Abstract

The teaching of pronunciation has gained acknowledgment in terms of its

significance by some teachers and researchers. Many studies have been poured
into the implementation of some methods in teaching pronunciation but few have
tried to find out which method is the best to teach pronunciation. This study had
tried to compare two most commonly used methods in teaching pronunciation,
namely Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) and Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT). Two groups of students with elementary level in pronunciation were given
different treatments, one with ALM and the other with CLT. To see whether there
were differences in terms of the effectiveness of the methods, independent t-test
comparing means was used. Further, observation was also conducted so as to find
out students’ response towards both methods. In conclusion, the results showed
that both methods have the same effectiveness in improving students’
pronunciation and intelligibility.

Keywords: pronunciation, ALM, CLT, the effectiveness

1
 Chapter I
Introduction

1.1 The Background of the Study

Pronunciation is one of the crucial keys to communicative competence.
This is so because pronunciation is important for the skills of listening and
speaking, the two processes occurring when two people are interacting in
communicative activities. In order to grasp the information given by the
interlocutors clearly and to be understood by the interlocutors, good pronunciation
is necessary. It is not native-like pronunciation that is required for non-native
speakers of English in communicating with native speakers to reach mutual
intelligibility; rather, it is accurate pronunciation that is important for mutual
intelligibility (Otlowski, 1998).
However, the teaching of pronunciation in itself was formerly deemed
unworthy by several researchers by arguing that pronunciation is a skill students
mostly acquire outside the classroom, in other words, it is not teachable (see Suter,
1976 and Purcell, 1980). Fortunately, recent research has proved that the
assumption of pronunciation as a skill that cannot be transferred in the classroom
is not true. The teaching of pronunciation has gained acknowledgement as being
important in helping students gain their fullest communicative competence and
that pronunciation is teachable in English classroom (see Pennington, 1989 &
Morley, 1991). Morley ([1991] as cited in Rubrecht, 2007) argues that in order
for students to gain full competence in communication, pronunciation is the
crucial key. Morley even insists that it is obligatory for teachers to teach
pronunciation; to include it in their courses.
Answering to this importance of teaching pronunciation and in line with
the end of debates among researchers on the importance of teaching
pronunciation, it is now time to find, if possible, the most effective method in
teaching pronunciation to students. So that, teachers can give the best method for
the students and students can benefit from the method in the form of improved
pronunciation.

2
1.2 The Purpose of the Study
There have been various methods used in teaching English as a foreign
language. One of the most widely used is the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM),
where students are exposed to modeling in pronunciation by native speakers or by
the teachers either directly or through cassettes and CDs. ALM, though has been
opposed by many researchers and teachers as the “rigid” method, is in fact, still
widely used in many EFL classroom settings. ALM is especially useful when
teaching larger classes (see Carter & Nunan, 2007).
Audio-Lingual Method was firstly introduced during and after the World
War II in an answer for the needs of language proficiency in listening and
speaking skills; it flourished in the US in the 1950s (Harmer, 2001). The addition
of visual aid into the already established method of audio lingual is brought about
by the advancement in technology, in this case, by the invention of video.
Teaching pronunciation through video (Audio-Visual Method) has been conducted
in various EFL classrooms.
On the other hand, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was born as
an answer to the criticisms poured into ALM due to its rigidness in teaching. It
was first found in the British language teaching tradition dating from the 1970s
(Galloway, 1993). CLT is currently deemed as the trend in teaching English as a
foreign language over the traditional methods (Mochida, 2002). CLT main focus
on the function of the language—rather than on the transfer of meaningless
grammatical structures and expressions as in ALM—results in the predilection of
many researchers and teachers to turn their favor to CLT (Richards, J. C. &
Roberts T.S., 1986). CLT is not without criticism too; its limitation on the number
of students involved results in some schools and universities employing the ALM
in teaching pronunciation. This is proven by some observation conducted in some
universities in West Java showing that most universities still use Audio-Lingual
Method to teach pronunciation class to English students conducted in large
language laboratories.
Considering that both methods have their own strengths and weaknesses,
and that no method has been considered more effective than the other, it is best to

3
start finding which method is most effective for students. Therefore, this study
aims at finding the most effective method in the teaching of pronunciation by
comparing two methods mostly used and researched, namely Communicative
Language Teaching and Audio-Lingual Method. This aim is formulated in the
research question as follow:
Is there any difference in terms of the effectiveness of the two methods in
improving students’ pronunciation skill?

1.3 Theoretical Perspective and Definition of Terms

As have been partly aforementioned, ALM and CLT differ significantly in
terms of the classroom management, teaching and learning practices. There are
some distinct principles between ALM and CLT; however, for the sake of this
study, the differences will only be presented where there are relationships with the
teaching of pronunciation:
1. In this research, ALM or audio lingual method refers to teaching
pronunciation method where teachers become the focus of attention and
students most of the time do what their teachers instruct them. On the
other hand Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) refers to a method
used in teaching pronunciation where students become the center of the
lesson and teacher only acts as their guide. This is in accordance with the
definition of both methods given by Seidlhofer, according to him,
classroom employed Audio-Lingual Method is teacher-centered
classroom; while the one employed Communicative Language Teaching is
student-centered (Seidlhofer as cited in Carter & Nunan, 2001).
2. In ALM expects students are expected to have native-like pronunciation,
while CLT directs students to have “intelligible pronunciation”—not
necessarily a native-like pronunciation—in order to gain full
communicative competence. In other words, fluency is deemed as more
important than accuracy.
3. Mimicry, memorization, and pattern drills are the practice techniques
emphasized in ALM when teaching pronunciation, so that students will be

4
 asked to repeat and memorize how to pronounce certain words as
exemplified by the teacher; while in CLT, communicative activities such as
games, role-play, and problem solving dominate the techniques used in
teaching pronunciation.
4. The effectiveness in this study refers to the success of the methods (ALM
& CLT) in improving students’ pronunciation. This will be measured by
the increase of their scores in the pre and post tests.
5. The comparison in this study refers to which method

1.4 The Scope of the Study

Due to the time allotted for this research and the sample taken in this
research, the results of this research can only be applied to English Courses and to
students whose pronunciation can be categorized as elementary-level.

1.5 Significance of this Study

As the importance of fluency and intelligibility in communication
increases, the teaching of pronunciation has also gained highlights by teachers and
researchers. Various methods have been cultivated in order for teachers to be able
to help students improve their pronunciation and gain intelligibility in
communication. This research will bring into light two most commonly used
methods in the teaching of pronunciation and at the same time help teachers to
develop the best method for their students.

5
 Chapter II
Literary Review

2.1 Pronunciation for the Elementary Level

Similar to the four basic skills in English—listening, reading, writing, and
speaking—which are categorized into certain levels according to the level of
difficulties of the skills, pronunciation also applies the same rules. Some books
and writers have tried to categorize pronunciation into some levels, for example,
Headway Pronunciation Course Books, an Elementary Pronunciation Course by
Ann Baker, etc. Some pronunciation books also integrate pronunciation with other
skills such as listening, writing, and reading. What students with pronunciation
elementary level are encouraged to be able to do are mentioned as follow:
1. Counting syllables
2. Patterns of word stress
3. Minimal pairs
4. Pairs of written vowels
5. Individual sound such as /i:/
6. Awareness of sounds
7. Discrimination of sounds
Students who have mastered the seven skills mentioned above can
continue their pronunciation skills into higher levels such as intermediate and
upper-intermediate.

2.2 Current Trends in the Research of Pronunciation

There have been a lot of efforts devoured into the research of teaching
pronunciation since the acknowledgement of its importance in helping students
gain their fullest competence in communicating with English. From the old but
still used Direct Method to the current trend of Communicative Language
Teaching.
The beginning of the 20th century was marked with researchers focusing on
the contrastive analysis in teaching pronunciation. They analyzed the sound

6
segments of students’ first language and identify the sound segments to find
whether there are differences with the second language or the foreign language the
students were studying. The teaching of pronunciation was also quite the same as
what the research had done. It focused on delineating to students the differences
of sound segments students could find between their first language and the second
or foreign language the students were studying (Jenkins, 2004). In other words, it
can also be inferred that for several decades of the 20 th century, the teaching of
pronunciation had been focused on the transferring of errors from students’ first
language to their second or foreign language.
Sometime later after the flourishing of contrastive analysis in the teaching
of pronunciation, the interest turned into not only focusing on contrastive analysis
but also embracing new approaches such as interlanguage phonology that also
took into account the universal development and other processes as well as
transfer (see Ioup & Weinberger, 1987). This movement in interlanguage
phonology gave birth to the teaching of suprasegmental features in pronunciation.
Previously, the teaching of pronunciation had been segmental; focusing on pair
words and drills (Rubrecht, 2007).
The 1970s marked the beginning of inclination of the researchers and
teachers of pronunciation towards Communicative Language Teaching. The
current trend of Communicative Language Teaching that has come into use in the
teaching of pronunciation is deemed by several teachers and researchers as better
than other methods. Communicative Language Teaching, with its main goal in
achieving intelligible pronunciation (Morley, 1991) has been the interest among
many teachers.
However, some researchers still see that other more archaic methods are
still relevant and effective to be used in teaching pronunciation. For instance,
Rubrecht (2007) proved through his research that direct method focusing on the
segmental rather than suprasegmental teaching is still especially effective for
teaching Japanese students how to pronounce and differentiate the pronunciations
of “l” and “r” in English. Since it has been well known that the letter of “l” does
not exist in Japanese, he argued that to make students.

7
 Another example shows that older methods are still working can be seen in
the research conducted by Maesrina (2009). Her study concludes that in the
teaching of pronunciation to large classes, Audio Lingual Method is considered
effective.
Other research has tried to seek the relationship between pronunciation
with other skills in English, such as the four basic skills of listening, reading,
writing, and speaking. Gilbert (1984) for example believes the skills of listening
comprehension and pronunciation are interdependent and notes the importance of
integrating listening with pronunciation.
Nooteboom (1983:183) also has suggested that speech production is
affected by speech perception; the hearer has become an important factor in
communication discourse. This illustrates the need to integrate pronunciation with
communicative activities; to give the student situations to develop their
pronunciation by listening and speaking. The current research and the current
trend reversal in the thinking of pronunciation shows there is a consensus that a
learner's pronunciation in a foreign language needs to be taught in conjunction
with communicative practices for the learner to be able to communicate
effectively with native speakers.

8
 Chapter III
Method

3.1 Research Design

The research design employs quasi-experimental design and comparative
methods. In this design, there will be pre-test, experiment, and post test. Two
groups will be compared in terms of how effective the methods help the students
in both groups improve their pronunciation. The reasons of employing this
method in this research are due to the following reasons (Neil, 2007):

1. Using quantitative design, the research could carefully studied all aspects
involved in the study, such as subject selection, instrumentation, and
materials,

2. The researcher acts as the collector of data,

3. Accurate measurement & analysis of target concepts can be gained,

4. The data gained is more efficient and is able to test hypotheses, and;

5. The objectivity of the research could be maintained.

3.2 Subjects
The subjects of this research were taken from students who join English
Course in a Language Center. There were 24 students who were selected on the
basis of their levels in pronunciation.
Subjects’ profile
PRETEST RESULTS
Class Mean N

CLT Class 12.3333 12

ALM Class 12.5000 12

9
3.3 Instrumentations and Materials
The instrument compiled was taken from various sources. For the pretest
and posttest, the writer has taken test of pronunciation of “sound recognition”
from http://www.learnenglishfeelgood.com/listening/english-listening-test4.html . For
the second type of test, which is reading aloud, the writer has taken the reading
source entitled “The Chaos” by G. Nolst Trenite from
http://www.mipmip.org/tidbits/pronunciation.shtml.
The pre-test took two different forms, one was sound recognition to
measure how accurate students could recognize the pronunciation of certain words
that are mostly pronounced the same even though they are slightly different, such
as the words of chick and cheek ( short /i/ and long /i:/). The other was reading
aloud to find how accurate students could pronounce words that are sometimes
mispronounced such as the case given in the sound recognition test.
The treatment given to the students consisted of two kinds: ALM and CLT.
In CLT, students were given games on pronunciation taken from the book titled
Pronunciation Games written by Mark Hancock (1995). The research also
compiled triggering questions that inquire students to differentiate and pronounce
the words correctly according to the context in the questions. For ALM, the
research used visual presentations and gave a modeling on how to pronounce
words correctly. The pictures were taken from the internet (Google picture).
For leveling in pronunciation skills, the book of Pronunciation Games
written by Mark Hancock (1995) was used as a reference. In addition to its
comprehensiveness in teaching pronunciation, it has also been widely used and
regarded as successful and beneficial for students by some researchers and writers
such as Andrew Basquille (2002) who states that “The games and activities in his
book are an attempt to give learners insights that will help them in their future
learning”.

10
3.4 Variables in the Study
In this study, the independent variable consists of two levels, which are
CLT and ALM; while, the dependent variable consists of only one variable, which
is the pronunciation skill of the students. The control variable in this study is the
level of pronunciation skills. The research had controlled students with different
pronunciation levels and included only students with elementary level
pronunciation skill.

3.5 Data Collection Procedure

The subjects in both groups (experimental and control groups) were given
pre-test and post-test. The tests for both pre and posttest consisted of listening test
and reading aloud. The scores for each test were calculated to be later compared
using t-test comparing two means.

3.6 Data Analysis

The data are in the form of test results, which are in the form of scores
(interval data). In addition to pre-test and post-test as instruments, to collect the
data and buttress the results of the tests observation was also conducted as a form
of data triangulation. The observation was conducted when students were treated
with the methods. The response of the students was observed; whether they focus
their attention to the lesson, show boredom or excitement or even confusion.
Independent t-test for two variables with maximum two levels for each
variable was used in the study to find the statistical significance in answering the
research question of which method is more effective.

11
 Chapter IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results
The experimental and the control groups were treated with different
methods for three meetings. After a three-week experiment, the students were
given post-test to measure how successful the methods given to them are. It is
found that generally students from both groups experience improvements in their
posttest.
ALM Help Students Improve Their Pronunciation
In the Audio-Lingual Method, students were given several pairs of pictures
that have quite the same pronunciation as the pictures of a “sheep” and a “ship”.
They will have to guess how to pronounce the words correctly. The interesting
part of this method is that, when students do not know the name of a thing or a
picture in a pair, they can guess its name if they know the name of the other
picture in that pair. For example, when given two pictures of “hip” and “heap”,
(the pictures show a part of the body [hip] and a [heap] of rubbish); most students
knew the name for the part of the body shown to them, which was hip; however,
they did not know the name of the second picture. Nevertheless, since they could
guess that the second picture would have quite the same pronunciation with the
first picture, then they were confident to answer that it was a “heap”; marking
with long /i:/ --though it was not guaranteed that the students knew how to write
the word.
This method is proved to be successful in helping students improve their
pronunciation.
Table 1 Improvement in Students’ Pronunciation Results Treated with
ALM
Class PRETEST POSTTEST

ALM Class Mean 12.5000 16.7500

N 12 12

12
 Std. Deviation 3.0896 2.0944

Table 1 clearly shows that there is an overall improvement in students’

pronunciation test results. In the pretest, the average score for students’
pronunciation test treated with ALM was 12.5 and it increases as much as 34% to
become 16.75. The increase is quite satisfactory considering that there were only
4 times of treatment given to the students.
CLT Help Students Improve Their Pronunciation
In Communicative Language Teaching using games, students were given
games on finding the right path by connecting all words that have the same
pronunciations and leave out ones that are different in pronunciation. Then the
students were triggered to use those words in real situations. The teacher also gave
students several interesting questions that sometimes make them laugh when they
got it wrong. The question such as “What do you take if you want to go sailing? A
sheep or a ship?” This question was not written, so the students needed to
carefully pay attention to the pronunciation of the words. Whether it has a short /i/
or a long one /i:/.
Table 2 Improvement in Students’ Pronunciation Results Treated with
CLT
Class PRETEST1 POSTTEST
CLT Class Mean 12.3333 16.5833
N 12 12
Std. Deviation 3.9848 2.0207

Table 2 illustrates the increase experienced by students who were treated

with CLT. The average score for their pretest was 12.33 and it experiences an
increase as much as 34.45% in the posttest; it becomes 16.58. The same as ALM
method, this result is also quite satisfactory.

13
ALM and CLT are the Same in Terms of Their Effectiveness
The study finds that both Audio Lingual Method and Communicative
Language Teaching have been proved to be successful in improving students’
pronunciation skills. ALM is as effective as CLT in helping students improve
their pronunciation skills. This is proved by the fact that there are increases in
students’ scores on the pronunciation test, where their posttest scores are higher
than their pretest scores.
Table 3 Overall results for Students’ Pronunciation Test
class N Mean Std.
Deviation
PRETEST1 CLT Class 12 12.3333 3.9848

ALM Class 12 12.5000 3.0896

POSTTEST CLT Class 12 16.5833 2.0207

ALM Class 12 16.7500 2.0944

The table clearly shows that there are improvements in the test of
pronunciation for both students who were treated with ALM and CLT. However,
this has not answered the research question raised in this study. To be able to do
so, t-test comparing two means is conducted.

Independent t-test Comparing the Means of both Groups’ Results

Table 3 Independent t-test Comparing Means of Both Groups’ Results
Group Mean SD t value p value
Pronunciation ALM 16.75 2.02
Test Results .85 .62
CLT 16.58 2.09
(Posttest)
* p < .05 (significant at .05 level)
Based upon the mean difference on the pronunciation test results between
ALM and CLT groups (p = 0.062) the hypothesis cannot be rejected. This
indicates that the ALM and CLT are the same in terms of their effectiveness in
improving students’ pronunciation.

14
 To buttress these findings and to answer why the students treated with both
methods perform quite the same, classroom observation in the class when the
experiment was given was also conducted. The observation focused on how the
students response to the teaching method. Their expressions were observed as to
know their perception towards their lessons. Their involvement or interaction
with the teacher and the content of the lesson was also observed to assess how
enthusiastic and involved the students with the lesson. The discussion between
the students and the teachers on the topic of pronunciation was also observed to
seek students’ perception on the importance of teaching pronunciation in their
class.
From the observation, the research arrived at the conclusion that the same
effectiveness of both methods is most probably due to 1) students’ enthusiasm
towards the learning of pronunciation and 2) students’ awareness of the
importance of pronunciation in achieving intelligible pronunciation.
In the Audio-Lingual Method class, it is observed that the students most of
the time focused their attention on the pictures teacher showed in front of the class
through the LCD. They seemed to be interested in the presentation of some
pictures the teacher gave. They found the joy in the presentation especially when
they can guess what the name of the other picture in the minimal pairs. For
example, when students were given a minimal pair of “deep” and “dip”, they
knew the word “deep” but they did not know the name for the pair picture.
However, since they knew that what was being given to them was a minimal pair
of words that are pronounced with short and long /i:/, then they could figure out
the name of the pair picture as “dip” with short /i/. They also found it was
interesting to pronounce minimal pairs with a short and a long /i/. This is so
because when they shared their expression with their teachers they told their
teachers that such pronunciation did not exist in Indonesian language. Since most
of them were Muslim, they also compared the pronunciation of long /i:/ to the
concept of “harkat” in Arabic when they read the Quran.
In the Communicative-Language Teaching, the students were given some
games on minimal pairs, pairs of written vowels, awareness and discrimination of

15
sounds (taken from Pronunciation Games book by Mark Hancock). The students
were also triggered to speak out and communicate with the teacher and their peers
by some interesting questions related to the minimal pairs such as “What do you
find in a zoo? A beer or a bear?” Such questions were very interesting for the
students, as they exchanged smiles and jokes on each other every time they tried
to guess which one fits the questions.

4.2 Discussion
Both of the methods were not without flaws. There were some weaknesses
that could be found in the methods. In ALM, the weaknesses could be observed
from the fact that most of the students focused too much on the visual
presentations and teachers’ modeling. As a result, they knew how to pronounce
the words well but it was not guaranteed that they knew how to write those words.
Furthermore, the teacher was also not explicit in teaching them how to write the
words that the students pronounced. The focus of this method was more on the
modeling of pronunciation accompanied by pictures as the visual representations
of what students pronounce.
On the other hand, the weakness of CLT using games is on the confusion
of students in playing the games. Even though after playing the games the
students enjoyed the games and benefited from that, still most of them had
difficulties in understanding the instructions of the games. It was when the
teacher switched from giving instruction in English into Indonesian that they
understood it. Therefore, the use of CLT requires teachers to be able to explicitly
and clearly explain the procedures of the games.
Another important discussion to note is the fact that students under this
study were categorized as intermediate-level students based on their grammar and
vocabulary tests; however, their pronunciation did not reach the level of
intermediate. This is so since in many courses pronunciation is rarely taught in its
own. This fact is supported by Harmer (2001: 183) that many teachers “make little
attempt to teach pronunciation in any overt way and only give attention to it in
passing”. This is mostly due to the belief that native-like pronunciation is not

16
necessary for students and that students can learn pronunciation as it is integrated
with other skills in English such as listening, reading, writing, and speaking. This
is partly true especially for the statement that native-like pronunciation is not a
must for students and that pronunciation can be teaching as integrated with other
skills. However, it also needs to be highlighted that even though native-like
pronunciation is not needed, intelligible pronunciation is indeed needed. In order
to have intelligible pronunciation then explicit instruction of pronunciation is
required. In the practice, teachers can integrate this explicit instruction of
pronunciation with other skills necessary for the students, particularly with
listening and speaking skills.
In his book, Harmer (2001, 184-185) mentions two problems most
frequently found in pronunciation, they are 1) “what students hear”, many
students have great difficulty distinguishing some pronunciation features in
English especially when their first language is different from the foreign or second
language. For instance, the pronunciation of “f” and “v” are the same in
Indonesian language, while in English it is different; one is voiceless and the other
is voiced; 2) “the intonation problem”, the most difficult problem in intonation is,
according to Harmer, when the students have to differentiate between rising and
falling intonations. However, Harmer also further asserts that what is most
important is for students to “have them listen and notice how English is spoken”
(p.185). In other words, Harmer emphasizes the importance of students to be able
to recognize what is spoken and to reproduce it in order for mutual intelligibility
between students and their interlocutors happen.
This is so because as mentioned by Rubrecht (2007, 3), “if intelligibility is
the goal then it suggests that some pronunciation features are more important than
others. Some sounds, for example, have to be right if the speaker is to get their
message across though other may not cause a lack of intelligibility if they are
confused”.

Chapter V
Conclusion & Recommendation

17
 The research has tried to compare two methods in teaching pronunciation
and sought to find which method is more effective in helping students improve
their pronunciation and their intelligibility in communicating. It has been found
that there was no significance difference between the two methods; in other
words, both methods had the same effectiveness in improving students’
pronunciation.
The research also revealed a fact that in the language center pronunciation
had not been considered as one of the standards for leveling students into the
levels of elementary, intermediate, and advance students. This can be seen from
the sample taken in this research. The subjects of this study were classified as the
intermediate-level students in the language center, but their pronunciation could
be considered as elementary level. Therefore, it is suggested that pronunciation
should be included in the categorization of students’ levels in learning English.
Further, this research needs more elaboration in terms of the number of
students involved in the research. It is recommended that future research be able
to study various levels, not limited to elementary levels. In addition, the scope of
the study is also hoped to be enlarged by covering more subjects in more various
situations. It is also recommended that teachers and researchers to always dig on
and cultivate the already established methods to better serve students in helping
them learn English, in this case, especially in learning pronunciation.

Bibliography

18
Akira Mochida. (2002). Why do EFL teachers need to develop their own teaching
method based on their local situations?. Retrieved from:
http://www.geocities.jp/akiramochida33/eapclt.html on November 30, 2010

Basquille, Andrew. 2002. Phonology: Helping Low-level Learners with

Connected Speech. Retrieved from http://www.lal.ie/ConnectedSpeech.pdf on
December 26, 2010

Bowyer, Tim. 2001-2009. Ship or Sheep : minimal pair ESL pronunciation

practice, retrieved from http://www.shiporsheep.com/ on December 15, 2010

Brown, A. (1991). Introduction. In A. Brown (Ed.), Teaching English

pronunciation: A book of readings (pp. 1-5). London: Routledge.

Brown, A. (2005). Sounds, Symbols, and learning. Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Carter, Ronald & David Nunan. 2001. Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages. Cambridge University Press

Galloway, A. (1993). Communicative Language Teaching: An introduction and

Sample Activities. ERCIC Digest, ED357642. Retrieved form:
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed357642.html on December 15,
2010.

Gilbert, J. (1984a) Clear Speech Pronunciation and Listening Comprehension in

American English. Student’s Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, Carol. 2008. Lessons from Good Language Learners. Cambridge
University Press

Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching (third edition).
Pearson Education Limited.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching (fourth

edition). Pearson Education Limited.

Maesrina, Riri. (2009). The Implementation of Audio Lingual Method to Improve

Student’s Pronunciation (A Classroom Action Research At The First Year Of SMP
Negeri 1 Banyudono). Retrieved from
http://viewer.eprints.ums.ac.id/archive/etd/3781 on December 15, 2010.

Morley, J. (1991). The Pronunciation Component in Teaching English to Speakers

of Other Languages. TESOL Quarterly. Retrieved from: from:
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Morley-Pronunciation.html

Otlowski, Marcus. 1998. Pronunciation: What Are the Expectations? Retrieved

from: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Otlowski-Pronunciation.html

19
Purcell E.T., and Suter R.W. (1980). Predictors of Pronunciation Accuracy: a
reexamination. Language Learning. Retrieved from:
www.ling.su.se/fon/perilus/2001_13.pdf

Rubrecht, Brian G. 2007. Teaching /l/ and /r/ to Japanese EFL Learners:
Support for Segmental-Level Pronunciation Instruction. Retrieved from:
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/pta_April_07_bgr.php on December 15, 2010

20