bilingualism and use of vagueness terms and utterances of Ah, Uh & Um in a lecture. Interestingly, these relations were in favor of bilingual lecturers. Therefore, the monolingual lecturers used vagueness terms and utterances of Ah, Uh & Um more often than bilingual lecturers. Knowledge of language can affect tusage of vagueness terms.
The present study selected the instructor’s preparation as another independent variable that can affect the usage of vagueness terms. The result of this research about effect of preparation level on vagueness supported Hiller (1971). The findings of studies about teacher’s preparation till now have not been consistent (Hiller 1971, Hiller & Ultman, 1973, Smith and Bramblett, 1981). In order to show effect of preparation in the present study maybe 10 minutes for preparation after one week has not been enough long for participants in the high-preparation group. Participants, who were allowed to look at the outline of lecture might attenuate treatment effects.
The results of the present study suggest that junior undergraduate students are able to distinguish between well prepared and not well prepared teachers. The similar finding reported by Smith (1985 a), Smith (1985b), and Land (1981), that student’s perceived clarity may be as important as actual teacher clarity.
Another observation in this study is that the bilingual students in this “laboratory setting” used a lower mean frequency of vagueness terms (1.96 per min in high-preparation and 2.94 per min in low-preparation group) than mean frequencies reported in research conducted in natural settings. Such research (e.g., Smith and Land, 1981) indicated means of three to five vagueness terms per minute. However, the monolingual students used the same number of vagueness terms in natural settings (4.18 per min for monolingual lecturers in high-preparation and 3.71 per min in low-preparation group).
A suggestion resulting from results of this study is that teacher trainers and teacher evaluators should focus on teacher behaviors that can be quantified objectively. Examples of these behaviors should be considered, especially for monolingual students, such as the usage of vagueness terms or utterances of Ah, Uh & Um (Smith, 1985).
References
Archibald, J. (1998). Second language phonetics, phonology, and typology. The Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Best, C.T., McrRobert, G. W., and Goodal, E. (2001). Discrimination of native-consonant contrast varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, v.109 (2), pp.775-794.
Civikly, J.M. (1992). Clarity: teachers and students making sense of instruction. Communication Education, v.41, pp.138-152.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research,v.51, pp.281-309.
Flege, J.E. (1988). The production and perception of speech sounds in a foreign language. In H. Winitz (ed.) Human communication and its disorders. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Flege, J.E., and Eefting, W. (1987a). Cross-language switching in stop consonant perception and production by Dutch speakers of English. Speech Communication, v.6, pp.185-202.
Flege, J.E., and Eefting, W. (1987b). Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, v.15, pp.67-83
Gliessman, D.H., Pugh, R.C., Brown, L.D., Archer, A.C., and Snyder, S.S. (1989). Applying a research based model to teacher skill training. Journal of Educational Research, v.83, (2), pp.69-81.
Heredia, R and Alteriba, J. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: why do bilinguals code switch? Current Directions in Psychological Science,,v.4, pp.164-178.
Hiller, J. H. (1968). An experimental investigation of the effects of conceptual vagueness on speaking behavior. A doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Hiller, J. H. (1971). Verbal response indicators of conceptual vagueness. American Educational Journal, v.8, pp.151-161.
Hiller, J. H., Fisher, G.A., and Kaess, W. (1969). A computer investigation of verbal characteristics of effective classroom lecturing. American Educational Research Journal, v. 6, 661-675.
Hiller, J. H., and Ultman, U. (1973). Effects of preparation and sex on vagueness in self-reported lecturing. Eric, ED 086 946.
Hines, C. V., Cruickshank, D. R., and Kennedy, J. J. (1985). Teacher clarity and it’s relationship to student achievement and satisfaction. American Educational Research Journal, v.22, pp.87-99.
Land, M. L. (1981). Actual and perceived teacher clarity: relations to student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v.18, pp.139-143.
Land, M. L. (1987). Vagueness and clarity. In The International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education. M J. Dunkin (ed). Pergamon press. New York.
Liberman, Harris, Hoffman, and Grifith. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across of phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, v.54, pp.358-368.
Metcalf, K. K. (1992). Instructional clarity: a review of research. Unpublished, manuscript. Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana.
Rosenshine, B., and Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria. In B.O. Smith (Ed). Research in Teacher Education: A Symposium. Englewood cliffs, N.J.; Prentice-Hall.
Rogien, l. (1995), Effect of training in cognitive awareness of student knowledge on lesson planning and micro teaching for secondary preservice teachers, Unpublished manuscript. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Sidhu, N., & Slawinski, E. B. (2004). Punjabi-English bilinguals: Proficiency and code switched sentences. (Submitted to the International Journal f Bilingualism).
Slawinski, E. B. (1999). Acquisition of /r-l/ phonemic contrast by Japanese children and adults. In Psycholinguistics on the threshold of the year 2000. Proceedings (M. Pinto, J. Veloso, and B. Maja, eds.). 583-590.
Slawinski, E. B., & MacNeil, J. F. (1994). Perceptual and productive distinction between English [r} and [l} in prevocalic position by English and Japanese speakers. The International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 10, pp. 295-318.
Slawinski,E,B, & Wiigs, M.(1999). ). Categorization of bilabial stop consonants by bilingual speakers of English and Polish. Proceedings of the International Conference on Phonetics, San Francisco. USA, 1999. 771-774.
Smith, L. R. (1977). Aspects of teacher discourse and student achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8, 195-204.
Smith, L. R. (1985a). Teacher clarifying behaviors: effect on student achievement and perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 53 (3), 162-169.
Smith, L. R. (1985b). Student perception, teacher clarity and their relation to student performance. Educational and Psychological Research, 5 (2), 131-142.
Smith, L. R. (1987). Verbal clarifying behaviors, mathematics student participation, attitudes. School-Science and Mathematics, 87 (1), 40-49.
Smith, L. R., and Cotton, M. L. (1980). Effect of lesson vagueness and discontinuity on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology,72 (5), 670-675.
Smith, L. R., and Bramblett, G. H. (1981). The effect of teacher vagueness terms on student performance in high school biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18 (4), 353-360.
Smith, L. R., and Land, M. L. (1980). Student perception of teacher clarity in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 137-146.
Smith, L. R., and Land, M. L. (1981). Low-inference verbal behaviors related to teacher clarity. Journal of Classroom Interaction,17 (1), 37-42.
Snow, C. E. (1993). Bilingualism and second language acquisition. 392-408. In Psycholinguistics 2nd edition J. B. Gleason, N. B. Ratner, (eds.) Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Orlando. Fl, 435-475.
Strange, W. C. E., Yamada, A. R., Kubo, R., Trent, S. A., & Nishi, K. (2001). Effects of consonantal context on perceptual assimilation of AE vowel by Japanese listener. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 109 (4), 1691-1704