What you see is what you forget: pronunciation feedback perturbations

Tigger warning* This blogpost concerns disturbing images, perturbations, during pronunciation
work.

In some sense, almost all pronunciation teaching involves some type of imitation and repetition of a model. A key variable in that process is always feedback on our own speech, how well it conforms to the model presented, whether coming to us through the air or perhaps via technology, such as headsets--in addition to the movement and resonance we feel in our vocal apparatus and bone structure in the head and upper body.  Likewise, choral repetition is probably the most common technique, used universally. There are, of course, an infinite number of reasons why it may or may not work, among them, of course, distraction or lack of attention.

Clker.com

We generally, however, do not take all that seriously what is going on in the visual field in front of the learner while engaged in repetition of L2 sounds and words. Perhaps we should. In a recent study by Liu et al, Auditory-Motor Control of Vocal Production during Divided Attention: Behavioral and ERP Correlates,  it was shown that differing amounts of random light flashes in the visual field  affected the ability of learners to adjust the pitch of their voice to the model being presented for imitation. The research was done in Chinese, with native Mandarin speakers, attempting to adjust the tone patterns of words presented to them, along with the "light show". They were instructed to produce the models they heard as accurately as possible.

What was surprising was the degree to which visual distraction (perturbation) seemed to directly impact subjects' ability to adjust their vocal production pitch in attempting to match the changing tone of the models they were to imitate. In other words, visual distraction was (cross-modally) affecting perception of change and/or subsequent ability to reproduce it. The key seems to be the multi-modal nature of working memory itself. From the conclusion: "Considering the involvement of working memory in divided attention for the storage and maintenance of multiple sensory information  . . .  our findings may reflect the contribution of working memory to auditory-vocal integration during divided attention."

The research was, of course, not looking at pronunciation teaching, but the concept of management of attention and the visual field is central to haptic instruction, in part because touch, movement and sound are so easily overridden by visual stimuli or distraction. Next time you do a little repetition or imitation work, figure out some way to insure that working memory perturbation by what is around learners is kept to a minimum. You'll SEE the difference. Guaranteed.

Citation:
Liu Y, Fan H, Li J, Jones JA, Liu P, Zhang B and Liu H (2018) Auditory-Motor Control of Vocal Production during Divided Attention: Behavioral and ERP Correlates. Front. Neurosci. 12:113. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00113

*The term "Tigger warning" is used on this blog to indicate potentially mild or nonexistent emotional disruption that can easily be overrated. 

Keeping the pain in pronunciation teaching (but working it out with synchronized movement and dance)

ClipArt: Clker.com

Three of the staples of pronunciation work, choral repetition, drill and reading have been making something of a comeback--but just waiting for studies like this one to surface. (Or, confirm what any experienced practitioner could tell you without doing a controlled study in the lab.) In essence, the key idea is: choral, doing it together, in sync.

 A 2015 study, Synchrony and exertion during dance independently raise pain threshold and encourage social bonding by Tarr,  Launay, Cohen and Dunbar found " . . . significant independent positive effects on pain threshold (a proxy for endorphin activation) and in-group bonding. This suggests that dance which involves both exertive and synchronized movement may be an effective group bonding activity." (Full disclosure here.) The dance treatment used was a type of synchoronized dancing at 130 beats per minute, which does sound relatively "exertive"--perhaps not a perfect parallel to use of synchronized gesture and body movement in language teaching. It is, I think, still close enough, especially when you review the extensive literature review presented in the article. (And besides, the subjects in the study were high school students who obviously have energy to "burn!")

One of the fascinating "paradoxes" of pronunciation instruction is the way use of gesture and movement can be both energizing and distracting. Appropriate choral speaking activities using synchronized gesture or body movement may work to exploit the benefits of prescribed movement, without the downsides, the "pain", including just the personal or cultural preferences related to the appropriateness of  moving one's body in public. (See several earlier posts on that topic.)

One of the major shifts in pronunciation teaching--and probably one reason for the concurrent lack of both interest in and effectiveness of current methodology, has been the move to "personalized" pronunciation with computers and hand held devices, as putative substitutes for "synchronized" learning in a class . . . of people, with bodies to move with. In essence, we have in many respects, disembodied pronunciation teaching, disconnecting it from both social experience and integrated (including the often relatively hard "exertion" of) learning.

In v4.0 of the EHIEP system, most of the basic training is done using designed pedagogical movement patterns, along with simple, line dancing-like dance steps. (There is also the option of doing the practice patterns without accompaniment, not to a fixed rhythm, although the work is still done with complete synchrony between instructor and student.) In most cases the "step pattern" is just a basic side to side movement with periodic shifts in orientation and direction, done in the 48 to 60 beats per minute range. (A demonstration video will be available later this month and the entire system, early next spring.)

One of our most successful workshops along these lines was titled: So you think you can dance your way to better pronunciation! Turns out, you can, even if that only means that all the bodies in the class are synchronized "naturally" as they mirror each others' movement as the result of their mirror neurons locking into highly engaged f2f communication in general.

Turns out the "pain" is essential to the process, both the physical and social "discomfort" since response to it and exploiting it also enables powerful, multi-sensory learning. Or as Garth Brooks put it: "I could have missed the pain, but I'd had to miss the dance."

Full citation:
Tarr, B., Launay, J., Cohen, E., Dunbar, R. (2015) Synchrony and exertion during dance independently raise pain threshold and encourage social bonding The Royal Society Biology Letter 28: October, 2015.DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0767

(Haptic) instruction in "super-sized" speaking/pronunciation classes

Clip art: Clker

The EHIEP system is designed for use in classes of all sizes, but especially for large classes taught by relatively inexperienced instructors. It involves extensive oral performance/engagement. Spend some time reviewing the literature on how to teach in such contexts and what you find is (as in the English Club) a good description of the problems, practice strategies and activities. What is not there is guidance on how to initially present sounds and sound processes and how to provide feedback/correction.

This is analogous to what we see in pronunciation teaching research: (apparently) any method (assuming methods are allowed) in a storm (and big classes can be that!) is generally ok. In terms of oral production-focus (vs comprehension-based) techniques, the typical set of procedures suggested are (A) demonstration, (B) explanation  and (C) choral repetition. That's it, if that. (If you want to contribute some further recommendations, feel fee to add comments.)  Beginning with A, B and C is a start, to be sure, But if things are not going well by C, what's next? More of all three, especially C?

With HICP as a basis you can (literally) see what and  how every student in a class of 100 (or more) is doing. The principle is this: With good initial haptic-anchoring training (easily done in large groups), if a learner moves correctly, more appropriate pronunciation will almost inevitably follow. Likewise, corrections focus primarily on the pedagogical movement pattern, not how the sound "sounds." Teaching with (big) class?  To quote Lessac yet again . . . Train the body first!

Choral repetition + haptic anchoring: Doing more with less!

Clip art: Clker

I have described the work of Olle Kjellin previously. Reports on his "extreme" choral repetition-based pronunciation teaching method by Kjellin and his followers are persuasive in demonstrating that getting students to repeat a phrase up to 100 times " . . . generate[s] a kind of statistical "feel" for the phonological, syntactical, semantic, and pragmatic aspects of the phrase, i.e. to really "learn" it."

 I don't doubt for a minute that that anchors the "feel" or felt sense described--assuming that you can get learners to stay with you in the process. The question is, however, if our target is "just" pronunciation change, with well-executed haptic anchoring can we cut back some on the number of reps? (For some examples of HICP-type "haptic anchoring," see the first comment below.) Although Kjellin has not published hard evidence on the long term effects of "mega-rep" work--other than alluding to having witnesses consistent results throughout his 30 years in the field,

I'll accept his claims on similar grounds to those made here for the efficacy of HICP work: the extensive research on haptic-based learning in several fields, and our experience with EHIEP protocols over the last decade or so (and, of course, my 30+ years in the field, as well!) So, about how many "haptic-choral-repetitions" are necessary? If learners are in "full-body-attention mode," as described in earlier posts, only a few in class and a few more in homework practice sessions should be sufficient to enable some integration into spontaneous speech. Trust me. I've seen it work repeatedly, "hundreds" of times, in fact.

Hammering in or "haptic anchoring" of new pronunciation!

Clip art: Clker

There are few accessible models today that attempt to explain how pronunciation gets integrated into spontaneous speaking, or how to make that happen. One of the more  radical (or "retro," depending on your perspective) is that of Dr Olle Kjellin, which involves carefully engineered, massive doses of what he terms "quality repetition." The choral repetition is accompanied by various types of body engagement or awareness of the articulatory process and ingenious exercises, but the fundamental driver of integration is repetition. (I'm a big fan of Olle's work and the degree of accuracy he is able to achieve consistently--although its general applicability is somewhat limited.) Contrast that with:

(a) Communicative methods (where genuine communication or attention to the correct form/pronunciation is seen as the critical link between the form and its pronunciation, not repetition drill) or
(b) More cognitive or metacognitive approaches (where planning and insight into the problem and the system are understood as the more important influences on ultimate anchoring new forms-- "simple" repetition being not favored or recommended generally) or
(c) HICP/EHIEP-based methods where with in-situ (haptic) anchoring (changing pronunciation in the context of ongoing content-based speaking or listening-focused instruction) there should be as few overt repetitions of changed forms as possible.

It is worth repeating, however: either drill change in with gusto as does Kjellin (assuming you can keep your students engaged, outgoing and motivated) or use a lighter, meaning-centered, integrated (haptic) touch to move them to intelligible change. There appears to be relatively little "communicative middle ground" available. (One of my heroes of the structuralist/ALM era and right up until his death in 2006 was, in fact, Hector HAMMERly.)