Confident English Speaking, Fluency and Pronunciation--in 10 weeks!

As announced here on the blog, the new KINETIK English Fluency and Pronunciation Course is on. 

Especially designed for students who do not have much opportunity to practice speaking English outside of class! (But great for everybody else, too, of course!)

Gives you confidence to use what you “know” but may not always be able to access in speaking 

• Applicable for literate adult learners, upper beginner level and above
• Online, on Zoom, 2 hours of "live" class per week and about 2 hours of homework (20 minutes a day is best)
• Weekly live Zoom class: Thursdays, 4~5 p.m. (PST) or recorded
• Weekly live Zoom follow up: Wednesdays, in small groups, by appointment
• Cost: $500USD (or $60 per lesson)
• Use of embodied haptic techniques (using gesture and touch) for improving students’ fluency, memory for course content, vocabulary and intelligibility
• Makes you easier to understand and develops better posture and breathing
• Fixes most important pronunciation problems, or at least gets you well on the way.
• Makes self correction easier
• Includes effective system for continued study after the course
• With some slight modifications is also an excellent professional development system for any instructor, native or nonnative speaking. 

Still time to sign up! February 10th ~ April 24th! Contact me: wracton@gmail.com for required initial  Zoom interview.

Why does haptic pronunciation teaching work?

Good question! Here is an excerpt from the new Haptic Pronunciation Teaching - English (HaPT-E) Instructor notes. (If you'd like to preview the first 2 modules of the course (no charge) and get a free a copy of the Instructor Notes, contact: info@actonhaptic.com)

Essential Haptic Integrated Pronunciation Teaching (EHIEP):

• Provides a principled way to integrate body movement into pronunciation teaching, "embodying" a number of techniques commonly used, some consciously, some less so-- emphasizing the importance of the kinesthetic, “felt sense” of fluent body movement and speech. 
• Is HAPTIC!, using touch to make use of gesture systematic, consistent, focused and (relatively) "safe" and nonthreatening.
• Focuses on intelligibility and fluency, not just accuracy, but can be used for accent reduction, if desired.
• Integrates in basic voice training and public speaking skills --especially vocal resonance training--so that some improvement in vocal production is noticed relatively quickly by learner.
• Uses vowels as the conceptual center of the presentation and practice system, establishing a conceptual and sensory space matrix in which (1) sounds and processes can be learned and adjusted, and (2) production can be consciously regulated better.
• Is structured so that almost anyone, regardless of native language or learning style can learn it or learn to teach using it.
• Hooks learners on the process so that they do their homework! (If done right, it is stimulating and refreshing, especially when done for at least 30 minutes, every other day!) 
• Involves a set of basic, easy to learn exercises and techniques (warm up, vowels, word stress, rhythm and intonation) that are then integrated into classwork as the need arises. Seems especially effective in doing impromptu, incidental correction and modeling of pronunciation in classroom instruction.
• Balances conscious analysis and “noticing” with contextualized drill and controlled practice; balances energizing, motivating activities with controlled, focused procedures.
• Is more output-based system, encouraging earlier “safe” speaking and oral production than does many contemporary methods.
• Is based on research from several fields in addition to pronunciation teaching, including public speaking, drama, music, haptics, sports training, psychology and neuroscience. 
• Has been classroom tested over the last decade by hundreds of teachers. (Several empirical studies are now underway to better establish the effectiveness of the EHIEP method on more empirical, "scientific" grounds!)  

See also the YouTube summaries of the main modules from v3.0 (Not great video quality but reasonably informative.) 

44 features of effective homework!

I'm doing a workshop this weekend, "Do your homework!" at the BCTEAL Clker.com Regional Conference in Victoria, British Columbia, that focuses on good homework practices in English Language Teaching. Although there is some obvious overlap in the 44 parameters that we pulled from research on homework in general, much of it from North America and Europe (See Reference Section), it is still a helpful inventory. Here is an adapted version of the workshop handout. Just for fun, go through it and see just how many features are evident in your courses (or at least your thinking!) If you can think of more, please add them as comments! Some parameters of effective homework	You do it?
1. Differentiated (for individuals)
2  Can be done independently (with no help from parents or other students)
3. Get started on homework in class
4. Students understand the purpose and value
5. Developmentally appropriate
6. Allows students choice(s) in what to do
7. Students can stop when they believe they understand the  concept well enough
8. Graded (but not figuring in to course grade)
9. Comments requiring follow up
10. Subject matter differences evident.
11. Optimal hours per week? (max 2 per day/night)
12. Integration with lesson(s) recognizable and consistent
13. Student autonomy encouraged
14. Time management required or encouraged
15. Scaffolding implicit or explicit
16. Mentoring/coaching function evident
17. “embodied practice” (Do something other than sit and think and take notes.)
18. Data management system supplied
19. Multi-modality practice
20. Overlearning (especially for beginners)
21. Homework practice interviews done with instructors

22. Tasks that cannot be performed in class
23. Predicted time required indicated
24. Tracking actual homework task time
25. Homework counts toward grades
26. Homework packets provided
27. Recognized benefits to students & teacher presented and acknowledged
28. Effective in class follow up (i.e., checking homework orally; checking homework on the board; and collecting and grading homework)
29. Student “enjoyment” of homework
30. Online applications and storage
31. Cultural expectations met or moderated
32. Gains (8 ~ 31%) evident
33. Reflective practice required
34. Meta-cognitive (planned practice)
35. “learning lexicon” developed over time by students and/or instructor
36. Incidental study recognition
37. Portfolio review
38. Student recommendations, evaluations of homework effectiveness
39. “Filing” system required and reviewed
40. Homework ethnography (f2f interviews focusing on more than just practice)
41. Group homework proposals and review
43. Demonstrates competence
44. Is aesthetically pleasing

Selected references

Cooper, H., Robinson, J., & Patall, E. (2006). Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003 Review of Educational Research 76:1, 1-62.

Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic Effects of Homework in Privileged, High-Performing High Schools, Journal of Experimental Education, 81:4, 490-510.

Ozkan E., & Henderson, D.  (2011). Are we wasting our children’s time by giving them more homework?, Economics of Education Review Economics of Education Review, 30:5, 950-961.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Retrieved February 2, 2016, http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeecoedu/v_3a30_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a5_3ap_3a950-961.htm.

The Hechinger report (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/05/study-homework-matters-more-in-certain-countries

Rosario, P., Nunez, J., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Suarez, N., Fuentes, S., & Moreira, T. (2015) The effects of teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' EFL performance: a randomized-group design http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528/full.

ASCD (2007). The case for and against homework. Retrieved February 4, 2016,

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar07/vol64/num06/The-Case-For-and-Against-Homework.aspx.

Challenge Success (2012). Retrieved February 2, 2016, www.challengesuccess.org.

Vatterott, C. (2016). Retrieved February 2, 2016, http://www.homeworklady.com/.

Safakova, Z. (2015). Reasons for doing/not online homework: insights from EFL students, A. & Cubri, M. (Eds).  ECEL2015-14th European Conference on e-Learning, 510-518.

Time to switch back to English Only (in pronunciation teaching)?

Clker.com

There is one counter-argument to use of L1 in the L2 classroom that you don't hear that often today: that L2 pronunciation may be compromised in the process. When I was trained 4 decades ago, that was a given. It may be time for a slight "switch" in perspective.

Goldrick, Runnqvist and Costa (2014), summarized by Psychological Sciences.org, conducted an interesting study where they had bilingual subjects switching back and forth between English and Spanish (their dominant language) nouns. Spanish consistently influenced their pronunciation of English consonants but English did not affect Spanish consonants. Spanish influence was not readily apparent when English terms were articulated consecutively.

The point of the study is that the additional processing load, itself, of switching--not just the differences in articulation of the L1 and L2 consonants--was contributing to the emergence of the more salient Spanish influence.

In an EFL class, where more of the speaking is in the L1 the "switching-processing" effect may be quite "pronounced." Even in an ESL class, where students, themselves, may be using the L1 privately, outside of the flow of the class, the effect on L2 pronunciation could, likewise, be significant. In the structuralist-audio-lingual period, exclusion of L1 in teaching was, indeed, a given.

Now if all the switching effect does is allow in a bit more "accent," then that may not be all that problematic, but that is not what the study seems to be implying: switching causes a generalized processing overload that probably affects much more than just pronunciation. It may be time we reexamine that effect, at least in terms of pronunciation teaching in integrated classroom instruction. The study deserves replication/extension to current methodology--and a closer look at L1 and L2 switching in your class as well?




Full citation:
Goldrick, M., Runnqvist, E., & Costa, A. (2014). Language Switching Makes Pronunciation Less Nativelike. Psychological Science, 25 (4), 1031-1036. DOI: 10.1177/095679761352001

Haptic pronunciation teaching basics for non-native English-speaking instructors

Clipart:
Clker.com

Upcoming haptic workshop at the 2015 Tri-TESOL Conference in October 3rd, 2015 at Highline College, Des Moines, Washington. The perspective of the 90-minute session, "Haptic (English) Pronunciation Teaching Basics for NNESTs" is that:

• Systematic use of body movement and gesture, using haptic anchoring (touch tied to pedagogical movement and gesture) is highly efficient for modelling and feedback in pronunciation work, and that, 
• The approach can be especially effective and advantageous for the NNEST. 

That is accomplished, in part, by providing: 

• A framework for deciding on "local" (typically EFL) pronunciation teaching priorities
• Video models provided by both native-speaking and nonnative English speaking instructors
• Prosodic techniques that do not require excessive segmental (or suprasegmental) accuracy on the part of the instructor to carry out successfully. 

The techniques presented are designed for use in integrated pronunciation work, whenever use of a problematic sound pattern occurs, not just stand-alone pronunciation courses. The workshop, based on “Essential haptic-integrated English pronunciation” (Acton, et al. 2013), presents a set of prioritized procedures which can be integrated into any production-oriented lesson: 

• Vowels and word stress
• Consonants
• Phrasal stress and rhythm 
• Basic intonation, and 
• Conversational fluency

The session is highly experiential and participatory. By the conclusion, participants are able to work with the haptic techniques in their classrooms and are provided with free, web-based models.

Join us!

Citation:

Acton, W., Baker, A., Burri, M., Teaman, B. (2013). Preliminaries to haptic-integrated pronunciation instruction. In J. Levis, K. LeVelle (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, Aug. 2012. (pp. 234-244). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.