Now we are REALLY talking (with students about pragmatics with meta-pragmatics!)

More big news! Our latest research report, our second, "Role-play and dialogic meta-pragmatics in developing and assessing pragmatic competence," is now officially in press with Pedagogical Linguistics, coming out later this fall, hopefully! Here is the abstract: 

Role-play as a bridging and integrating practice in language teaching and development of pragmatic competence in learners is well-established. In an EAP classroom (Van Dyke & Acton, 2021) explored the impact of one fluency protocol, Cooperative Attending Skills Training, by which students were trained to listen attentively to shared personal stories, working toward more sophisticated strategies of conversational interaction. That system included dialogic, pragmatics-focused, spontaneous analysis and instructor-student discussion of interactional discourse features. With that experience, further modeling and conceptual input, participants in this study engaged in six role-plays, each involving a problem requiring pragmatic accommodation. The data from transcribed role-plays were analyzed in terms of pragmatic discourse functions and NVivo-based thematic threads. The generally successful application of the targeted skills and concepts by course end most likely resulted from the engaging meta-pragmatic interactions preceding the role-plays, and the formal and informal instructor feedback related to implicature, prosody, implicit understandings, direct conversation strategies, grammar, and vocabulary.

This is a follow on to the previous piece, probably the second of three or four: 

Van Dyke, A. & Acton, W. (2022). Spontaneous classroom engagement facilitating development of L2 pragmatic competence: A naturalistic study. Pedagogical Linguistics 3(1) 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.20011.van

As reported in a previous blogpost, we'll be doing a pre-convention institute at the 2023 TESOL convention next March in Portland, based on our research. By then the next phase of the analysis, centering on prosodics and pragmatics should be in "presentable form." See you there! 

50 ways to say "Haptic Pronunciation Teaching is BEST!"

About 30 years ago, at the KOTESOL annual conference, I did a plenary talk, something of a demonstration of the power of using gesture, prosody and expressiveness, entitled: 50 ways to say, good morning! (A take off either on a scene from Cyrano de Bergerac or song by Simon and Garfinkel.) Have continued to use that technique/trick ever since. It came off quite successfully, in fact, with an audience of over 100, where each person had to not only come up with a unique way to say "Good Morning!" but include a gesture to accompany it. One we had done "the 100," I then went back and pointed out something of the range of emotional, prosodic and gestural overlays that were evident. (Try it sometime!) 

CAVEAT EMPTOR: The following is very much fun and decidedly PRO-KINETIK!!! (But, also, pretty much accurate!) 

Now, instead of using the same words with varied overlays, here are 50 REASONs why Haptic Pronunciation Teaching in the new KINETIK method, including the "Embodied Oral Reading/Recast System" (EORRS) is, in my humble opinion, simply the best. 

KINETIK 

1. is "full-body" based and fun
2. is based in embodiment theory
3. develops "mindful" body awareness
4. is based, in part on American Sign Language
5. is based, in part, on Observed Experiential Observation 
6. uses gesture synchronized speech
7. uses gesture-managed, spontaneous speaking
8. is based in the neuroscience of touch
9. is rhythm-based, done first before anything else!
10. includes just the essentials of pronunciation
11. is almost as good online as in person (if not better)
12. is easy to learn to teach with (one technique at a time)
13. is inexpensive to learn to teach with ($500 minimum for complete system)
14. is inexpensive for students (It requires little, if any special materials, just access to online training videos)
15. uses "regular" course content for teaching pronunciation
16. can be applied in any skill area class
17. is great for in class correction and feedback
18. is excellent, with straightforward homework system
19. is great for modeling sentences, phrases, idioms
20. strongly enhances memory for vocabulary 
21. strongly enhances expressiveness
22. requires very little or no background in linguistics or phonetics to use it effectively
23. requires very little or no background in language teaching to use it effectively
24. uses (near revolutionary) "Embodied Oral Reading and Recast System"
25. consistently enhances student confidence in speaking
26. can be applied to a learner's L1 sound system
27. engages better breathing and posture
28. helps develop better abs!
29. facilitates feasible peer correction and feedback
30. is a complete scaffolded, method
31. has highly personalized weekly face to face session (or on Zoom)
32. facilitates development of rapport in the classroom
33. is based on quality dialogic instruction (instructor-student, and student-student)
34. has an amazing technique for [th]
35. has an amazing technique for [r/l]
36. has an amazing technique for linking
37. has an amazing technique for word-final voiced obstruents
38. has an amazing techniques for discourse orientation (prosody between speakers)
39. facilitates enhanced visual presence on screen/zoom
40. creates a relaxed classroom milieu
41. is applicable for learners of all ages
42. is applicable for learners of all proficiency levels
43. is applicable for classes of all sizes
44. is applicable for use in literacy training
45. is based on over 50 years of pronunciation teaching experience
46. is based on about 35 years of kinaesthetic pronunciation teaching
47. is based on over 15 years of effective haptic pronunciation teaching
48. is adaptable for special needs instruction
49. is applicable for accent reduction
50. makes some kinds of drill "great" again

For more information, goto: www.actonhaptic.com/kinetik/ or email me directly: wracton@gmail.com

Why feedback on pronunciation (often) fails--and how to make it work better.

Clker.com

We are getting a much better idea from research as to what kind of feedback from teachers seems to produce best results in a range of contexts (various mixes of explanation, modeling and guided practice). Notice that I said SEEMS to produce best results. New research by Winstone and colleagues at the University of Surrey and Aston University (summarized by Science Daily) suggests there may be something else going on here that significantly contributes to the puzzle: what learners DO with the feedback, not the feedback, itself.

In a meta-analysis of a large number of studies in education, they found that the actual form of feedback was not contributing as much variance to results as was how students followed up on that feedback, either on their own, or preferably in some kind of ongoing dialogue with their instructor. Their primary recommendation is that we "talk" with learners more, seeing feedback more as a process rather than an event. If you do process writing, you certainly know what they are getting at.

A good example of "one way" feedback in pronunciation work is a nice study by Darcy and Ewert (2013) where explicit feedback and improvement on suprasegmentals (rhythm, stress and intonation) was associated with the kind of feedback provided. From the absract:

An analysis of classroom treatment recordings demonstrates that explicit phonetic instruction that makes learners notice L2 features (i.e., explicit presentation of contents, guided analysis and
practice, and corrective feedback.

What that research report did not look at systematically is how those four classroom activities actually happened. You could imagine a wide range of "interactivity" between instructors and students going on during any of those. In other words, something worked . . . but why exactly. According to Winstone et al., just listing those classroom pedagogical practices, especially the last does not tell really tell us much--or help us predict how well the same study would go with a different instructor who might be more or less "dialogic" in her teaching style.

In a 2016 study which complements that research, Feedback on second language pronunciation: A case study of EAP teachers beliefs and practices, Baker and Burri examine what EAP teachers believe about feedback and providing it. From the extensive literature review and the data analysis one question or theme in effect, did not even come up: What do students actually DO with the feedback you (or teachers, in general) provide--and how important is that?

That the researchers did not probe that line of inquiry, itself, reflects the near complete absence of research on what students consistently do either in class or out of class with pronunciation feedback, i.e., correction of various kinds. Teachers in the study did see the value of individualized feedback, which, if done face to face, would almost certainly involve monitoring of student response to feedback and a more dialogic approach to exploitation of feedback.

Granted, studying dialogic classroom engagement between instructors and learners to find out what is really going on is both time consuming and expensive, but you almost have to go there to figure out some of this. You can at least do that in your own classroom. 

Baker and Burri conclude by recommending use of oral journaling, for example, where students can be directed in any number of ways to actively work with teacher-provided feedback. That practice is, in fact, quite popular with language instructors in general, but I have been unable to find published research examining, in depth, what learners actually do with feedback in journaling or elsewhere that may significantly impact effectiveness of learning and uptake of targeted forms.

Welcome your contribution of other research sources and  feedback on this! 


Citations:

Baker, A. and Burri, M. (2016) Feedback on second language pronunciation: A case study of EAP teachers beliefs and practices, Australian Journal of Education 41(6). 
Gordon, J., Darcy, I., and Ewert, D. (2013) Pronunciation teaching and learning: Effects of explicit phonetic instruction in the L2 classroom. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th
Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference. Aug. 2012. (pp. 194-206). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.University of Surrey. (2016, September 21). Research shows that how students engage with feedback is as important as its content. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 2, 2016 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160921084806.htm

Haptic dance, Aikido and the future of language (and pronunciation) teaching

Clker.com

For an intriguing glance at what future language (or pronunciation) teaching may "look" like, check out the following "haptic dances" by media artist, Landau: Exploratory Dance 1.1, and Motor Imagery Dance. Computer-mediated mirroring will be key; not just culturally appropriate body movement and gestures, for example, but gesture-synchronized speech as well (not unlike what we see in haptic pronunciation teaching, not surprisingly!)

Another piece or theoretical model of what that process will involve is evident in this article in Gesture focusing on the full-body, dialogic "dance" between opponents in Aikido,"The coordination of moves in Aikido interaction." Lefebvre's 2016 framework was developed examining the interplay involved, created with the goal of being able to better characterize the way entire bodies communicate with each other, the intricate synchrony of moves and counters that characterizes all "conversation".

Aikido embodies the moves of your opponent, in part by almost subliminally synchronizing the body to the motion coming at you. Bouts are "won" often by simply redirecting or escorting one's opponent to the floor or out of the ring. (That was, by the way, my wife's basic approach to dealing with first graders: You cannot possibly just block them or stop them, but you can almost always deftly redirect their energy and motion more to your purposes!)

What those two systems in part provide us with is the beginnings of a framework by which to design methodologies that (literally) embody language models, including technology that "manages" articulation as well. There have been for quite some time haptic systems that assist patients with various articulatory conditions, guiding the vocal apparatus in producing more "normal" speech patterns.

Embodied, computer-mediated language learning, something analogous to the Aikido experience, will provide learners with a way to (safely and completely) give themselves over to the "dance" as they are guided to speak and move with models, and ultimately be able to adopt and use the energies, words and moves of the L2, themselves--faster and more efficiently.

This is one dance you'll not want to miss! In the meantime, of course, you might prepare by doing some Aikido--and Haptic Pronunciation Teaching!

Full citations:
Daniel Landau - http://www.daniel-landau.com/about
Lefebvre, A. The coordination of moves in Aikido interaction. Gesture 5(2) 123-155.