Why exact repetition may be exactly . . .wrong (in pronunciation teaching and elsewhere)

This study is potentially something of a game changer, at least conceptually. A little background. In KINETIK work we make extensive use of gesture synchronized speech. Extensive. Something we "learned" early on was that 

• In modeling the gestures and getting learners to move along with us it was apparently critical to at least some learners that you try to stay in the same "track" in the visual field every time you use it in instruction. 
• If you didn't, some students (possibly as much as 5%) would become disoriented, unable to synchronize their body movements with the model. Some even experienced some "motion sickness." 
•  In effect, the variability in the position in the visual field could be disconcerting and disruptive. 

Turns out, we may have been actually approaching the problem from the wrong direction, that is doing our best to be as consistent in the patterns of the gestures we use as possible  . .  . was actually counterproductive!  

New research by Manenti, et al, Variability in training unlocks generalization in visual perceptual learning through invariant representations, summarized by NeuroscienceNews.com, demonstrated that variability in the repeated application in the visual field/tract may actually enhance learning of the pattern, itself. It does that in part, apparently, by presenting the pattern in varying contexts, perhaps giving it potentially wider applicability. 

Excerpt from the (exceptional) study: 

• . . . four groups of subjects were trained to detect small differences in the orientation of a line pattern. The relevant task was to detect the clockwise or counterclockwise slope of the lines. For each of two groups, the number of lines was changed during the experiment. This was the irrelevant stimulus.
• The subjects were still able to recognize the differences in the orientation of the line pattern, even when the number of lines was changed. They were able to perform the task even when they were shown entirely new line patterns or a new position on the screen that had not appeared during training. Thus, the increase in variability did not cause the learning process to deteriorate, but rather to generalize and even improve learning performance.
•  “We found that varying the number of lines during training led to better generalization of the actual task performance,”

Undoubtedly, that the same principle applies to repetition of sounds or words in instruction--and even formulations of ideas and concepts as well. (There is substantial research on the contribution of paraphrase training in writing instruction, for example.) 

The insights from this study are certainly worth repeating!

Source: 

Manenti, G., Dizaji, A.,Schwiedrzik, C. 
“Variability in training unlocks generalization in visual perceptual learning through invariant representations” in BioRxiv doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.26.505408

A "pronounced" victory for phonics!

2 questions:

• How many phonics rules do you know explicitly and work with with your students?  
• How fluent (in reading or speaking) are your students expected to become working with you?

  

  Clker.com

The (generally pointless but commercially and academically lucrative) battle between proponents of "phonic" and "whole word" approaches to reading instruction  is (apparently) over, according to new research by "Researchers from Royal Holloway, University of London and the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit", summarized by our friends at Science Daily, quoting one of the researchers:

"The results were striking; people who had focused on the meanings of the new words were much less accurate in reading aloud and comprehension than those who had used phonics, and our MRI scans revealed that their brains had to work harder to decipher what they were reading."

 Q.E.D.

Since from the summary we do not get much of an idea as to what the research methodology looked like, we'll just have to trust them--and their conclusions. (I'll access the actual article and report back in a comment to this post, but that is almost irrelevant here.)

What is of real interest is not the link between phonic training and reading comprehension but the connection between training in oral reading fluency and reading comprehension, well established in early literacy instruction for kids. (The current study was with adults learning a new, artificial language but seems to be a good parallel.)

In L2 pronunciation teaching, the relationship between accuracy of individual sounds or words and speaking fluency has not, to my knowledge, been researched--and published. (If you have a good ref on that, please post it for us!)  Part of the reason for that is that intelligibility, rather than accuracy, has become the "gold standard" of instruction in the field, to a large extent creating the understandable lack of interest in "traditional" segmental-focus-based (individual sounds) teaching methods.

The real irony here, if the new research is even close, is that in L2 instruction, downplaying phonetic accuracy and instruction in phonics may ultimately be undermining development of reading (and speaking) fluency. At the very least, the MRI data apparently indicated that the brains of  the adult "whole worders" in the study had to work much harder with word recognition.

Although in haptic work we are certainly not "phonatics" by any means, the method is still based on initial phonetic anchoring and extensive, systematic oral reading practice. If yours isn't, it may be time to get back to basics. To get started, begin by seeing how many phonics rules that you use in teaching you can jot down in less than 1 minute. Anything short of a dozen suggests that your students may be "dys-fluent" as well.

Citation:
University of Royal Holloway London. (2017, April 20). Phonics works: Sounding out words is best way to teach reading, study suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 21, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170420094107.htm

The source article:

Taylor, J. S. H., Davis, M. H., & Rastle, K. (2017, April 20). Comparing and Validating Methods of
Reading Instruction Using Behavioural and Neural Findings in an Artificial Orthography. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000301

Reconsolidation and accuracy: Drilling down into pronunciation teaching homework

Clker.com

At a recent conference a presenter was at pains to argue that repetition drill does not accomplish much, if anything in pronunciation teaching. In response I asked to what extent might it make a difference HOW such procedures are conducted. The answer: Probably not--but we have no empirical studies on "variability at that level of instruction that I'm aware of."

Researchers and professionals in any number of fields that work with motor skill development know better. To the extent that L2 pronunciation is a motor skill, two intriguing new studies suggest something of what is involved in effective drill and practice.

The first, by Wymbs, Bastian, and Celnik, "Motor skills are strengthened through (memory) reconsolidation", (Summarized by ScienceDaily) suggests that if you practice a slightly modified version of a skill that you want to master, you actually learn more and faster than if you just keep practicing the exact same thing multiple times in a row.  The second, by Castellanos and colleagues at Drexel University, "Surgical trainees retain information, master skills better when honed beyond proficiency" (also summarized by ScienceDaily) looked at  how "overlearning" figures in to skill development.

Here's the fascinating parallel to pronunciation work. It is almost a given today that the goal of pronunciation instruction should be intelligibility--not accuracy. If students go further personally, good deal, but it is not our responsibility to help them or encourage them in that. Furthermore, "physical" work with pronunciation is generally not seen as being as essential as is metacognitive engagement. In other words, our first priority must be providing as much explanation and insight as possible. With that, a good percentage of learners will pretty much on their own get close to intelligibility. And I think is probably true, in fact.

But the research studies seem to tell us that to even get to "intelligibility" most need to go beyond it--and have to do that with at least varied physical practice. This is a great example of the "Product equals process" fallacy. In other words, how you get to, let's say an acceptable, functional spoken use of the consonant, th, for example, may not be theoretically consistent with the final goal, itself. In other words, "enlightened" drill, as disconnected from authentic interpersonal communication as it can be, is simply essential for most learners, if they are going to finally land on the high side of intelligibility.

One of the principles of the Lessac system is that pronunciation must be "drilled" extensively as homework--but not consciously integrated into spontaneous speaking. When done right, as I have seen literally hundreds of times over the years, the new, improved sounds just begin showing up in conversation. Learners are trained to recognize miscues and changes but not to emotionally react to them; just note them.

I am working on a presentation for the annual BCTEAL Island Regional Conference next week: Do your homework, which I will report on later. Those two studies, along with Lessac, suggest a great deal as to how we should structure and manage effective pronunciation homework.

Citations:
Johns Hopkins Medicine. (2016, January 28). Want to learn a new skill? Faster? Change up your practice sessions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 5, 2016 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160128130955.htm

American College of Surgeons. (2015, October 6). Surgical trainees retain information, master skills better when honed beyond proficiency: New study finds that overlearning can be a highly effective surgical training approach that shortens the learning curve. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 9, 2016 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151006144518.htm

Micro-aggression in (pronunciation) teaching

Photo credit:
Clker.com

One of the common responses in research as to why contemporary instructors don't deal much with pronunciation or attempt to correct it is what might be characterized as (fear of) committing a "micro-aggression." New term for you?

In a recent workshop, one of the participants stated his reason for being hesitant about correcting pronunciation (paraphrasing slightly): I'm just afraid that I might hurt their feelings or mess with their identity. He had a good point. How do you avoid that?

The topic of micro-aggression is in the news currently after comments by University of California President, Napolitano, claiming that attention to micro-aggression as an essential way to " . .  . build and nurture a productive academic climate." It is defined, according to the UC Tool: Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send)  as:

" . . . brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmenral indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, (emphasis, mine) that communicate hostile, de­rogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of colour. Perpetrators of micro-aggressions are often unaware that they engage in such communications when they interact with racial/ethnlc minorities."

Noting that "The context of the relationship is critical," the Tool, nonetheless, lists about two dozen statements and "attitudes" (and interpretations) to be avoided such as these four language-related, examples:

• Asking: "Where are you from or where were you born?” 
• Attempting a compliment: "You speak English very well." 
• Inquiring of a Latino: "Why do you have to be so loud/animated? . . . " 
• Telling an Asian: "We want to know what you think. . . . Speak up more."

There are at least four general types of micro-aggressions, according to the original formulation by Wing, et al. (2007) of Teachers College of Columbia University: (a) micro-assaults, (b) micro-invalidations, (c) micro-insults, and (d) environmental micro-aggressions. 

We could easily add some more potentially micro-aggressive statements of the b, c and d varieties that could "hurt," related to pronunciation instruction: 

"I don't understand what you just said." 

"I have no trouble understanding you." 

"X is a good model for your pronunciation." 

"X isn't a good model for your pronunciation." 

"There is no need for you to sound like Tom or Penelope Cruise." 

"There were several pronunciation problems that came up during the discussion . . . " 

"That's a "th" at the beginning, not "d" . . .  

"Listen to your partner's pronunciation. Write down any mistakes you hear."

"You need to improve your pronunciation a little."

"You have a delightful accent."

"Stick out your tongue . . . "

"That's pronounced X, not Y."

"Repeat that after me, please."

(Nonverbal) Grimace but didn't say anything.

(Nonverbal) Smile, despite unintelligibility. 

All of those could, according to Wing, et al.'s framework,  convey the message that there is something seriously "wrong" with the learner's pronunciation--or identity. How do you insure that the target is only the former, not the latter? Or can you? Or is it better not to take the risk of "micro-agressing in the first place? Look forward to your comments. (No micro- or macro- aggression, please!) 

Full citations:

Sue, D., (2010). Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation, New York: Wiley & Sons.

Wing, S., Capodilupo, A., Toprlno, D., Bucceri,J., Holder, A., Nadlll, K. and Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial Micro-aggressions in Everyday Life: implications for clinical practice, American Psychologist 62:4, 271-286 

20 contexts for haptic pronunciation teaching

I am often asked in what contexts or classrooms haptic pronunciation teaching works. Assuming enthusiastic, full-body buy-in by the instructor and student, here is a new list of contexts and

Credit: Anna Shaw

classrooms where features of the AHEPS - haptic pronunciation system are being or have been used so far.

Keep in touch!

(info@actonhaptic.com)

Accuracy, complexity and fluency: the Schrödinger's cat of pronunciation teaching

Clip art: 

Clker

The concept of "Schrödinger's cat" seems to be everywhere you look in contemporary culture, let alone quantum physics. The idea or paradox relates to two seemingly opposite conditions or demands  existing simultaneously. In pronunciation teaching we have a few as well. None is more obvious than the requirement that instruction focus on both accuracy and fluency "simultaneously,' or at least from a curriculum perspective. The "complexity" there, of course, is that for even the most experienced of us, balancing those seemingly irreconcilable demands can be  . . . well . . . demanding. One of my favorite test questions in graduate methods is, in fact, "How do you balance the need for fluency with accuracy?" How would you answer that?

Found an interesting piece of research that at least articulates the question well by Hunger (2011). (The linked source is a pdf from something called, "ELT Journal Advanced Access, March 15, 2011.) Hunter did a small study using a system called, "Small Talk," that seemed to suggest some preliminary technology-based strategies that is worth a look sometime.

The "problem," of course, is trying to figure out whether accuracy and fluency need to be addressed at the same time, within the same class period, for example, or whether focused doses of each at different times, in different classes is sufficient. Most theorists opt for the latter in very general terms, the assumption being that from there it is the learner's job to integrate and reconcile the two.

"Haptic-integrated clinical pronunciation" (HICP) assumes, on the other hand, that it is the responsibility of the instructional program to provide practice that do both simultaneously. In part the way that is done is by having set up "kinaesthetic monitoring" of targeted sounds prior to engagement in conversational practice, somewhat analogous to that done visual/auditory in "Small talk."  See this blog post and the links to several others on the use of different "channels" in HIPC work. The idea is to allow both accuracy and fluency work to be relegated to control and monitoring by "the body" in a less conscious channel that will not interfere with conscious thought any more than absolutely necessary.

There is, of course, more than one way to "skin this cat," but none more moving and touching, to be sure.

Collaborative pronunciation group work--by design!

Clip art: Clker

There is , as far as I can tell, virtually no accessible, published research on the efficacy of group work in pronunciation teaching. (If you know of some PLEASE post a comment with the link!) There are any number of informal reports and recommendations along those lines, including Gilbert (2008) (a free pdf that you should be familiar with already!) that has some good ideas for pair work on stress assignment and intelligibility of vowel and consonant articulation, a good complement to the Acton Haptic - English Pronunciation System, AH-EPS. (See earlier post  and sidebar on name changes of both our company and what was formerly the "EHIEP" or "HIPOECES" system. Change . . . )

New research by Vaquero of Hewlett-Packard and Cebrian of the University of San Diego, summarized by Science Daily, demonstrates the potential benefits of group collaborative work, as opposed to working alone. So far, so good. But, get this: " . . . almost equally interesting is the fact that these high-performing students form 'rich-clubs', which shield themselves from low-performing students, despite the significant efforts by these lower-ranking students to join them. The weaker students try hard to engage with the elite group intensively, but can't. This ends up having a marked correlation with their dropout rates."

So, in pronunciation work, especially in classes of mixed ability, how do you do effective group work, if at all? Separate out the "rich" and "poor" clubs? Integrate them? For most, the answer is "Neither!" In AH-EPS work, where developing accurate pedagogical movement patterns (PMPs) is one important feature each module--not initial phonetic accuracy, the opportunity for mixed-level group work is excellent. (In fact, many times there appears to be little or no early correlation between "haptic-ability" and proficiency.)

The nonverbal, collaborative communication centers on PMP execution--best done in groups of three or more--coordinating it with articulation of the sound, sound pattern, stress, rhythm or intonation assignment. (Note: The key "haptic"  principle here is that accurate PMP anchoring should, by itself, in short order enable more accurate articulation--without a great deal of conscious, auditory self-monitoring.)

Any pronunciation class can, in principle, be "grouped" in attending to some suprasegmental targets, such as in Gilbert (2008). For the most part AH-EPS group and (potentially) homework practice is also wonderfully stress-free and noncompetitive--and egalitarian! A "rich" source of anchored, focused noticing. Ah! (or AH!) a new acronym even: AnFoNot!

Pronunciation feedback: the quicker, the better?

Clip art: Clker

The research on corrective feedback in language learning is extensive. The conclusions are a mixed bag, at best. I do not recall seeing a study that measured the effect of anticipated feedback, whether immediate or postponed in the literature. I had missed this 2010 study by Kettle and Haubi of the University of Alberta (summarized by Science Daily) where they looked at the impact on test scores when subjects thought that they'd be given immediate, rather than delayed feedback. Those in the first group estimated their performance to be somewhat lower but did better than the latter group, which tended to overestimate their final score.

Pronunciation feedback in general tends to be more postponed, often in the form of notes to the student or critique of audio recordings. In class, real time responses to mispronunciations are less in fashion than during earlier periods when oral accuracy was strongly promoted and learners were often pressed to speak more in class and be immediately corrected than today. In survey after survey, learners desire more spontaneous correction and instructors appear less and less likely to comply.

Clip art: Clker

A solution to that, one that we (and many others) have developed in haptic-integrated work, is to use a set of gesture-based signals (perhaps including a vowel number) to alert the learner effectively to problematic pronunciation without requiring excessive public performance. That way the learner can immediately note the problem and either deal with it "internally" or go back and work on it later, perhaps talking with the instructor or another source privately, if necessary. Just the impact of that anticipatory attitude on motivation, according to the research, is worth the cost of tuition. Can hardly wait, eh?

Good to great pronunciation: the "happiness" model

One of the most challenging aspects of pronunciation work is the "meta-communicative" function of appropriately identifying change and then predicting what is next. I was struck by the analogy between that process and aspects of this 2012 study by Sheldon of University of Missouri-Columbia (Summarized by Science Daily) that suggests that sustaining happiness involves two main factors: " . . .   the need to keep having new and positive life-changing experiences and the need to keep appreciating what you already have and not want more too soon." (The validity of the study may, of course, be compromised by the fact that it involved 481 subjects living in the Riverside, California area . . . )

The criteria underlying that definition of "happiness" are wonderfully revealing, culturally "Californian" and near debilitating. Evolving pronunciation may not be correlated with many positive "life-changing" experiences, but the question of instructor and learner awareness of what the process is and how it is going is often crucial, especially at points such as the move from "good to great." (Collins' 2005 book, Good to Great, a business classic, describes that general threshold well.) In other words, it is often not the target that is the problem, but the surreal expectations involved. Western teaching methodology in general too easily relies on motivation to finish the job--or take responsibility for failure.  

There was a time, of course, when the bar of native speaker-like pronunciation was set impossibly high--for any number of reasons-- but at least it did give one a scale to work with.  But now that at least some (informed theorists and teachers) have accepted the target of "intelligible" speech, it has become easier to "appreciate what you have and not want more . . . " 

Clip art: Clker

Until there is considerably more change in societal attitudes and human nature, however, problematic pronunciation may still interfere with the need for positive, life-changing experiences, like going from a good job to a great one--or from English class to any job. You and your students happy with that? If not, what do you expect? More importantly, what do you expect them to expect? 

Love of fatigue-inducing drill and perfect pronunciation

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

There had to be a term for it. From a 2011 study by O'Hara, FRCS, summarized by Science Daily: "functional dysphonia (FD), a voice disorder in which an abnormal voice exists with no vocal pathology." Two of the key contributing factors were excessive perfectionism and fatigue. Apparently the symptoms of FD can be of several types from change in voice pitch to serious pain. Had any perfectionist students in your classes that (nearly) burned themselves out striving for an unachievable native-speaker model? What that suggests, of course, is not that the targeted model or accent is the sole source of the problem as much as the perfectionist attitude of either the learner or the methodology. Some earlier structuralist or audiolingual pronunciation approaches do, in retrospect, seem to fit that profile. The contemporary default response of resorting, instead, to ad hoc "near peer" models (although they may have the edge on almost everything but desired accent, according to Bernat) or conscious decisions to stop short of what is considered "acceptable pronunciation" by the learner on similar grounds (of fluency or shift in priorities) is probably not the answer either. Talk about functional "dys-pronunciation" . . . 

Perfect form in pronunciation teaching

(Note: Stress is on the 2nd syllable of the first word in the title of this post!) Probably the best way to "grasp" (to use our favorite haptic metaphor) the place of form in both learning and memory is to use your favorite sport or musical performance "instrument," the one you have some extended experience with, the one you learned or seriously worked at from scratch. Mine, as you may have guessed, is running. This 2004 article from Runners World on perfect running form, with a "touch" of analogical extension could apply equally to any physical art (See recent post on pronunciation work as art form.) The categories of attention management are:

Photo credit: Runners World

• "Head Tilt . . . ahead naturally . . . scan the horizon . . . Don't allow your chin to jut out."
• "Shoulders . . . should be low and loose . . . remain level "
• "Arms (and hands) . . . When you feel your fists clenching or your forearms tensing, drop your arms to your sides and shake them out for a few seconds . . ."
• "Torso . . . If you start to slouch . . . take a deep breath and feel yourself naturally straighten . . . "
• "Hips are your center of gravity, . . . think of your pelvis as a bowl filled with marbles, then try not to spill the marbles by tilting the bowl." (Losing your "marbles" lately?)
• "Legs/Stride . . . your feet should land directly underneath your body . . . your knee should be slightly flexed. . . " 
• "Ankles/Feet . . . Keep your ankle flexed . . . roll onto your toes . . . feet should not slap loudly . . . springy and quiet." (I love those last two descriptors!!!) 

clip art: Clker

One of the "challenges" for us haptic-integrating instructors, of course, is presenting a"visual speaking" model such that our body rhythm and posture present an appropriate model for students, not just in anchoring but in all classroom engagement and discourse. No need to be perfect, of course, but we should always be working on perfecting it, along with our students. Check with your mirror or your latest moving video of yourself in the classroom. 

Pronunciation teaching depressing? In a phonological phunk? Try some Tai Chi!

Clipart: Clker

This is a fun article from the UK Independent (not exactly @ the top of the list of my favorite sources of research studies . . . ) on the potential effect of Tai Chi on depression. The claims for the benefits of Tai Chi are extensive, from bigger brains, to longer life . . . to antidepressant. One of the EHIEP protocols, in fact, is termed the "Tai Chi fluency protocol," inspired by watching amazingly flexible and "tranquil-looking" seniors do Tai Chi every morning out in front of my apartment in Japan. In addition to bilateral brain engagement (basically making both hands touch on every pedagogical movement pattern), each of the protocols has at least one other distinct meta-function:

Clipart: Clker

• Warm up Protocol - Expanding the visual and physical field of operation
• Body Flexibility Protocol - Muscle flexibility of the face, shoulders and hips
• Vowel Resonance Protocol - Focus vowel centers (between the eyes, voice box and upper chest)
• Matrix Anchoring Protocol - Precision of node positions (points where hands touch)
• Vowel/Word stress Protocol - Establish relative conceptual, spatial and haptic "distances" between vowels
• Sensuous Syllable Butterfly Protocol - In addition to bilateral grounding (bringing the learner back into the room, etc.), establish the felt sense of English rhythm groups--up to 7 syllables
• Touch-i-nami (intonation) Protocol - Anchor basic intonation contours and expressiveness
• Tai Chi Fluency Protocol - Fluency and expansion of general pitch range
• Rhythmic Feet FIght Club - Compact conversational phrases and anchor pause structure
• Baton Integration Protocol - Integrate most of the above . . . 

If one of those won't "move" you and your class out of a temporary "phonological funk," nothing will!

Pedagogical movement patterns in pronunciation teaching

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Based on the work of Newman and others in the field of nursing, this 2011 study by Picard looked at, among other things, the relationship between creative movement (something analogous to modern, expressive, interpretative dance) and pattern recognition (of various life experiences and personal constructs of identity.) "There was congruence between creative movement and narrative in terms of engagement with the environment and range of response. Movement was experienced as integrative and led to pattern recognition . . . The construct of movement in expanding consciousness was examined in terms of flow, turbulence and dialectic within pattern." (Note the nice "textural" metaphors there!) To translate that into haptic-integrated pronunciation teaching, what movement is facilitating, among other things, is the ability to manage fluency and accuracy, moving back and forth--in dialectic fashion (keeping both in attention) between focus on form and conversational narrative. (See earlier "Change the channel fallacy" post.) The other feature of the research, keeping creativity in play as patterns are considered and conceptualized is also essential. Pattern drill in pronunciation often appears to have a half life of seconds, at best (3 second in fact!) Movement and gesture are valuable tools in pronunciation teaching, to be sure, but only when applied with intelligent design . . . 

Bad pronunciation teaching? What do you expect?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Can pronunciation instruction be too much fun? Can the expectations we set up early on work against us? Can drama and poetry work to improve accuracy be counterproductive? Maybe. (Note that I said accuracy there, not fluency.) The effect shows up in this study and others in various fields which have been linked here earlier: using "extreme"emotion to anchor change is a mixed bag; what is retained and the accuracy of it can go either way. If you have been around toddlers, golden retrievers or graduate students for long, you know the problem. The point of the correction may or may not be really understood or carried away--the anchor can be attached to almost anything in the experiential and visual field at the moment. It is, if nothing else, a matter of efficiency. In the linked Science Digest study by Murray at the Alberta School of Business, consumers with high expectations were, not surprisingly, more elated and more disappointed, depending on the result. The "other"group, the "conservatives," demonstrated a much narrower range of response. What is the potential "take away" from that? Of course, Know thy students!, and . . .  if you really do have your act together and have a very systematic approach to accuracy, be a cheer leader; if not, don't. 

Pronunciation literacy

Clipart: Clker

To learn the pronunciation of a language, what do you need? Basic literacy? Phonetics? A reason? A context for use? A model? A dictionary? I have always assumed that the answer will largely depend upon the learner population and necessity for varying degrees of intelligibility and accuracy demanded by the surrounding culture. (The EHIEP system, for example, is designed to be relatively context-free, that is just as applicable for pre-literate work as it is for "high end" accent reduction.) That is until I stumbled upon the "amazing claims" made in the linked video for the "DD-CODE-English." (For some reason in over 4 years out there it has only been viewed less than 5,000 times.) It is promos like that one that make you realize just how little you have accomplished in about 40 years in the field--and how much there remains to be done . . . 

Perfect form in HICP work

Near-perfect form is essential in early HICP work only in overall body posture, stance and breathing--and pedagogical movement patterns--not in absoute accuracy of the pronunciation of L2 sounds being produced by the learner. In other words, on the physical side, the approach is "form-focused instruction," whereas in terms of phonetic accuracy, it is more "focus on form" based. (See the nice linked 10-point list from RealAge fitness on achieving better form in exercising. I am going to create a slightly adapted version in rubric format for HICP work, in fact.)

It is a crucial distinction, one that is now well-established in the field in terms of how we direct learner attention to form in the process. In grammar work, for example, the difference would be starting off a class with a grammar explanation and drill and the practicing it, as opposed to creating tasks, such as story telling, where grammatical constructions naturally come up that need to be attended to and then giving students a brief, concise mini-lesson, sufficient to manage the problem at hand.

The same applies to pronunciation instruction, in general, of course, but the problem is always being able to adequately "anchor" the new structure or strategy in the mind (and body) of the learner. The research seems to suggest that FonF, when done well in clearly defined contexts should result in better uptake and integration into spontaneous speech. From that perspective, HICP is perfect . . . 

Not aware of an effective HICP technique? Good!

Clip art:
Clker

Clip art:
Clker

We often use the terms "attention" and "awareness" interchangeably in informal conversation or in describing what is going on at any moment in the instructional process. I have used the acronym, AFAPAI (Attention-Focus-Anchoring-Practice-Awareness-Integration), pronounced: "half-a-pie," for some time. (See earlier posts on the HICP learning model.) That "half" models the process of sound change; the other half is that being learned: sounds, words, processes and patterns.

"Unaware" of the research linked above, I had apparently gotten close to one theory of how those two concepts, awareness and attention are related. In essence, what the study by Watanabe, Cheng,  Murayama, Ueno, Asamizuya, Tanaka, and Logothetis. summarized by Science Daily, demonstrated was that, in principle (neurophysiologically, at least), it is possible to pay attention without being aware, and vice versa. So what does that mean for classroom instruction? Simply this: If learners are just "aware" of what is being presented, nothing may "stick" later; focused/undivided attention is required, which, in effect, limits general awareness, especially of the visual field but, apparently of all modalities as well. In other words, complete, at least momentary attention is required for maximal impact.

In the six-step HICP process (AFAPAI), note where awareness comes into play: after regular practice, generally in conversation, as both "old" and "repaired or new" forms are brought to awareness in a manner that seems almost accidental or incidental, but not purposefully attended to. (See also posts on post-hypnotic suggestion and related strategies.) That, in turn, should help to further along the integration process. If you have been paying attention, that should be exciting stuff. If not, you are at least now aware of the research. After all, even AFAPAI is better than (just) noting!

Incomprehensible output: Krashen @ 2011 KOTESOL

Clip art:
Clker

To understand the current place of pronunciation instruction in English language teaching you should hear Professor Krashen's recent comments at KOTESOL. His "message" for the last 30 years or so has been that, in essence, quality input is the central driver of acquisition. On that most agree, of course, but his stance toward learner output, especially managed speaking and pronunciation has been equally consistent: it is potentially problematic and should not be a high priority--for any number of reasons. His position, methodologically, is still dominant. It is quite common sense-based and, in some respects, from the standpoint of the classroom instructor . . . less hassle.

Why worry too much about accuracy (or pronunciation in this case?) Theorists argue principally for the more achievable goal of intelligibility; learners (What do THEY know, anyway?) in almost every study "demand" assistance with accuracy of pronunciation and to be more "native speaker-like," especially if their job depends upon it. Obviously, there is an "information gap" here. Hear it straight from "Dr Gap," himself, in this typically engaging and revealing interview at KOTESOL.