See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/384004472

Improving the Pronunciation of Voiceless Consonant Sounds in Vietnamese

EFL Undergraduates Using the Simplified Verbotonal Approach

Article in Theory and Practice in Language Studies · September 2024

DOI: 10.17507/tpls.1409.05

CITATIONS READS

0 84

3 authors, including:

Minh Bui Nguyen Nguyet Andrew Lian

Ho Chi Minh City Open University Suranaree University of Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 57 PUBLICATIONS 276 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Minh Bui Nguyen Nguyet on 25 November 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1799-2591
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 2690-2701, September 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1409.05

Improving the Pronunciation of Voiceless

Consonant Sounds in Vietnamese EFL
Undergraduates Using the Simplified Verbotonal
Approach
Bui Nguyen Nguyet Minh
Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam

Andrew Lian
Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand

Luu Thi Mai Vy

Ho Chi Minh City University of Economics and Finance, Vietnam

Abstract—In teaching pronunciation, the traditional articulatory approach, commonly used in Vietnamese
classrooms, has shown limitations in addressing the phonetic challenges posed by the differences between
Vietnamese and English consonant systems. This study investigates the use of an alternative approach, the
Simplified Verbotonal Approach (SVA), in improving the pronunciation of voiceless consonants among
Vietnamese EFL undergraduates. The SVA, which emphasizes prosodic features through intensive practice
with lowpass filtered speech, was hypothesized to aid learners in producing more accurate voiceless consonants.
A mixed-methods quasi-experimental design was employed, involving 70 first-year non-English major students.
The control group received instruction using standard pronunciation textbooks, while the experimental group
utilized an online platform incorporating SVA principles. Pre- and post-tests assessed participants'
pronunciation of voiceless consonants in isolation, sentences, and passages. Semi-structured interviews
provided qualitative insights into learners' opinions of the SVA. Quantitative results demonstrated significant
improvements in the experimental group's pronunciation accuracy, particularly in sentences and passages.
Qualitative data revealed positive student feedback on the SVA. These findings suggest that integrating
prosodic training through the SVA can significantly enhance the pronunciation of voiceless consonants in
Vietnamese learners, offering a viable alternative to traditional articulatory methods in EFL contexts.

Index Terms—verbotonalism, voiceless consonants, pronunciation, prosodic training

I. INTRODUCTION
The development of English communication skills involves teaching pronunciation, lexical resources, grammar,
fluency, and accuracy. Of these elements, pronunciation lies at the very heart of building language skills (O’Brien,
2012). Pronunciation includes the articulation and differentiation of phonemes, known as segmentals, and the
integration of speech features that form a tonal system, known as suprasegmentals (Pennington & Rogerson-Revell,
2019). Pronunciation instruction aims to assist learners in recognizing and producing the language's sounds, stress
patterns, and intonation, which are crucial for message clarity and idea interpretation. Poor pronunciation can hinder
effective communication and the comprehension of messages (Kelly, 2000). Approaches to teaching pronunciation trace
back to the 17th century, initially based on the phonics-like principle wherein letters or groups of letters systematically
represent the sounds of a language. It is argued that focusing on segmental features, namely vowels and consonants,
significantly impacts intelligibility, which therefore is emphasized in pronunciation instruction (Wang, 2022). Indeed,
research has shown a direct relationship between accurate pronunciation of minimal pairs and an increase in the level of
speakers' intelligibility (Collins & Mees, 2013). Techniques such as repetition of individual sounds, drills, and exercises
are used to make it easier for learners to remember, gradually understand, and become fluent in articulating sounds. The
prevalence of the articulatory approach can be attributed to a basic assumption that individual phonemes serve as the
elemental units of spoken language, with words, sentences, paragraphs, and texts constructed upon this phonemic
foundation.
Pronunciation teaching has shifted away from native-speaker norms towards a more relaxed and socially just
standard to achieve intelligibility as its ultimate goal (Jenkins & Baker, 2015). However, a standard pronunciation level


Corresponding Author. Email: vyltm@uef.edu.vn

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2691

remains essential. Many Vietnamese learners still struggle to achieve even the baseline pronunciation performance. The
differences in phonetic structures between Vietnamese and English may lead to a pronounced accent, which often
obscures understanding. To be more specific, “the Vietnamese language is different from the English language in that
the former is a tone language whereas the latter is intonational. Thus, Vietnamese learners often have trouble with
sentence stress and intonation, and so speak English using a relatively flat tone” (Nguyen & Newton, 2021, p. 79). What
is more, English differentiates between voiced and voiceless consonants, a distinction crucial for meaning but less
emphasized in Vietnamese. Vietnamese learners also tend to mispronounce consonant clusters containing voiceless
plosives (Tran & Nguyen, 2022). They have many difficulties in producing English consonants (Bui et al., 2021;
Nguyen, 2002; Nguyen, 2021). To make matters worse, in Vietnam, English teachers tend to prioritize teaching
grammar and vocabulary for students to prepare for assessments and examinations. Therefore, under these
circumstances, it is essential to search for a more effective and practical approach to helping Vietnamese learners
improve their pronunciation, especially in producing intelligible voiceless consonants in English.
Furthermore, prior research regarding investigations in improving English consonants among EFL learners has been
focused on the implementation of the articulatory approach, which highlights the use of phonemic contrast (Hazan et al.,
2005), phonetic transcription (Jantharaviroj, 2019; Harlika et al., 2018), pronunciation drilling techniques (Temirov,
2014; Watanabe & Dinunzio, 2018). For acoustic analysis, Lambacher (1999) utilized electronic visual feedback to
facilitate learners in the visualization of their pronunciation and comparison with native patterns. This analysis also
included the movements of the articulators. These researchers tend to prioritize the instruction of sound articulation.
Meanwhile, the impacts of prosodic or suprasegmental features in phonetic correction and pronunciation
enhancement in the EFL contexts have garnered empirical support (Cai et al., 2021; Garcí a, 2018; He, 2014; Ludovic,
2010; Wen, 2019; Yang, 2016; Zhang, 2005). These studies have leveraged the principles of the Verbotonal Approach
(VA), a theory of perception (Guberina, 1972), to design instructional activities for learners to strengthen their
pronunciation. The foundational mechanism underpinning this theory was implicit prosody training with the integration
of kinesthetic cues, which can foster oral fluency in learners. However, in the realm of English consonant developments,
scant attention has been devoted to the use of prosodic features, particularly intonation patterns. Therefore, this study
aims to fill the void in the literature. Given the positive effects of VA in pronunciation teaching, this study attempted to
examine the impact of its simplified version, or the Simplified Verbotonal Approach (SVA) on the production of
voiceless consonants among Vietnamese non-English major undergraduates. Hence, the study addressed the following
research questions:
1. How effective is the Simplified Verbotonal Approach in enhancing the production of voiceless consonants in
English among Vietnamese non-English major undergraduates compared to the articulatory method?
2. What are the opinions of these students on the Simplified Verbotonal Approach?

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

The Verbotonal Approach
The Verbotonal Approach (VA), developed by Petar Guberina in the 1950s, is prominent in speech therapy and
designed to enhance speech sounds' perception and production. This approach uses suprasegmental features such as
rhythm, intonation, and stress, essential for natural speech production (Guberina, 1972). Unlike traditional phoneme-
based approaches, the VA integrates auditory and kinesthetic cues to improve speech perception and articulation (Asp,
2006). One of the notable benefits of the VA is its multisensory learning component, which incorporates body
movements and tactile feedback to aid in auditory discrimination and speech production. This is particularly
advantageous for individuals with hearing impairments and second language learners, as it promotes the development of
accurate and natural speech patterns (Asp, 2006). The effectiveness of the VA has been documented across various
populations, demonstrating its utility in both rehabilitative and educational settings (Faulkner, 2009). Its application in
language learning and speech therapy underscores its versatility and significant impact on communicative abilities.
A substantial body of literature has explored the application of the principles based on the VA in L2 development.
Lian (1980) was among the pioneers who introduced the VA into teaching French pronunciation. He used various
techniques such as relaxation exercises, filtered sentence audition, and movement and gesture to reinforce intonation
patterns. Garcí a (2018) focused on suprasegmental elements like rhythm and intonation before introducing spelling.
This method is designed to foster a relaxed and enjoyable learning atmosphere, facilitating learners' auditory and visual
associations and ultimately improving their communicative competencies.
He (2014) combined the VA with computer-assisted language learning to improve the pronunciation skills of Chinese
learners. This approach entailed employing low-pass filtered speech to highlight prosodic features, encouraging self-
study, and utilizing audio materials to augment learning outcomes. Wen (2019) enhanced the pronunciation of English
vowels among Chinese learners through the utilization of filtered audio practice for self-study. The results demonstrated
significant improvements in vowel perception and pronunciation. Further empirical investigations, such as that
conducted by Cai et al. (2021), have delved into optimizing audio-language input signals for Chinese learners of
English, employing dichotic listening principles. This study revealed that specific combinations of filtered and
unfiltered audio signals could enhance semantic processing and language learning, significantly improving
pronunciation skills. Notably, in Vietnam, the study conducted by Luu et al. (2021) implemented principles derived

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2692 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

from the VT to enhance Vietnamese learners’ listening comprehension. The study used low-pass audio filters,
combining speech and body movement to re-educate learners' auditory perceptions. Given the positive effects of VA in
pronunciation teaching, this study attempted to examine the impact of a simplified version, or the Simplified Verbotonal
Approach on the production of voiceless consonants among Vietnamese non-English major undergraduates.
The Simplified Verbotonal Approach
The Simplified Verbotonal Approach (SVA), in essence, is another version of the VA. The SVA mainly focuses on
raising learners’ awareness of the prosodic features, particularly intonations via intensive practice. To draw learners’
attention to the intonational patterns and directly stimulate the right brain (Cai et al., 2021), auditory input was modified
using lowpass filtering. In other words, lowpass filtered speech is the audio recording that is filtered to reduce detailed
information like specific sounds, meaning, and sentence structure, while keeping elements like pitch, amplitude, and
rhythm (Perkins et al., 1996). This manipulation helps make the intonational patterns more salient during listening. In
this study, the combination of lowpass filtered speech and unfiltered speech is hypothesized to provide learners with
sufficient exposure to intonation patterns for making progress in producing English voiceless consonants.
Intonation patterns, in this study, were developed based on two common ones, which are rising-falling intonation and
rising intonation (Chun, 2002). The former is typical of simple declarative sentences, commands, and questions that
start with a Wh-word, while the latter is characteristic of yes-or-no questions. As defined by Wells (2006), intonation is
the melody of speech, which describes the way a speaker's voice fluctuates to communicate both linguistic and
pragmatic meanings. Chun (2002) posits that intonation provides additional cues to convey meanings thanks to its
multifunctional facets. These functions consist of signaling grammatical structures, disclosing information organization,
conveying emotional nuances, and managing conversational dynamics at the discourse level.
Pronunciation Teaching in Vietnam
There are two major trends in the pedagogy of pronunciation: the bottom-up, phoneme-based segmental orientation,
and the top-down or suprasegmental orientation (Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019). The segmental approach posits
that teaching individual phonemes first will naturally lead to the development of suprasegmental. Conversely, the
suprasegmental approach assumes that once prosodic features are established, the segmental discrimination will
naturally follow. Proponents of the top-down approach argue that there is a direct link between prosody and meaning in
both the production and comprehension of language and that inappropriate use of prosodic patterns is likely to cause
more frequent communication breakdowns (Gilbert, 2008; Jackson & O’Brien, 2011). Nonetheless, in the context of
teaching pronunciation, the bottom-up approach appears to be more favored by educators. Teachers assert that learners
benefit most from explicit phonetic instruction, progressing from form-focused to meaning-focused tasks (Nguyen &
Bui, 2021). Additional studies indicate a preference among Vietnamese teachers for the articulatory approach in
pronunciation instruction (Nguyen, 2023; Nguyen & Newton, 2020; Tran & Nguyen, 2020).
Difficulties in Articulating English Voiceless Consonant Sounds
Vietnamese and English language do have some shared consonants such as /b, d, k, m, n, f, v, s, z, h, l/ though each
language has its distinct consonant sounds (Tang, 2007). McMahon (2002) stressed the importance of distinguishing
between voiced and voiceless sounds, which can be physically felt by placing fingers on the larynx. For instance, the
vibration felt while sustaining a [zzzzzzz] sound indicates voicing, as opposed to the absence of vibration with a [sssssss]
sound, representing voicelessness. Voiceless consonants, such as /p/, /t/, and /k/, are articulated without vocal cord
vibration, typically obstructing airflow in speech production. There are nine voiceless consonant sounds in English: /p/
as in "pen", /t/ as in "top", /k/ as in "cat", /f/ as in "fish", /θ/ as in "thing", /s/ as in "sun", /ʃ/ as in "ship", /tʃ/ as in "chat",
/h/ as in "hot". These consonants, along with consonant clusters, present challenges for non-native English speakers,
including Vietnamese learners. Vietnamese, being a tonal language with fewer voiceless consonants, may not
adequately prepare speakers for the articulatory demands of English. Additionally, the lack of phonemic voicing
contrast in Vietnamese complicates the perception and production of voiceless sounds in English. Numerous studies
have examined the difficulties Vietnamese speakers encounter in pronouncing English consonants and clusters.
Nguyen (2002) conducted a study on Vietnamese L2 learners of English, identifying final consonant clusters that
posed challenges in accurate production. The research revealed that clusters containing a liquid (/rt/, /lθ/) were notably
more difficult than those with a nasal. Bui's (2016) findings also revealed that the pronunciation of the consonant /θ/
was often substituted with the Vietnamese sound /t‘/. Tran (2021) further elucidated that plosive consonants were
frequently mispronounced by Vietnamese students. This mispronunciation often involved omitting final sounds such as
/t/, /z/, /s/, /k/, and /v/, a habit influenced by the absence of final sounds in Vietnamese pronunciation. Bui et al. (2021)
found that Vietnamese sophomores majoring in English frequently erred in pronouncing final consonants, particularly
/s/, /z/, /ʃ/, /f/, and /v/, with omission and substitution being the main types of mistakes. Tran and Nguyen (2022)
identified consonant clusters containing voiceless plosives as leading to the highest rate of mispronunciation among
Vietnamese learners. Moreover, Nguyen and Tran (2023) discovered that stop and fricative consonants, including /b/,
/k/, /p/, /t/, /d/, /ʃ/, /v/, and /s/, were commonly mispronounced by a majority of students.
These studies demonstrated that Vietnamese learners do have problematic pronunciation in producing voiceless
consonant sounds in English. As Duong (2009) expounded, the confusion surrounding consonant sounds can be
attributed to the difficulty in differentiating between sounds, influence from the mother tongue, perception of mistakes,
and inadequate drilling and practice.

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2693

III. METHODOLOGY
This study adopted a mixed-method approach with a quasi-experimental design. Quasi-experimental research often
takes place in natural settings without the artificial constraints of a laboratory, providing insights into how the teaching
approach functions in real-world conditions (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
Participants
The target population of this study was first-year non-English first-year students. These students were chosen
because they represented a broader range of English learners in Vietnam, have less exposure to pronunciation
instructions, and tend to have problematic pronunciations, which allows for more precise measurement of improvement
for this study. After recruiting 200 students to join a course to improve their pronunciation, piloting was conducted
among 100 students. After that, another cohort of 70 students participated in the experiment as a result of convenience
sampling. The participants had an average of 13 years of English learning in public schools and no private English
education. They were randomly divided into control and experimental groups, with 35 students for each and a balanced
gender ratio. All participants consented to the study, and ethical clearance was obtained from the university.
Pedagogical Procedures
In this study, two textbooks, "Ship or Sheep" by Baker (2006) and "Better English Pronunciation" by O’Connor
(1998) were used to teach for the control group. Students studied two sections weekly, each lasting 2.5 hours, plus at
least one hour of self-study at home.
For the control group, the students were taught how to pronounce vowels, diphthongs, triphthongs, and consonants in
English sentences, and to correctly place stress and intonation. The coursebook's content is on vowels, consonants, and
prosody. The conventional teaching method followed three main steps: presentation, demonstration, and practice. For
the experimental group, students were introduced to an online platform for practice in which the contents were
embedded. Students practiced intonation patterns with various sentence types such as statements and questions
(Appendix A). The online platform comprised two main components. The first is Moodle (v. 4.2), a widely used
Learning Management System that manages access to educational materials. The second component is a delivery
application created using the Livresq authoring system (https://livresq.com/en/), which facilitates the development of
advanced user interfaces and controls over audiovisual content, specifically audio recordings. These resources were
integrated systematically into a website which consisted of 10 computer-based lessons. All these lessons were
constructed using the SCORM (Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative) protocol, which means that they can transmit
information regarding the completion of exercises and other relevant data to the LMS. Students’ access and
performance are tracked to ensure compliance with the experiment’s directives.
Overall, the procedure consists of eight main steps.
Step 1: When students log in, they will see a list of contents, comprising ten lessons, each featuring various types of
sentences: statements, yes-no questions and information questions. Students are required to follow the lessons
sequentially and are permitted to revisit previous lessons.
Step 2: When students select the title of a unit, the system automatically presents the content of each lesson, which
comprises five sentences. Students must complete sentence 01 before the content of sentence 02 becomes accessible.
They are permitted to return to the previous sentence at any time.
Step 3: When students click on Sentence 01, two buttons “Play” and “Reset” will appear. When the students click the
PLAY button, they will hear filtered audio of sentence 01 repeated 15 times. This filtering was designed to raise
students’ awareness of its prosodic characteristics. The students are encouraged to listen to the filtered sentence and, if
they wish, synchronize their bodily movements to the sentence's prosody.
Step 4: The recording stops after the students have heard the filtered pattern 15 times. At this point, students must
decide whether the audio they heard is one of the displayed options: a yes-no question, an information question, or a
statement.
Step 5: After that, students listen to the filtered audio another ten times.
Step 6: Next, students listen to the unfiltered audio to identify the contrast, including similarities and differences,
between the filtered and unfiltered versions. They also have the option to display the text of the sentence. Students are
encouraged to hum the sentences, either internally or externally.
Step 7: After that, students can listen to both the filtered and unfiltered versions of the sentence, which allows them
to review and compare. This step integrates both prosodic and grammatical information, which will help to create
perceptual expectations in both the reception and production of natural language, thus enhancing language processing
and production. Although the primary focus of the lesson protocol is on enhancing receptive skills - i.e., listening and
refining perceptual mechanisms- students can record their voices, compare their recordings with the original model, and
download their recordings if they wish.
Research Instruments
There were two main instruments: the voiceless consonant test and semi-structured interviews.
The voiceless consonant test was used as a pre-test and post-test (Appendix B). It consisted of three parts. Part 1
required students to pronounce 27 single words with voiceless consonants in initial, middle, or final positions. Part 2
included reading 104 sentences of varying intonation patterns containing these consonants. Part 3 involved reading a
passage highlighting prosodic features like rhythm, stress, and intonation, with the consonants placed in different

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2694 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

positions. Grading Part 1 and 2 (word and sentence level) involved marking word pronunciation as "Correct" or
"Incorrect". For grading Part 3 (passage level), criteria from the IELTS speaking test were utilized. The grading scale
assessed pronunciation accuracy and intelligibility, ranging from "Intrusive" (0-20%) with severe comprehension
hindrance to "Very Good" (80-100%) with nearly flawless pronunciation. Two Vietnamese English teachers with
IELTS Speaking Band 8 rated the pre-tests and post-tests independently. The students’ recordings were anonymized
and randomized and the ratings were entirely blind with the raters not knowing whether they were listening to the
experimental or control group, pre-test or post-test. This blind rating technique minimized or eliminated bias because it
ensured that the evaluations were based entirely on criteria rather than the knowledge of the participants. The Pearson
Correlation Coefficient measuring the consistency between the two raters was calculated, which demonstrated a high
value indicating strong agreement and confirming the assessments' reliability and objectivity.
A semi-structured interview was utilized to gather comprehensive data on students' opinions on the implementation
of the SVA (Appendix C). Semi-structured interviews allowed interviewees flexibility in questioning and clarity (Ary et
al., 2010). Open-ended questions let participants freely express their views on the approach's effectiveness and
usefulness, ensuring authentic and detailed responses. Expert evaluation of the interview stages and questions ensured
methodological rigor. Interviewing all 35 participants in the experimental group enhanced data reliability and provided
a comprehensive understanding of diverse participant experiences, preventing selection bias.
Data Collection and Analysis
For quantitative data, after all the scores were collected, and coded into the SPSS 23, paired sample and independent
sample t-tests were conducted to assess differences in participants' mean scores between the pretest and posttest phases.
These analyses aimed to identify statistically significant variations in mean scores, thereby evaluating the impact of
pronunciation enhancement using the Simplified Verbotonal Approach and the articulatory approach at the group level.
The Shapiro-Wilk test results indicated that, except for one case, the data did not follow a normal distribution.
Consequently, it was prudent to move away from conventional t-test analysis. The Mann-Whitney U test mitigated the
impact of non-normality, offering a more accurate reflection of central tendencies across different instructional groups.
ANCOVA was performed in one instance to evaluate precisely the impact of the intervention. For qualitative analysis,
after the interviews were carried out, the recordings were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. Two raters
worked on the data separately and then reached the final agreement on the final categorization of ideas based on raw
data.

IV. FINDINGS
Quantitative Data
As displayed in Table 1, differences between the means among pretests and posttests regarding each section between
the Control Group (C-GRP) and the Experimental Group (E-GRP). The results provide general observations regarding
three aspects. First, for improvement patterns, the E-GRP consistently shows larger improvements in mean scores
across all tests compared to the C-GRP, suggesting a more effective intervention or different influencing factors.
Second, in terms of variability, the standard deviations generally decrease from pre-test to post-test for both groups,
indicating more consistent performance post-intervention. However, the E-GRP often ends up with a lower SD,
especially in the post-voiceless sounds and voiceless-sound sentences sections. Finally, concerning the performance
trends, the E-GRP’s notable improvement in voiceless-sound passage post-test scores, compared to the C-GRP,
highlights a particularly strong performance in this area.
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Test C-GRP C-GRP E-GRP E-GRP
Mean SD Mean SD
Pre-Voiceless sounds 22.26 3.02 21.80 3.71
Post-Voiceless sounds 23.00 2.91 24.04 1.65
Pre-Voiceless-sound Sentences 74.26 13.51 67.13 20.51
Post-Voiceless-sound Sentences 76.69 10.75 79.64 13.29
Pre-Voiceless-sound Passage 62.76 22.42 65.06 24.73
Post-Voiceless-sound Passage 60.56 19.36 72.96 20.94
Note: C-GRP: Control group; E-GRP: experimental group

At the descriptive level, these observations suggest that the E-GRP outperforms the C-GRP in terms of mean score
increases and consistent performance across various tests. These results indicate the effectiveness of the intervention
used with the E-GRP, which is the effectiveness of SVA in improving voiceless consonant sounds in English.
Data analyses run by the Mann-Whitney U test, as illustrated in Table 2.

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2695

TABLE 2
MANN-WHITNEY U TEST (INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST)
Test C-GRP C-GRP SD E-GRP E-GRP SD p-value Effect
Mean Mean Size
Pre-Voiceless sounds 22.26 3.02 21.80 3.71 0.768 0.042
Post-Voiceless sounds 23.00 2.91 24.04 1.65 0.12 0.22
Pre-Voiceless-sound Sentences 74.26 13.51 67.13 20.51 0.19 0.18
Post-Voiceless-sound 76.69 10.75 79.64 13.29 0.14 0.22
Sentences ANCOVA ANCOVA
<0.001 Cohen’s d
0.927
Pre-Voiceless-sound Passage 62.76 22.42 65.06 24.73 0.69 0.34
Post-Voiceless-sound Passage 60.56 19.36 72.96 20.94 0.014 0.62
Note: C-GRP: Control group; E-GRP: experimental group

Voiceless Sounds
In the pre-test of voiceless sounds, there is no significant difference between the control and experimental groups at
the pre-test stage (p > 0.05). The very small effect size suggests negligible initial differences. In the post-test of
voiceless sounds, there is no significant difference between the control and experimental groups at the post-test stage (p >
0.05). However, both comparisons of the means C-GRP and E-GRP Post-Voiceless Sounds indicate a small advantage
in favour of the experimental group. The small to moderate effect size also indicates some improvement in the
experimental group.
Voiceless-Sound Sentences
In the pre-test of voiceless sound sentences, initial calculations suggest that there is no significant difference between
the control and experimental groups at the pre-test stage (p > 0.05). The small effect size indicates minor initial
differences. However, in reality, there is a large difference in the pretest scores between C-GRP (Mean = 74.26, SD =
13.51) and E-GRP (Mean = 67.13, SD = 20.51) in favour of the C-GRP. While in the significance calculations, this
difference in Mean of 7.13 was computed as non-significant, this very large difference in favour of the C-GRP seemed
to flag an anomaly in the calculations worth investigating.
In the post-test of voiceless sound sentences, calculations suggest that there is no significant difference between the
control and experimental groups at the post-test stage (p > 0.05). The C-GRP Mean is 76.69 (SD = 10.75) and the E-
GRP Mean is 79.64 (SD = 13.29). In light of the initial large difference in the pretest mean for the C-GRP, this
translates into the experimental group making up the very large difference and still overtaking the C-GRP by a
moderate margin. Also, the moderate effect size suggests improvement in the E-GRP. This turnaround of 10.98 points
prompted an ANCOVA analysis to take account of the large pretest difference in scores in assessing the post-test
outcome. An ANCOVA analysis for the post-test of voiceless sound sentences was performed and showed a p-value: p
< 0.001 with effect size (Cohen's d): 0.927. Thus, after adjusting for the pre-test discrepancy using ANCOVA, the
results show a significant difference between the control and experimental groups (p < 0.001). The large effect size
indicates substantial improvement in the experimental group compared to the control group, thus vindicating the
statistical concern. In other words, in this particular test, the E-GRP significantly outperformed the C-GRP in the group
analysis.
Voiceless-Sound Passage
In the pre-test of sound passage, there is no significant difference between the control and experimental groups at the
pre-test stage (p > 0.05). In the post-test of sound passage, there is a significant difference between the control and
experimental groups as indicated by the difference between the means: 12.40 in favour of E-GRP at the post-test stage
(p=0.014) and a moderate to a large effect size of 0.62.
In sum, the E-GRP shows significant improvements over the C-GRP in two of the three sections applied with a
moderate to large effect size. ANCOVA results for the voiceless-sound sentences indicate a significant difference
favoring the E-GRP after adjusting for pre-test discrepancies (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.927). Regarding the effect size,
the rank biserial correlation effect size calculation used standardly in conjunction with the Mann-Whitney U test
generally yields lower effect sizes compared to Cohen's d. Nevertheless, moderate to large effect sizes in the post-tests
for all three tests indicate substantial improvements in the E-GRP. The effect sizes for pre-tests are generally small,
suggesting that initial differences between groups were minor. For the adjustments and robustness, the use of ANCOVA
to adjust for pre-test discrepancies in the voiceless-sound sentences test provides a robust and well-established
procedure for addressing initial imbalances and confirms the significant improvement in the E-GRP.
The above results indicate that the E-GRP shows greater improvements compared to the C-GRP, particularly in the
voiceless-sound passage and voiceless-sound sentences sections. The use of ANCOVA highlights the substantial impact
of the intervention on the E-GRP, confirming the effectiveness of the experimental approach in improving voiceless
consonant production. The effect sizes calculated using rank biserial correlation are lower than Cohen's d but indicate
meaningful differences in outcomes between the two groups.
Qualitative Data
Overall, the analysis of the interview data reveals positive opinions regarding the implementation of the SVA.
Participants expressed positive sentiments, citing their interest in the SVA, as well as acknowledging its utility and

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2696 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

efficacy in enhancing their pronunciation of voiceless consonant sounds. All 35 participants expressed excitement about
the SVA-based activities, finding the approach innovative and engaging. As illustrated by the remarks of Participant 4,
who said, “I quite like this approach and can grasp more effective ways to improve pronunciation." Participant 12
remarked, "It helps me feel that it is not boring during the learning process." Most participants (33 out of 35)
acknowledged the approach's usefulness in improving scores and understanding the sounds of the target language. They
found it more effective than the articulatory approach. Participants noted measurable pronunciation advancements and
appreciated the approach's comprehensive nature as demonstrated by some excerpts from the interviewees:
It is a very unique course. It is different and fascinating. After studying the course, I really like this method. I
can listen to the intonation part and then pronounce it. I can learn to pronounce many words, realize the sounds
and pronounce them better than before. This is a very useful approach. (Participant 22)
Learning by this approach will support learners and naturally develop their speaking skills or pronunciation. I
can listen to and grasp the intonations of native speakers and the way they emphasize sentences and pronounce
linking sounds. Hence, this is a useful way of learning. (Participant 15)
Participants overwhelmingly praised the approach's effectiveness, with 32 out of 35 noting significant improvements.
They reported better voice modulation, pronunciation, rhythm, and enhanced listening skills. As some participants
articulated:
This approach will help me adjust my voice better, pronounce better, and have more rhythm when speaking,
making my speaking also more rhythmic. Besides, practicing pronunciation like this also helps me listen better
and helps me practice listening skills for my upcoming exam preparation. (Participant 23)
After 10 English lessons, I feel that my ability to respond and pronounce vocabulary has improved. It is not
about pronouncing each word separately. Moreover, I can combine two new words. My progress is very clear.
(Participant 30)
Additionally, Participant 34 observed a significant improvement in articulation, leading to clearer speech: "This
approach has made a big difference in how I pronounce the voiceless sounds in English. It is now much easier for me to
articulate these sounds accurately, which makes my speech clearer." Participant 19 also reported, "Before taking this
course, I struggled with voiceless sounds a lot. Now, I can pronounce them more naturally, which has greatly enhanced
my communication ability." She said that a natural ease in producing these sounds greatly enhanced their
communication skills.
In brief, the SVA has proven to be a highly effective and engaging approach for enhancing English pronunciation, as
evidenced by interviews with 35 students from an experimental cohort. Participants expressed enthusiasm for SVA
activities' innovative and interactive nature, noting substantial improvements in pronunciation, fluency, and confidence.
They found the approach more effective, appreciating its comprehensive nature and practical benefits.

V. DISCUSSION
Both quantitative and qualitative data indicate the effectiveness of using the SVA in enhancing the production of
English voiceless consonant sounds among Vietnamese learners compared to the articulatory approach. These findings
lend support to previous research that highlighted the efficacy of the top-down approaches to teaching pronunciation
(Gilbert, 2008; Jackson & O’Brien, 2011). The results demonstrate that suprasegmental features should be given
precedence in pronunciation instructions since they can facilitate the production of segmental components, particularly
voiceless consonants. This is consistent with prior studies (e.g., García, 2018; He, 2018; Lian, 1980; Yang, 2016) that
underscored the effectiveness of VA in pronunciation development.
These outcomes suggest the direct link between speech perception and sound articulation which indicates that
exerting a certain influence on perception may lead to a change in production. Although the current study did not
emphasize kinesthetic elements, raising awareness of prosodic patterns proved to be an effective way to enhance
learners’ pronunciation. The utilization of lowpass filtered speech was again shown to be useful for helping L2 learners
internalize prosodic patterns (Cai et al., 2021; Luu et al., 2021). In essence, a combination of filtered and unfiltered
audio signals may boost semantic processing and language acquisition, leading to noticeable improvements in
pronunciation. Salient progress was observed in the performance of voiceless sounds at both sentence and passage
levels. Furthermore, the positive feedback from participants in this study also corroborates the opinions of participants
in other research (He, 2018; Luu et al., 2021; Yang, 2016), which showed favor for the VA over traditional teaching.
Participants appreciated the novelty, value, and efficiency of this approach, resulting in their increased engagement and
commitment to fulfilling all required tasks for better outcomes.
These findings have significant implications for pronunciation pedagogy. First, more attention should be given to the
use of suprasegmentals in providing pronunciation instructions in educational institutions. Given the prevalence of the
articulatory approach in mainstream teaching (Hazan et al., 2005; Harlika et al., 2018; Nguyen & Bui, 2021; Nguyen,
2023), workshops and training should be organized to disseminate this research-based evidence to language educators
and learners. Considering the difficulties Vietnamese learners face when producing consonant sounds (Bui et al., 2021;
Nguyen & Tran, 2023; Tran, 2021), the principles of VA or SVA should be incorporated into pronunciation practice
tasks. Second, the main principles of the VA or SVA should be widely introduced to both researchers and teachers for

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2697

further experimentation to validate the effectiveness of this approach. Notably, the use of lowpass filtered speech to
raise learners’ awareness of prosodic patterns can be applied both within and outside classrooms.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated the implementation of the SVA in improving the pronunciation of English voiceless
consonants among 70 Vietnamese non-English major undergraduates. The study adopted a mixed-method quasi-
experimental design. The semi-structured interview was used to gather deeper insights into the use of this approach in
pronunciation training. The primary finding that emerged from both quantitative and qualitative data analysis was the
effectiveness of the SVA in enhancing voiceless consonant sound production in English compared to the articulatory
approach. These empirical findings in this study contribute to our understanding of how pronunciation, particularly
voiceless consonants can be developed through extensive exposure to prosodic features. The benefits of this exposure
are maximized by using a combination of unfiltered and filtered speech. This work also adds to the growing body of
research that indicates the connection between perception and production in language acquisition. Notably, the present
study is the first empirical investigation into the impact of SVA on improving pronunciation in Vietnam.
Despite these significant contributions, the study has limitations. Since the participants in this study were recruited in
a specific area of Vietnam, the generalizability of these results should be approached with caution for other regions with
different learner populations. More research can be done for more validation. Another area of valuable investigation
involves the calculation of change scores at an individual level, which would be a fruitful area for future work.

APPENDIX A TEACHING CONTENTS FOR TWO GROUPS

Learning contents for the control group
Weeks Contents
1. Introduction of The Course - Vowels
2. Vowels, Diphthongs
3. Triphthongs, English Consonants- Plosive Consonants
4. Consonants
5. Nasal Consonants, Lateral Consonants
6. Consonant Clusters, Stress
7. Stress (cont.), Connected Speech
8. Connected Speech (cont.), Intonation
9. Intonation (cont.)
10. Review prosody

Learning contents for the experimental group

The systematic study of intonation patterns Content
1. Short statement ⎯ Winter is cold
2. Medium length statement ⎯ The autumn leaves were gently falling from the
trees.
3. Long statement ⎯ In a rapidly changing world, the most robust and
intelligent people will survive, as they can best
manage change.
4. Long statement containing lists ⎯ Her morning routine included meditation, a brisk
jog, drinking green tea, writing a journal, and
reading the news.
5. Short yes/no question ⎯ Is the sky blue today?
6. Medium-length yes/no question ⎯ Have you ever considered adopting a vegetarian
lifestyle?
7. Short information question ⎯ Who painted the Mona Lisa?
8. Medium-length information question ⎯ Which movie won the Best Picture Oscar in 2020?
9. Imperative statement ⎯ Put on your seatbelt before starting the car
10. Exclamation ⎯ That is amazing!

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2698 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

APPENDIX B TEST OF VOICELESS CONSONANT SOUNDS

Part I: Word reading
There are 27 words in this part. Please read them out.
/p/ /t/ /k/ /s/ /f/ /θ/ /ʃ/ /ʧ/ /h/
Pot Ten Cat Sun Fan Thin Ship Chair Hat
Apple Water Rocket Castle Office Athlete Fashion Nature Ahead
Top Cat Back Grass Leaf Bath Bush Watch Na

Part II: Sentence reading

Read the following sentences

1. Fix the flat tire. 47. Has Henry arrived?

2. Sit right here. 48. He wears shoes.
3. Finish your dish. 49. Which cloth did you choose?
4. The office is off limits. 50. Tom, tie the knot.
5. Did you see the match? 51. She likes the book.
6. Who is the president of the business? 52. Hold the handle.
7. Is Fiona feeling fine? 53. Did Tom take the toy?
8. Cross the street. 54. Which shoes did Sheila choose?
9. Is it hotter today? 55. Walk the path carefully.
10. Is this the right bath? 56. Why did Peter panic?
11. Who lives in the white house? 57. Is the apple ripe?
12. Where did you find the sock? 58. Is Anthony coming with us?
13. The cushion is comfortable. 59. Did you see the duck?
14. Ken knows the key. 60. Hannah has a hobby.
15. Peter probably knows. 61. Did Chad choose this?
16. Who is the official referee? 62. Frank finds it funny.
17. How high is the hill? 63. The apple pie is delicious.
18. Did Peter play piano? 64. Wash your hands.
19. Who is the cashier in this shop? 65. Catch the ball.
20. Where did you place the keys? 66. Did you refill the coffee?
21. Is Sally at the seaside? 67. Offer her a coffee.
22. Please use the scissors. 68. Which flavor does Fred favor?
23. He bathes in the bathtub. 69. They are behind the house.
24. Where is the cat? 70. Breathe through the straw.
25. Which kite did Karen choose? 71. Is that your hat?
26. Push the button. 72. Throw the ball.
27. Wait a little longer. 73. Is the machine working?
28. Which jacket did Jack pick? 74. Is this your thing?
29. Peter, pass the papers. 75. Tom tries to travel.
30. Check the package. 76. Show me the way.
31. Which teacher taught that? 77. She should shop more.
32. Did you close the suitcase? 78. Did you watch the match?
33. Which patch did you pick? 79. Which song did Susan sing?
34. Attach the file. 80. Is this your cap?
35. Which theme did they choose? 81. The water bottle is full.
36. Should Shawn shut the door? 82. Is the monkey, okay?
37. Which brush do you use? 83. Is this leaf green?
38. Is this your dish? 84. The kitchen is clean.
39. Did you wash the dishes? 85. Peel the apples please.
40. He has a brief. 86. Charlie checks the chart.
41. The locker is locked. 87. Are these your glasses?
42. When did Tom talk? 88. She took the path.
43. Which chair did Chelsea pick? 89. Which hotel did you book?
44. Kick the ball. 90. Which apple type did you pick?
45. Turn the music off. 91. The desert has cactuses.
46. I bought a watch. 92. Can Kevin keep it?

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2699

93. Send the message. 99. Put the cap back.

94. Theresa thinks thoroughly. 100. Where did you place the cap?
95. Check the backpack. 101. Which method did Martha use?
96. He has a brush. 102. She sat on the mat.
97. Place it on the rack. 103. Sam sees the sun.
98. I left the cap on the table. 104. Where did you find the scarf?

Part III: Passage reading.

Read the following passage.
Peter's cat, named Rocket, loved to lay atop the chair near the window, basking in the sun. One day, as Rocket was
napping. Peter decided to repot an apple tree sapling. He took a pot and filled it with water, making the soil moist and
ready. On his office desk sat a fan decorated with images of the nature reserve he visited last summer. The fan reminded
him of the castle they toured and the ship they boarded. Beside it was a framed picture of his wife, an accomplished
athlete, looking as thin and fit as ever. Peter, inspired by a fashion magazine? Yes, he decided to wear his favorite hat
for the evening walk. He made a mental note to watch out for the bush near the pond; last time, he ended up taking an
unplanned bath. Ahead of him? No, the grass glistened, wet from the recent rain, and the leaves from the tall trees,
including a leaf from the oak, blanketed the path.

APPENDIX C QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW

Question 1: What are your thoughts on the SVA after engaging with it?
Question 2: Do you believe the SVA is effective in enhancing the pronunciation of voiceless consonants? If so, in
what ways?
Question 3: Has the SVA been beneficial for your pronunciation learning? If so, in what ways? If not, why not?
Question 4: How does the SVA compare to the convention method (the articulatory method) in your opinion?
Question 5: Is there anything else you would like to share about the SVA?

REFERENCES
[1] Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Wadsworth.
[2] Asp, C. W. (2006). Verbotonal speech treatment. Plural Publishing.
[3] Baker, A. (2006). Ship or sheep? Book and audio CD Pack: An intermediate pronunciation course. Cambridge University
Press.
[4] Bui, S. T. (2016). Pronunciation of Consonants /ð/and /θ/ by Adult Vietnamese EFL Learners. Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 6(1), 125-134.
[5] Bui, T. T. L., Mai, T. H., & Diep, H. N. (2021). Common Errors in Pronouncing Final Consonants of English-Majored
Sophomores At Tay Do University, Vietnam. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(3), 120–161.
[6] Cai, X., Lian, A., Puakpong, N., Shi, Y., Chen, H., Zeng, Y. & Mo, Y. (2021). Optimizing auditory input for foreign language
learners through a verbotonal-based dichotic listening approach. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language
Education, 6(2), 1-20.
[7] Carrera-Sabaté, P., Aguadé, C., & Borràs-Comes, J. (2023). Cos i pronúncia: Un tàndem imprescindible? El cos com a eina
facilitadora per millorar la pro-núncia del català(Enhancing Speech Production and Perception through Verbotonal Principles).
Revista del Congrés Internacional de Docència Universitària i Innovació(CIDUI), 6(1), Article 418066.
[8] Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse Intonation in L2: From Theory and Research to Practice. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[9] Cook T. D., & Campbell D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.
[10] Collins, B., & Mees, I. M. (2013). Practical phonetics and phonology: A resource book for students. Routledge.
[11] Duong, T. N. (2009). Mistake or Vietnamese English. VNU Journal of Science, 25(4), 41–50.
[12] Denscombe, M. (2017). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. McGraw-Hill Education.
[13] Dahmen, S., Grice, M., & Roessig, S. (2023). Prosodic and segmental aspects of pronunciation training and their effects on L2.
Languages, 8(1), 1-28.
[14] Faulkner, A. (2009). The Verbotonal Approach in Modern Speech Therapy. International Journal of Speech Language
Pathology, 11(1), 56-62.
[15] Gilbert, J. B. (2008). Teaching pronunciation: Using the prosody pyramid. Cambridge University Press.
[16] Guberina, P. (1972). Case studies in the use of restricted bands of frequencies in auditory rehabilitation of deaf. Zagreb.
[17] García, X. P. (2018). Remarks on verbo-tonal phonetics for a communicative context. Normas, 8(1), 259-271.
[18] Harlika, M. S. U., Saifuddin, M., & Fauziyah, N. (2018). Promoting Students’ Accuracy in Pronouncing Consonant Sounds by
Using English Pronunciation Software. Journal of Research in Foreign Language Teaching, 1(2), 14–24.
[19] Hazan, V., Sennema, A., Iba, M., & Faulkner, A. (2005). Effect of audiovisual perceptual training on the perception and
production of consonants by Japanese learners of English. Speech Communication, 47(3), 360–378.
[20] He, B., Sangarun, P., & Lian, A. (2015). Improving the English pronunciation of Chinese EFL University students through the
integration of CALL and verbotonalism. In 17th International CALL Research Conference: Task Design and CALL (pp. 276-
285). University of Antwerp.
[21] Jackson, C. N., & O’Brien, M. G. (2011). The interaction between prosody and meaning in second language speech production.
Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 44(1), 1–11.
[22] Jenkins, J., & Baker, W. (2015). Developments in English as a Lingua Franca. De Gruyter.

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2700 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

[23] Kelly, G. (2000). How to Teach Pronunciation. Pearson Education.

[24] Lambacher, S. (1999). A CALL tool for improving second language acquisition of English consonants by Japanese learners.
International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 137–156.
[25] Lian, A. P. (1980). Intonation patterns of French. River Seine.
[26] Lian, A. P., & Sangarun, P. (2023). Rhizomatic learning systems and precision language education: A perfect match. In New
Directions in Rhizomatic Learning (pp. 119-141). Routledge.
[27] Ludovic, K. (2010). Phonetic Correction in Class with Verbo-tonal Method. Studies in Language and Literature, 30(1), 35-56.
[28] Luu, T. M. V., Lian, A. P., & Siriyothin, P. (2021). Developing EFL learners’ listening comprehension through a computer-
assisted self-regulated prosody-based listening platform. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 22(1),
254-271.
[29] McMahon, A. M. (2002). An Introduction to English Phonology. Edinburgh University Press.
[30] Nguyen, D. A. D. (2018). Learners’ perspectives on English pronunciation teaching and learning: A preliminary study in the
Vietnamese context. In J. Levis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching
conference. Iowa State University.
[31] Nguyen, L. T., & Newton, J. (2021). Enhancing EFL Teachers’ Pronunciation Pedagogy Through Professional Learning: A
Vietnamese Case Study. RELC Journal, 52(1), 77-93.
[32] Nguyen, T. P., & Truong, V . T. (2021). Foreign Accent and Speech Intelligibility- Why and How to Reduce. Asian Journal
of Multidisciplinary Research & Review, 2(6), 85-102.
[33] Nguyen, H. N. (2023). Teaching English sounds to Vietnamese secondary school students: From theories to applications using
learner-centered methods. International Journal of Language Instruction, 2(1), 16-29.
[34] Nguyen, N. (2002). Interlanguage Phonology and the Pronunciation of English Final Consonant Clusters by Native Speakers
of Vietnamese [Unpublished master thesis]. Ohio University.
[35] Nguyen, T. H. (2021). Contrastive Analysis of Consonants in English and Vietnamese. Journal of English Language Teaching
and Applied Linguistics, 3(6), 58–65.
[36] Nguyen, L. T., & Hung, B. P. (2021). Communicative pronunciation teaching: Insights from the Vietnamese tertiary EFL
classroom. System, 101, 102537.
[37] O’Brien, M. G. (2012). Pronunciation Matters. Teaching German, 37(1), 1–9.
[38] O'Connor, J. D. (1980). Better English Pronunciation. Cambridge University Press.
[39] Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (2019). English pronunciation teaching and research: Contemporary perspectives.
Palgrave Macmillan.
[40] Perkins, J. M., Baran, J. A., & Gandour, J. (1996). Hemispheric specialization in processing intonation contours. Aphasiology,
10(4), 343–36.
[41] Saito, K. (2011). Identifying problematic segmental features to acquire comprehensible pronunciation in EFL settings: the case
of Japanese learners of English. RELC journal, 42(3), 363–378.
[42] Tang, G. M. (2007). Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Vietnamese and English with Implications for Vietnamese Language
Acquisition and Maintenance in the United States. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 2(3), 1-
33.
[43] Temirov, M. (2014). Improving intelligibility of voiced and voiceless “TH” consonants in the speeches of sophomores using
pronunciation drills. Jurnal Linguistik Terapan Politeknik Negeri Malang, 4(2), 53–54.
[44] Tran, D. P. T., & Nguyen, H. B. (2020). EFL teachers' beliefs and practices of teaching pronunciation in a Vietnamese setting.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12), 7022-7035.
[45] Tran, K. M. A. (2021). An Investigation into The Common Pronunciation Errors Made by Young Learners. Journal of Science
and Technology, 52(4), 1-11.
[46] Tran, T. K. L., & Nguyen, A. T. (2022). Common Mistakes in Pronouncing English Consonant Clusters: A Case Study of
Vietnamese Learners: A Case Study of Vietnamese Learners. Can Tho University Journal of Science, 14(3), 32-39.
[47] Wang, X. (2022). Segmental versus suprasegmental: Which one is more important to teach? RELC Journal, 53(1), 194-202.
[48] Watanabe, K., & Dinunzio, N. (2018). Effectiveness of Teaching Onset Consonant Clusters for Japanese University Learners of
English. International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice, 20(1), 11–19.
[49] Wells, J. C. (2006). English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
[50] Wen, F. (2019). A verbotonal-based approach to phonetic correction of a selection of English vowels for Chinese EFL learners
[Doctoral dissertation]. Suranaree University of Technology.
[51] Yang, Y. (2016). Improving the phonological working memory and English-speaking skills of Chinese primary EFL learners
with a verbotonal-based approach [Doctoral dissertation]. Suranaree University of Technology.
[52] Zhang, F. (2005). Using an interactive feedback tool to enhance pronunciation in language learning. In S. Mishra & R. C.
Sharma (Eds.), Interactive multimedia in education and training (pp. 377–399). Idea Group Publishing.

Bui Nguyen Nguyet Minh is a lecturer at Saigon University, Vietnam. She is also a visiting lecturer at Ho Chi Minh City Open
University. Her academic interests encompass pronunciation, translation, and theories in language learning and teaching. Email:
bnnminh@sgu.edu.vn

Andrew Lian is a Professor of Foreign Language Studies, the School of Foreign Languages, Suranaree University of Technology,
Thailand. He is also Professor Emeritus of Languages and Second Language Education at the University of Canberra, Canberra,
Australia. He is the current President of AsiaCALL, a research and professional association focusing on the uses of technology to
enhance second/foreign language learning in Asian contexts. His current research interests include neuroscience, perception and

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2701

cerebral lateralization as they relate to language learning as well as self-adjusting and self-organizing learning systems based on
rhizomatic principles. Email: andrew.lian@andrewlian.com

Luu Thi Mai Vy is a lecturer at Ho Chi Minh City University of Economics and Finance, Vietnam. Her research interests include
L2 listening development, pronunciation, and theories in language learning and teaching. Email: vyltm@uef.edu.vn

© 2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

View publication stats