One who hesitates is NOT lost (when repeating new words to remember them better by)

                                                   

(Credit: Clker.com)

Actually, the study (Summarized by Neurosciencenews.com) Repeating New Words Out Loud Isn’t Always the Best Way to Learn Them, by Kapnoula et al. Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL) is, more or less, a neuroscientific validation of a principle established decades (and decades ago) by experienced language teachers: sometimes pausing for a instant before you repeat the new word (or piles of words) is the better way to learn and remember it. 

The research does, however, point indirectly to an important development in the field in the last few decades: learning new words out of context, even if the meaning is provided in some form, is a very delicate and complex process, best case. Simply put, subjects in one condition either (a) repeated a new  English-looking, nonsense word (e.g., penivasher) immediately or (b) paused slightly and then repeated the word out loud. With a 4-second pause, their memory for the latter words the next day was significantly better than the former. From the study:

“When a person repeats a word immediately after hearing it, cognitive resources are dedicated to preparing the production of the word and, as a result, these resources cannot be used to deeply encode that word. In contrast, if production is delayed for a few seconds, this overlap is avoided, allowing deeper learning and encoding to take place.”

Ok. That makes sense. But then we have this: 

“Understanding these cognitive mechanisms can teach us how to use repetition more efficiently in educational contexts. For example, teachers can encourage students to repeat a new word the first time they hear it, but after this first exposure, the learning processes should focus more on listening rather than on production,” 

What? Why do I suspect that the researchers have never taught or been taught language--or if they have, poorly, at that?

 " . . . repeat it (once) but after this first exposure, the learning process should focus on listening rather than production . . .?" 

Imagine in just what teaching system/context would that apply. Granted, if all you are working with are new words IN ISOLATION (without associated meaning), where the goal is just reading or listening comprehension for some reason--maybe passing an L2 reading test, not speaking, that figures. But if the new words are actual L2 words, encountered in a rich, memorable context and high frequency collocation--the general M.O. of contemporary language methodology--then radically switching away from productive, out loud repetition/use of words in learning is  . . . well . . . arcane, to put it mildly. 

This may be a case where researchers take what is actually a very nice study and pretty much fanta-(or over)-size its potential application, or don't spend enough time on the concluding paragraph. (I'd pause a bit before assuming it is but the latter . . . )

Now if you do want to experience full-body, memorable engagement/repetition of new words--without hesitation--go to: www.actonhaptic/kinetik 

Keep in touch.

Bill

Source: Wait long and prosper! Delaying production alleviates its detrimental effect on word learning. Kapnoula, C. & Sameul, A. 2023 Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2144917

Killing (Pronunciation) Learning 16*: Move (with) it or Lose it!

Cilker.com

Fascinating new research--with intriguing implications: "Hand constraint reduces brain activity and affects the speed of verbal responses on semantic tasks,“ by Onishi, Tobita and Makioka of Osaka Metropolitan University, one that gives the metaphor to "sit on your hands," neuroscientific validation . . .almost!

In the study, subjects sat at computers and had to make judgments as to the relative size of different objects on the screen. In one condition, subjects viewing objects that entailed the use of the hands, such as a broom, were not allowed move their hands as they responded. That significantly slowed down brain processing, compared to responding to objects, such as a house, which do not involve as direct hand engagement or learning experience, where the restraint on their hand movement had no discernable effect. 

From the perspective of embodied cognition theory that makes sense, where, in principle, all learning . . and thought is inexorably bound together with the entire body in multiple dimensions. Some of that interconnectedness derives from when something is learned; some, from the primal notion that all experience is embodied, that is grounded in what the body is doing either in saving to memory or memory access. 

Assuming that general principle holds--and I am absolutely convinced that it does from about 50 years in the field of pronunciation teaching--how does impact our understanding of the function of body movement in the classroom? For one, requiring students to sit near motionless, especially in language learning, let alone elementary school classrooms, is a killer, best case. Just being able to move around a little, keeping loose and responding easily and with all your body (and being) means something, literally. That is something we all know intuitively, of course, but what the study shows is that at some level a body constraint is a "thought" constraint as well. 

In (haptic) pronunciation teaching, virtually all basic instruction is based on gesture-synchronized speech, where all speech production can be accompanied by gesture, and body awareness of constant motion and synchrony between body and speech rhythm develop throughout the process. The hands and arms play prominently in the method. For more on that: www.actonhaptic.com

Do a video of your class (any class) sometime. Is it moving? It should be . . . 

*This is number 16 in the series of blogposts highlighting factors or variables that can seriously interfere with learning and teaching pronunciation. 

Source:
Onishi, S., Tobita, K. & Makioka, S. Hand constraint reduces brain activity and affects the speed of verbal responses on semantic tasks. Sci Rep 12, 13545 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17702-1

Mesmerizing teaching (and pronunciation teachers)

clker.com

The topics of  attention salience and unconscious learning have come up any number of times over the course of the history of the blog, beginning with one of my favorites on that subject back in 2011 on Milton Erickson. In part because of the power of media today and the "discoveries" by neuroscience that we do, indeed, learn on many levels, some out of our immediate awareness, there is renewed interest in the topics--even from Starbucks!

A fascinating new book (to me at least) by Ogden, Credulity: A Cultural History of US Mesmerism, summarized by Neuroscience News, explores the history of  "Mesmerism" and a bit about its contemporary manifestations.(QED. . . . if you were not aware that it is still with us!) Ogden is most interested in understanding the abiding attraction of purposeful manipulation or management of unconscious communication, attention and learning. One fascinating observation, from the Neuroscience News summary is:

" . . . that one person’s power of suggestion over another enables the possibility of creating a kind of collaborative or improvisational performance, even unintentionally without people setting it up on purpose."

Get that?  ". . . collaborative or improvisational performance . . . created "unintentionally" Are you aware that you promote that or do any of that in your classroom? If you are, great; if not, great, but is that not also an interesting characterization of the basis of interaction in the language teaching classroom, especially where the focus is modeling, corrective feedback and metacognitive work in pragmatics and usage? In other words, suggestion is at the very heart of instructor-student engagement in some dimensions of the pedagogical process. Unconscious learning and relational affinities were for some time contained in Chomsky's infamous "black box," but are now the subject of extensive research in neuroscience and elsewhere.

And there are, of course, any number of factors that may affect what goes on "below decks" as it were. Turns out there is  (not surprisingly) even a well-established gender dimension or bias to unconscious learning as well.Ya think? A 2015 study by Ziori and Dienes, summarized by Frontiers in Psychology.org, highlights a critical feature of that cognitive process keyed or confounded by the variable of "attentional salience."

In that study, "Facial beauty affects implicit and explicit learning of men and women differently", the conscious and unconscious learning of men was significantly downgraded when the task involved analyzing language associated with the picture of a beautiful woman. Women, on the other hand, actually did BETTER in that phase of the study. The beautiful face did  not distract them in the least, it seemed, in fact to further concentrate their cognitive processing of the linguistic puzzle.

Now exactly why that is the case the researchers only speculate. For example, it may be that men are programmed to tend to see a beautiful woman more initially as "physically of interest", whereas women may see or sense first a competitor, which actually sharpens their processing of the problem at hand.  It was very evident, however, that what is termed "incentive salience" had a strong impact or at least siphoned off cognitive processing resources  . . . for the boys.

There are many dimensions of what we do in instruction that are loaded with "incentive salience", fun or stimulating stuff that we suppose will in essence attract attention or stimulate learners to at least wake up so we can do something productive. Pronunciation instruction is filled with such gimmicks and populated by a disproportionate number of former cheer leaders and "dramatic persona." The combination of unconscious connectivity and "beautiful" techniques may actually work against us.

In haptic work we figured out about a decade ago that not only how you look but what you wear can impact effectiveness of mirroring of instructor gesture in class. The fact that I am old and bald may account for the fact that students find me easier to follow than some of my younger associates? Take heart, my friends, the assumed evolutionary advantage of "beautiful people" may not only be waning, but actually be working against them in the pronunciation classroom at least! 

Вниманы! Highly emotional L2 pronunciation teaching! (Ah . . . forget it!)

Clipart.com

Every language has at least one expression that gets its message across better than most all other languages, emotionally and phonaesthetically. In Russian, for me at least, one is "Вниманы or Vnimanie!" (Attention!) Said with the right emotional "zing," it can "grab" the attention like no expression I have ever experienced.

Optimal holding and systematic management of learner attention and emotion is the foundation of haptic pronunciation work. (See earlier post.) It is often assumed, however, that simply the more emotion involved in language teaching or learning, the better; the better words and meanings are remembered. Turns out, not surprisingly, that is really not the case.

Research by Schirmer, Chen, Ching, Tan, Ryan and Hong (2012), summarized by Science Daily,  investigating the impact of emotion in the spoken voice on memory for words and meanings, confirms what common sense tells us: sometimes strong emotion either "clouds" or "enhances" both understanding and memory. In that study, subjects were wired with fMRIs and shown and heard spoken words with varying degrees and kinds of emotion.

In one condition " . . . participants recognized (the actual) words better when they had previously heard them in the neutral (relatively unemotional) tone compared with the sad tone." However, expressions spoken with more emotion captured subjects' attention better and were recognized more quickly later. In addition, women were better at recognizing emotionally loaded words than men. In effect, emotion seemed to enhance memory for meaning but  downgrade recall of specific words. The brain mapping confirmed the differential processing of the emotion-loaded targets. That makes sense. Emotion is more a discourse function, relating to context and the story.

In the context of language learning this research might suggest that emotion in the voice would enhance listening comprehension, for example--but perhaps not pronunciation or even remembering specific vocabulary. That has always been one of the "conundrums" of using drama in language teaching or highly "gesticular" routines: they do seem to improve general expressiveness, confidence, rhythm, and intonation but not pronunciation of individual words or even memory for them. It is not because attention isn't focused on the target but that the emotion involved simply directs attention elsewhere in the brain.

So what is the bottom line here? It is apparently this: Sometimes drawing learners' attention to pronunciation to be learned and remembered with various emotional overlays and highlights may be fun, stimulating and a good change of pace (and still worth doing, of course, for other reasons) but in the long run  . . . not all that memorable (unlike this post, of course!) That does not mean that the sterile language lab of old or the web-based "drilling machines" are the answer but that pronunciation teaching must generally be embedded in authentic communication where emotion and attention to form occur naturally and systematically--like in your classroom?

Citation:
Springer Science+Business Media. (2012, December 11). Emotion in voices helps capture listener's attention, but in the long run the words are not remembered as accurately. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 22, 2016 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211112742.htm