Becoming an "expert" at English pronunciation: practice may not make perfect!

The recent (and welcome) debunking of the "10,000 hours of required practice to become an expert" myth by several studies, including that by Macnamara, Moreau, and Hambrick, summarized by ScienceDaily.com, has interesting implications for pronunciation learning and teaching. Gladwell's popular theory was that the only path to true expertise was by practicing for years until you reached the 10,000 hour threshold. That, of course, did not guarantee "master" status, but there seemed few "masters" who did not appear to have similarly paid their "hourly" dues, so to speak.

What the Macnamara et al. research focused on was the variability associated with excellence in various disciplines or arts. Results varied widely. In a report on a meta-analysis described in "Psychological Science", Macnamara and colleagues note the following:

However, the domain itself seemed to make a difference. Practice accounted for about 26% of individual differences in performance for games, about 21% of individual differences in music, and about 18% of individual differences in sports. But it only accounted for about 4% of individual differences in education and less than 1% of individual differences in performance in professions.

There is obviously a lot going on there, but of particular interest for us is the overall range of "skill areas" sampled. In a very real sense, ALL of those relate to pronunciation proficiency, in part due to the relative degree of physical and cognitive involvement required, especially for adult-age learners. My guess is that pronunciation probably falls somewhere in the middle, around 10 to 15%.

So, if that is the case, what would that mean for instruction? One obvious question is how much practice is effective at different stages of the acquisition process. A new study getting underway here, which will be reported on in a Panel presentation on the role of homework in pronunciation teaching, at the TESOL convention in Seattle next March 27th, will address that question.

Some preliminary interview work with a broad slice of learners about their pronunciation practice  suggests that something like the 26-21-18-4-1 ratios may actually map on to beginning through highly advanced L2 phonological proficiency and "accent retention".

Clker.com

In other words, as learners improve, the demand for pronunciation practice diminishes accordingly. That, of course, makes perfect sense--as long as the "bottom" is addressed. Without the 26-21-18 in the early stages--which entails significant degree of body or physical engagement--learning the sound system to "intelligibility" level can be seriously compromised for many learners.

When the "education" approach is taken from the outset, with its resulting 4% variance--and its generally strong cognitive vs physical practice approach to pronunciation--little wonder some conclude that practice (primarily insight, plus aural comprehension and oral drills) often does not appear to make much difference.

Reminds me of Tom Scovel's wonderful tongue-in-cheek definition of an "expert": "ex-" (former, "has been" out of touch) plus "spurt" (gush out forcefully but be gone quickly)

See you in Seattle, if not before!

Original source reference:
B. N. Macnamara, D. Moreau, D. Z. Hambrick. The Relationship Between Deliberate Practice and Performance in Sports: A Meta-Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2016; 11 (3): 333 DOI: 10.1177/174569

Invisible pronunciation: What you see is not necessarily what you get.

Nice new study by Smotrova "Making Pronunciation Visible: Gesture In Teaching Pronunciation", in
press, in TESOL Quarterly, examining in depth the pedagogical gestures used by a pronunciation teacher. She had devised an ingenious set of gestures to signal various aspects of pronunciation, such as stress placement, intonation contours, etc. Students (subjects) seemed to have engaged well with the process and there was evidence of both uptake and subsequent student-initiated use of the gestural system.

EHIEP

In the literature review, Essential Haptic-integrated Pronunciation (EHIEP) is described in some detail, for the most part accurately. What is missing, however, is any reference to the critical role of touch in contributing to the effectiveness of haptic pronunciation (HPT). EHIEP is, instead, characterized as a "kinesthetic" approach, meaning: movement and gesture-based. That is, of course, correct at face value, as far as it goes, but the application of touch to the system has been fundamental for over a decade, since 2005.

What we discovered very early on was that gesture used for such "signalling" by the instructor has valuable applications, such as pointing out problems or coordination of gross motor movements such as hand clapping or dancing. What was far more problematic, however, was attempting to use gesture systematically by conducting learner body movement to help them "embody" the new or corrected sounds. Only by using touch to anchor gesture, primarily by touch on the stressed syllable but also in many cases by assigning touch to the beginning and the terminus of the gestural movement, could we consistently work effectively with pedagogical gesture.

That is particularly the case when you want learners to use gesture spontaneously or with homework assignments. If not carefully controlled and applied, gesture use is often at best only marginally effective; at worst, threatening, intimidating and highly invasive.

In other words, the key is not just what you can see someone else doing,  but how well that gesture connects up in the body, or is "embodied" with the sound element or structure being taught, corrected or practiced. And that happens most consistently when the learner does the pedagogical movement pattern (gesture) with precision, the focus of EHIEP. Touch makes that process consistent and systematic, and generally quite acceptable and emotionally "safe" for learners as well. 

The general visual/cognitive bias in pronunciation teaching today is very problematic. Although it is understandable, given the often rigid and noncognitive nature of traditional drill and articulatory training models, it is simply too easy for learners and instructors to avoid the physical/kinesthetic side of the process which can be both inordinately time consuming and individualized.

At the basic instructional level, HPT is (simply) the answer.

Can't stand teaching pronunciation? You should reconsider!

When you work with pronunciation, how often do you have students on their feet? In both general education and business the benefits of "thinking on your feet" (literally) is well-established. (I'm doing this blogpost, as usual, standing in the kitchen next to the coffee maker!) A new study by Mehta, Shortz and Benden of Texas A&M University, summarized by Science Daily, seems to establish for the first time the specific "neuro-cognitive" basis of that effect.

Based on students' preferences, they were assigned to use standing desks during the experimental study. According to the authors, quoted by Science Daily:

"Test results indicated that continued use of standing desks was associated with significant improvements in executive function and working memory capabilities," Mehta said. "Changes in corresponding brain activation patterns were also observed."

 Wow! That almost deserves a standing ovation! On the blog in the past I've reported on a number of studies that demonstrate the cognitive benefits of exercise on learning and memory and the corresponding enhancement of attitude and motivation that getting students up and moving around produces.

AMPISys, Inc.

In the classroom application of haptic pronunciation teaching (and STRONGLY recommended for haptic independent study) virtually ALL initial training in the core pedagogical movement patterns is done with students on their feet, typically mirroring the the model on the LCD screen at the front of the room. (To preview those, go here.)

Even if your school is not set up with stand up desks, you can at least get students on their feet occasionally, not just for pronunciation but almost any in-class activity (as I'm sure many of you do already.) One of my all time favorites is the "Talkaboutwalkabout!" in fact.

Full citation:
Texas A&M University. "New study indicates students' cognitive functioning improves when using standing desks." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 January 2016. .

Front and back-brained creativity--"monkeying around" with (haptic) pronunciation change!

Clip art:
Clker.com

One argument against extensive kinaesthetic involvement in general instruction or pronunciation teaching (using gesture and movement) has always been the superiority of "front brain" as opposed to more "back brain" learning -- or the excessive "flamboyance" of many overly "gesticular" promoters of such systems, myself included up to about a decade ago, unfortunately!

That also seemed to be supported by the apparent separation between areas of the brain involved with "higher" executive, cognitive functions such as planning and strategy use (in the prefrontal cortex) from those that have more to do with motor control and learning, for example, the "lowly" cerebellum at the back of the brain. In other words, the more conscious, cognitive insight, control and involvement "up front", probably the better.

But consider this new research by Saggar, Quintin, Kienitz, Bott, Sun, Hong, Chien, Liu, Dougherty, Royalty, Hawthorne and Reiss of Stanford University (longest list of co-authors I have ever seen!) entitled:  Pictionary-based fMRI paradigm to study the neural correlates of spontaneous improvisation and figural creativity. (Full citation below).

According to the Science Daily summary, the researchers have discovered "unexpected brain structures" that connect creativity to motor centres in the brain. In effect, they have demonstrated that motor involvement or embodiment is apparently fundamental to a much wider range of learning and cognitive functioning than thought previously.

And why was this just now revealed? Simple, perhaps. According to the authors, previous models were based primarily on earlier research with primate/monkey brains. Not surprisingly, in retrospect, the connection between thinking and moving in the monkey brain might, indeed, be a bit different than that--in at least most of our students . . . 

The research design was ingenious, using Pictionary/creative drawing tasks with fMRI monitoring of brain engagement. (Being a great fan of Pictionary, that is not surprising!) What was surprising, however, was that the motor centres in the cerebellum remained active and engaged long after the actual body movement activity had subsided, revealing the "embodied" side of what would normally be assumed to be visual/cognitive thought or processing.

In other words, the creative, improvisational activity was being carried on best, at least to some degree, outside of awareness, by what had appeared to be primarily "motor" circuits. Relatively too much pre-frontal involvement in the task was clearly counterproductive. 

One of the section subtitles of the Science Daily summary highlights a very relevant implication of that "discovery" (for haptic or other highly kinasethetic pronunciation work): 'The more you think about it, the more you mess it up' . . . Or, to quote the great Nike slogan: Just do it!

That may explain some of the current ineffectiveness of pronunciation instruction: Too much cerebellum or not quite enough!

Think about it!

Full Citation from Science Daily.com (To appear soon in the Journal Scientific Reports):
Stanford University Medical Center. "Unexpected brain structures tied to creativity, and to stifling it." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 May 2015. .

Been there, done that: One-shot (pronunciation) teaching and learning!

When  or how does pronunciation work STICK--quickly?

Clipart:
Clker.com 

Here is a fascinating new, seemingly counter-intuitive study on what people do with some types of new information they encounter - by Lee, O’Doherty, and Shimojo of CALTECH: Neural Computations Mediating One-Shot Learning in the Human Brain. Summarized by ScienceDaily.com - Full citation below, whose title I like: Switching on one-shot learning in the brain. Essentially what they found was:

"Many have assumed that the novelty of a stimulus would be the main factor driving one-shot learning, but our computational model showed that causal uncertainty was more important . . . If you are uncertain, or lack evidence, about whether a particular outcome was caused by a preceding event, you are more likely to quickly associate them together."

For example, if a learner immediately associates or links a pronunciation correction back to some (probably conscious, cognitive) aspect of previous instruction, the brain may just switch off the "one-shot" learning circuits and activate "been there, done that" processing instead. In other words, taking the "time" even if involuntarily to connect back mentally to a previous schema or visual image can actually inhibit "quick" learning. Any number of studies over the decades in several fields have established the concept that in some contexts, the faster something is learned, the better. (That was, in fact, the motivation behind early development of Total Physical Response teaching.)

So when might quick or "one-shot" learning happen? My two favourite questions for speaking/listening/pronunciation classroom teachers are: (a) How (if at all) do you follow up in class after you present and (maybe) practice some aspect of pronunciation? (b) How (if at all) do you do spontaneous correction of pronunciation in class?

 . . . I'll wait a minute while you answer those questions, yourself . . . The general answer, in one form or another, is: Not much, if at all. Frequent reasons for that: (a) Don't know how. (b) Don't have time. (c) Not necessary, as long as I do a first rate job of presenting and practice in class and (d) Learners are pretty much responsible once I have done "c"!

Bottom line: One of the reasons that gesture works--and that haptic works even better by adding systematic touch--is that to some degree it bypasses conscious cognitive "cause and effect" processing. (Asher described that more or less metaphorically as by passing the left hemisphere in favour of the right, which was earlier said to much more holistic, more consciously analytic, etc. As a shorthand, I'm ok with that but in reality it a gross oversimplification and probably creates more problems than it solves today.)

I'm not saying that we should do away with formal instruction in pronunciation, including books, explanation, drill and contextual practice in class--just adding another "quick change channel."

Using EHIEP (Essential haptic-integrated English pronunciation) pedagogical movement patterns (PMP, a gesture anchored by touch associated with a sound of sound pattern) generally will not interrupt the flow of conversation or narrative as a correction is performed. It is, in effect, operating on another channel, more outside of language awareness, not disrupting as much speaking and thought. That assumes that learners have been earlier introduced to the kinaesthetic patterning of the PMP; haptic "signalling" during classroom instruction or during homework can be exceedingly effective and seamless to the course of the lesson and on other modalities.

In some sense, mindless drill doesn't engage the cognitive side of the house either--but it also can easily deaden all the senses instead if not done very carefully with as much somatic engagement as possible. (A very good example of doing drill well, however, is Kjellin's approach which I often use when anchoring a specific sound articulation.)

Haptic pronunciation teaching--Give it a shot! (A perfect place to start is here, of course!)

Full citation:
California Institute of Technology. "Switching on one-shot learning in the brain." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 April 2015. .

Flirting with pronunciation teaching: I like the way you move there!

The scientific study of flirting may have something interesting to say to us in language teaching. In a follow up to a 2010 study, Hall and Xing of University of Kansas (Full citation below, summarized by ScienceDaily) identify "verbal and nonverbal correlates of flirting styles." Their conclusion was " . . . everybody does it differently. Because flirting is low-key and varied, we're often oblivious when people send us signals of romantic attraction." 

Everybody does it differently . . . Really? The 5 styles identified are: (A) physical, (B) traditional, (C) polite, (D) sincere and (E) playful. You can check out your own style by going to Hall's website, taking a questionnaire. Those even translate into styles of pronunciation teaching (or methodological bias), as well--with a bit of unpacking:

• Styles A, Physical, and B, Traditional, probably fit. 
• I read C, Polite,  as "cognitive" and empirical (Think and talk first; act second, if at all!)
• D, Sincere,  as "affective-communicative" (Enough meaningful communication and time can cure most any problem. Or: Care a great deal, but do nothing!) 
• Style E, Playful,  implies both fun activities in class and innovation (playing with paradigms). 

One reason that pronunciation teaching and flirting appear to have so much in common is that all conceptual frameworks dealing with styles can usually be characterized using the same two dimensions or axises: External (mind) vs Internal (body), and stability vs change. (See earlier post on that and its application to haptic pronunciation work in the visual field.) The five styles can be displayed something like this:

	C. Polite (External, mind-oriented)
B. Traditional (Stability-oriented)	D. Sincere (Nice, but static, nondescript)	E. Playful (Change- oriented)
	A. Physical (Internal – body oriented)

Pick any three, the first one being your dominant style and locate yourself somewhere among them. Many of us are B-A-Es or C-E-As. I know a few B-C-Ds, as well, those who only occasionally "flirt" with pronunciation teaching!

 "Haptic A-C-E Style"

Part of what a psychological "style" does is determine your default response to the unexpected. A style can be established by any number of factors.  Our haptic pronunciation teaching style is definitely A-C-E!

How is yours working for you in class, responding to pronunciation problems that may pop up spontaneously? 

Have begun (flirting with) categorizing pronunciation instructors, textbooks and methods using that framework. (My poor graduate student "guinea pigs" will bear the brunt of some of that exploratory work soon, in fact!) 

Keep in touch!

Full citation
Jeffrey A. Hall, Chong Xing. The Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of the Five Flirting Styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2014; 39 (1): 41 DOI: 10.1007/s10919-014-0199-8

Fit for integrated (haptic) pronunciation teaching?

A common finding in research on instructor attitudes toward pronunciation is that they feel like they don't know enough about it to do it, e.g., Baker (2014). There is also no lack of published opinion on what you should know to teach pronunciation, depending of course on where and with whom you do it--including an earlier blogpost summarizing recommendations by a group of such authorities.

Clip Art:
Clker.com

In more kinaesthetic or haptic-based teaching, the concept of fit may go in a somewhat different direction. To teach from that perspective requires at least some body aptitude and an understanding of how body-based training works. (There are any number of cognitive and physical preference instruments available to do that with.) I am always intrigued by the parallels between the two processes or approaches, i.e, pronunciation and fitness training.

Here is one, acronym-ed, S.H.R.E.D. (from one self-described as an Icon of the fitness world,-- Jillian Michaels, new "face" of Curves, Inc. ), that has a great subtitle: YOU'RE EXPLORING AND EXPLOITING THE POSSIBILITY OF HUMAN MOVEMENT IN WAYS THAT FACILITATE ULTIMATE PHYSICAL CONDITIONING. (Full disclosure: I'm a big fan of the Curves system!)

I'd only paraphrase it slightly,  something like: YOU'RE EXPLORING AND EXPLOITING THE POSSIBILITY OF HUMAN MOVEMENT IN WAYS THAT FACILITATE ULTIMATE PHYSICAL or HAPTIC PRONUNCIATION LEARNING and TEACHING!

That SHRED system (Synergistic, High-intensity,  Resistance, Endurance and Dynamics) is based on the idea of three phases of a learning cycle (There would be typically 5 of those in a 30-minute workout):

3 minutes of strength training

2 minutes of cardio training

1 minute of core training

Translating that into integrated pronunciation teaching, when a new "target of opportunity" comes up in class,  you get something like this:

3 minutes of exploration (modelling+training+drill), 

including minimal, necessary explanation 

2 minutes of fluency work

1 minute of integration work

If it takes about that long, 6 minutes, to work on a new sound issue (probably 1/3 of that for a recurrent problem), does that fit into your method? If not, shred it! (Your method, that is!)

An upcoming post will illustrate both 6 and 2 minute haptic pronunciation INTRA-dictions such as this one. 

Citation:

Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers' knowledge of L2 pronunciation techniques: Teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices and student perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 136-163. doi: 10.1002/tesq.99

Turned off by pronunciation teaching and learning? Good plan!

Clip art:
Clker

Have for years, often in jest, pointed an accusing finger at the pre-frontal cortex as at least contributing to the difficulty that adults often have in learning pronunciation. A new study by Trafton of MIT (summarized by ScienceDaily.com) looking at the roles of procedural versus declarative brain networks and structures in learning language makes a striking point evident in the title of the article: "Try, try again? Study says no: Trying harder makes it more difficult to learn some aspects of language, neuroscientists find."

The bottom line: Declarative, more conscious networks work well (especially in adults) at learning vocabulary and understanding what is to be learned. Procedural networks are responsible for less conscious, more automatic (physiological) processes--such as many aspects of pronunciation, of course. According to Trafton (and many others) the answer is often to avoid "trying harder" by over use of declarative functions. How might that be done? According to Science Daily, again:

" . . . she is now testing the effects of "turning off" the adult prefrontal cortex using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation. Other interventions she plans to study include distracting the prefrontal cortex by forcing it to perform other tasks while language is heard, and treating subjects with drugs that impair activity in that brain region."

Got to get me a TMS machine . . .

Stop correcting pronunciation! (If your students can afford it!)

Clip art: Library
 of Congress

Good post by Tabaczynski, Counselling Paradigm in Language Teaching that seems very in line with where the field, in general, is headed. Here is his bottom line:

"I would suggest that instead of correcting we simply provide feedback. Students, I would argue, need feedback rather than correction. . . . the idea is that the development of language is non-linear, dynamic, and emergent, a product of the interaction of several systems . . .  I suggest that the task of teaching is providing external scaffolding systems of ‘buckets’ to collect information and manage spaced out retrieval practice."

Just as an aside, what does "correct" mean anyway?  According to Merriam Webster's, a range of things, such as:

• to make or set right 
• to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition 
• to punish (as a child) with a view to reforming or improving
• to point out usually for amendment the errors or faults of

Got to be a better way (or at least metaphor) than that! Simple question, however: How might such a "spaced out buckets" approach work for you and your students? 

It would, of course,  be one thing were your students to be working on their English near full time in an academic preparation program (EAP.) That is especially the case when most students have good financial resources behind them or have the academic training or guidance to manage their learning and work with "strategies"--or even have time to think about them (as are most of Tabaczynski's students and thousands in the developed world like them.)

But how about if you have only minimal time and training to assist with pronunciation or attention to form in general, your students are not really very--or at all--"meta," they can not even afford textbooks, and they are in a class of 50 that meets only an hour or two a week? Might you still not be (justifiably) tempted to "kick the bucket" in favour of more direct, traditional "pointing out" or "punishing with a view to improving?"

My point. Today, where learners can afford it--especially with computer-assisted and better trained instructor support-- things look promising. For those who can't or whose programs won't, as Tabaczynski argues persuasively, with the current additional cognitive overlay of underlying behaviourists' reinforcement, extinction metaphors and methods, they may well be even worse off . . .

The answer, you ask? Next post, I'll address one (moving and touching) solution to this emerging "rags or riches" conundrum in the field. Perhaps we also need a new mantra: Pedagogical Justice for incorrect Pronunciation!

Keep in touch!

Pre- and Post-haptic English Pronunciation Teaching

Get ready . . . AH-EPS does NOT (by design) do everything! What it does it does exceedingly well, however. It focuses on integrated teaching and change, real time interaction between instructor and student: how to talk and anchor change in class, live.

In some cases and classes it may need to be complemented or expanded upon. ("Compliments," it always has lots of!)  Here are my three recommendations, what you should have either on your bookshelf or bookmarked:

Well Said by Linda Grant
     For more detailed explanation and academic application, especially for more advanced students, use Grant.
Clear Speech and Clear Speech from the Start by Judy Gilbert
     For colourful visual models, related listening comprehension training and communicative pair work, use Gilbert.
Accent Coach and its mobile app by Ron Thomson
     For more focused, personalized drill and effective repetition after haptic vowel work, use Thomson.

AH-EPS haptic video work (in 30-minute weekly lessons with optional homework) presents the English sound system as a whole and teaches students a set of gesture-based procedures that they and their instructor can use every day in modelling and correcting pronunciation.  (There are additional video lessons with each module for students to practice on their own, if their instructor does attend to pronunciation in regular speaking and listening instruction.)

It is generally adaptable to any proficiency level, any age learner or amount of instructor experience in pronunciation teaching. If, however, you only have time or money to go with one system,  I'd still recommend this for starters:

Time to change your (pronunciation) teaching system?

Yes. Well . . . maybe. Systems change theory as it relates to pronunciation teaching and body-based training methods has always intrigued me. (See several previous posts on that and related topics.) One of the delights (and basics) of graduate instruction is helping practitioners articulate explicit models of how they, themselves, do things--before they encounter or are forced to work with new frameworks.

Not surprisingly, most who have a coherent method that they have either developed or adopted/adapted and have substantial experience using it in the classroom--prove to be reasonably good at evaluating, modifying and/or dumping it. (Definition of coherent method: internally consistent and held together by a simple, transparent theory of some kind.)

Photo credit: Mens Fitness.com

There was recently a nice article posted on the Men's Health website by Dan John, a popular trainer. I have not linked to that piece directly because of "adjacent" material in the margins that might be distracting . . . but it ends with this note: "Dive into a new program every so often and immerse yourself in it. Then, after you finish it, go ahead and critique it. Mine the gems, and then adapt and adopt them into your normal training. But, first, finish what you started." You can, by the way, find  Dan's awesome kettlebell program --which I am dying to try in its entirety, of course, sometime--here!)

Bottom here. Pronunciation teaching is in a very important sense a "physical (as well as cognitive) practice." Haptic pronunciation teaching balances brain and body engagement better than most anything else around. If you are happy with your pronunciation method now--and can fairly assess its results based on experiencing it as a "coherent system," . . . good! If not, try out AH-EPS v2.0 from Dan's experiential perspective: Do it, then critique it. It'll at least ring your "kettlebell." Promise. (Email me at actonhaptic@gmail.com if you want more information before it rolls out next week.)

Brain-fit Pronunciation Instruction!

Wow! Science Daily just published an article on a program developed by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center called the "Brain Fit Club." Here's the description (emphasis, mine) :

" . . . . might involve a combination of scientifically-validated computerized cognitive training, brain stimulation, nutritional coaching, mindfulness training, sleep and lifestyle education, gait and balance evaluation and treatment, and group classes in meditation, tai chi and gentle yoga designed to target a full range of cognitive struggles or decline . . . there's a lot to be gained from pairing traditional treatments like medication with special kinds of exercises, and we're very excited to offer this comprehensive approach . . . " 

Sign me up! The boldfaced terms would describe basic HICP pretty well! The BIDMC has apparently been around doing this kind of thing for decades. Of the dozen or so techniques or technique-types mentioned, as of now AH-EPS does not exactly employ only a few of them, namely: 

Clip art: Clker

(a) computerized cognitive training--although we do it well w/o the wiring and are ready to go virtual reality at a moment's notice!

(b) nutritional coaching--although AH-EPS is very much based on coaching models and students do find the system "food for thought!"

(c) sleep education--although research is clear when most learning consolidation happens.

(d) gait evaluation--although general body fluidity and balance are critical. 

Clearly, if you are not doing this kind of pronunciation work, you may be in some degree of cognitive (phonological) decline . . . 

Keep In Touch. 

Connecting "internal" pronunciation memory with "external" movement and vocal resonance

Clip art: Clker

Now, granted, this one is a bit of a stretch but it is certainly headed in the right direction . . . from a new study on motor memory by Smith of Harvard university, summarized by Science Daily, connecting internal (brain only) motor memory with memory for "external," physical body movement. The concept is that the neurons that actually manage physical movement are much more closely related to those that "store" or generate that action in the brain than has been generally assumed in contemporary neurological theory. Now why is potentially very big?

Clip art: Clker

In part, it suggests that in haptic-integrated clinical pronunciation work, for example, procedures that focus learners' attention more on the "physical" or "somatic" dimensions of sound production and comprehension should, correspondingly, have greater impact on memory for the sounds and later recall--than do more cognitive functions such as insight, systems "noticing" and context embedding. In other words, this seems to explain why over-reliance on metacognitive activities in pronunciation teaching such as explanation, reflection and rule schemas may not be all that effective in assisting learners in integrating new and corrected pronunciation into spontaneous speech.

Bottom line: Get connected with haptic pronunciation teaching!

Effective (pronunciation) learning techniques

You may have seen a media report on this new research monograph, Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology by Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan and Willingham (published online by Psychological Science in the public interest). If you have the time, it is worth reading through. Here's why. The research focused on 10 learning strategies used by students, mostly in high school and college. By "learning strategies" the authors mean, for the most part, what students do on their own, outside of the "curriculum," in studying (for tests!) and homework.

Credit: AMPISys, Inc.

Among the the "winners" of the 10 are "distributed practice" strategies such as taking practice tests and spreading out study sessions. The bottom three were: underlining, rereading and using "mnemonic devices." The monograph itself is a great piece of work (although at times a bit overly optimistic on what "Cognitive and Educational Psychology" is up to or worth). What was fascinating was the general conclusion that "educators" (not specifically defined) do not do enough with this area. At least some of the blame goes to teacher education where, in the review of current TT textbooks, little or no mention is made of research into learning strategies/techniques and what students do "on their own" and how they learn to do what they do.

EHIEP is based on the idea of providing instructors and students with a range of strategies for anchoring pronunciation work and (by extension) using those outside of class. Although the basic curriculum is designed to be carried out successfully in a classroom setting-without depending on students practicing outside of class in any systematic manner, the optional Student Workbook and accompanying haptic video and audio packet are strongly recommended whenever possible. (The complete system will be available at the 2013 TESOL conference in Dallas for the first time. Some of the new demonstration videos will be linked here off the blog next month.) Keep in touch. 

Play it again, HIRREM! (A musical tone approach to balanced pronunciation learning?)

Clip art: Clker

With apologies to Humprey Bogart, one of the basic "learning" assumptions in most training systems is that some degree of balance between relevant areas of the brain, whether left~right, top~bottom or front~back (or all of those) is optimal. How that is to be achieved is the question, of course. As blogged earlier on several occasions, brain research (e.g., as in neurotherapy) is now beginning to offer alternatives or at least compliments to cognitive and physical exercises or disciplines: brain frequency "adjustment."

In a new study by Tegler and colleagues at Wake Forest University (summarized by Science Daily), musical tones were mirrored back to the brains of subjects to achieve a more balanced overall brain frequency profile--which appeared to successfully lessen insomnia, at least for a month or so. Tegler does note that " . . . the changes observed with HIRREM, could be due to a placebo effect. In addition, because HIRREM therapy involves social interaction and relaxation, there may be other non-specific mechanisms for improvement, in addition to the tonal mirroring."

Now granted, this specific technology may not directly impact a learner's ability to learn new or repaired sounds--or even "HIRREM" better, but it is clearly on the right track. (Nothing to lose sleep over if you can't spring for the 30k to get you a " . . . high-resolution, relational, resonance-based, electroencephalic mirroring or, as it's commercially known, Brainwave Optimization™ . . . " set up!) But multiple-modality and balanced "all-brain" engagement is the key to pronunciation change. It's coming. Keep in touch. 

Your pronunciation teaching going off in all directions? Good!

Clip art: Clker

At least a-parent-ly! As reported in previous blogposts, semiotically, almost any framework for personality, behaviour, groups or the nature of the visual field can be positioned on north-south, east-west axes. Here's another example. A study by led by Hunter at the University of Virginia, summarized by Science Daily, provides a categorization schema for describing four "family cultures" in contemporary US. Each category " . . . represents a complex configuration of moral beliefs, values and dispositions -- often implicit and rarely articulated in daily life -- largely independent of basic demographic factors, such as race, ethnicity and social class." Here they are, followed by my interpretation of their general "direcction" in parentheses:

 A. The (American, idealistic) dreamers (27%) " . . . defined by their optimism about their children's abilities and opportunities." (North = Externally oriented, more meta-cognitive, extrovert-ish)

B. The (less educated, pragmatic) detached (21%) "Let kids be kids and let the cards fall where they may." (South = Internally oriented, less-conscious, introvert-ish) 

C. The (liberal) engaged progressives (21%) " . . . guided . . . by their own personal experience or what "feels right" to them." (East = Change oriented, creative) 

D. The (conservative/traditional) faithful (20%) " . . . seek to defend and multiply the traditional social and moral order." (West = Stability and structure-oriented) 

The four stereotypes presented in the (necessarily) brief summary are wonderfully artificial--especially in how they covertly reintroduce race, ethnicity and social class, despite the disclaimer, in the form of parenting cultures. (It is worth reading just for the entertainment value. I assume the full research report is still also worth reading for a more complete, scholarly contextualization of the study.) What is relevant is the basic set of four "directions," based on "beliefs, values and dispositions."  The "finding" of the research appears to be that the culture is fracturing, with ominous consequences, of course. Substitute in "learners" for children/kids and "cognitive/behavioural" for progressive/conservative above. 

The same principle applies to any integrated system, including pronunciation teaching, especially how it is experienced by the learner. For an interesting exercise, identify your "coordinates." (In this model a "perfect program" might  even be at 0/0, in fact, although at times in the process it may veer off radically in one direction or another for various intermediate learning outcomes) I'd position EHIEP, by design overall, generally at about 10 degrees North latitude and 20 degrees East longitude. In other words, requiring somewhat more public risk taking/performance and also more ongoing experience of change, but still not too far off center, particularly in reference to language structure and private, "inner speak." 

Duelling (or dualist) pronunciation approaches and methods

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

In a 2012 study summarizing five research studies on the potential effect of mind-body dualism on health by Frostman, Burgmer and Mussweiler, summarized by Science Daily, it was "surmised" that " . . . people primed with dualist beliefs had more reckless attitudes toward health and exercise, and also preferred (and ate) a less healthy diet than those who were primed with physicalist beliefs." It went the other way as well, subjects who were less "physical" tended to hold dualist beliefs as well. From an HICP perspective, that translates to something like: Language instructors who have dualist beliefs tend to have more ambivalent and disembodied attitudes toward pronunciation, and are generally less effective than those with more physicalist beliefs. Now, granted, that is a bit of a stretch, but in my experience it is almost that predictive. It is not a matter of whether instructors are sufficiently "cognitive" in their approach or whether they, themselves, are sufficiently "physical." It is about learner "embodiment" as a central principle of method, where the question becomes moot, where mind and body function as one, at least when it comes to anchoring change. Of course, it helps if they are all  on the same page from the beginning . . . 

Thinking about pronunciation (with our hands)

Clip art: Clker

Linked above is the website of Antle of Simon Fraser University. The end of her URL says it all: "/Physicality/ThinkingWithHands." There is obviously much we can learn from researchers in the area of arts and technology. This new article, listed on the website is particularly interesting. "Antle, A.N. Exploring how children use their hands to think: An embodied interactional analysis, Behaviour and Information Technology, accepted." Not surprisingly, one of the most striking findings is the contrast between the type (and quality of) thought engaged when physically manipulating objects as opposed to that evident during similar mouse-based or visual protocols.

The effect of using the hands in HICP in pedagogical movement patterns across the visual field, especially on listening comprehension and problem solving related to interpreting the expressive dimension of English speech, is well worth exploring systematically. "Off handedly," I could relate any number of anecdotal observations in that regard, but for the time being . . . let's just keep it handy and think about it!

The "Cognitive Phonological" map and Lessac's pedagogical territory

In the linked article by Fraser is something of the Cognitive Phonologists' manifesto: “Pronunciation is primarily a cognitive phenomenon rather than a physiological problem." The CP's approach to teaching and learning pronunciation is, not surprisingly, highly metacognitive, requiring insight, explanation, conscious frameworks, planning and, of course . . . understanding. The driver of change is seen as basically cognitive, not the felt sense of speaking and pedagogical drill and practice. Simply put: ontologically, once the mind is online, the body must follow.

Clip art: Clker

From a HICP perspective, that is to fall for the classic, map/territory illusion, in Korzybski's words, "the map is not the territory." Even if the map or characterization or origin of the problem is "primarily cognitive," that does not mean that the approach to the solution or treatment "on the ground," in the classroom must be. On the contrary, in many systems of Western (as opposed to Eastern) human behavior change, the effective therapy or training must be considerably more and more noncognitive today, at least at the outset, in effect side-stepping or creating an offsetting balance with the problematic "phenomenon." (See earlier post on "Changing the channel fallacy.")

Lessac's "territorial" manifesto, Train the body first, is admittedly no less directional in design, but it has one enormous advantage . . . it works.

Forget, trying to learn new pronunciation

Clip art: Clker

Now here is a potentially useful idea. Before working on correcting a mispronunciation, have students "forget" the current version first. In the linked summary by Science Digest of a study by Strom of the University of Illinois at Chicago, subjects were instructed to, in effect, forget a set of words to make "room" in short term memory space for new ones. It appears to have been quite effective, demonstrating empirically the importance of some degree of forgetting to remembering, so to speak.

I'll have to work on this, but might not the concept of haptic de-anchoring of problematic sounds be worth some serious thought and experimentation? Ah . . . forget it!