Bite your chopstick, knave! (How restricting imitation might enhance empathy but not pronunciation teaching!)

This piece from Neurosciencenews.com (or as we tend to call it: New-Old-Science) on empathy and imitation, using chopsticks, is just too much fun to let pass. The study  by Matsuda et al at Hokaido University, titled “Imitation inhibition and facial expression recognition: Imitation-inhibition training inhibits the impact of interference with facial mimicry”, was basically getting at something similar to the "startle reflex," that is responding (sometimes) too fast emotionally. That is a common feature of PTSD, the body processing things way ahead of the conscious mind; you respond, in effect, without thinking. At some level, empathy is also like that. 

In the study, the treatment group was trained to "respond more slowly" to images on a screen by having to perform an action with fingers requiring some processing time. The "pièce de résistance," however, was that in the test phase, both the treatment and control groups were required to bite down on a chopstick which (quote) " . . .  inhibited their ability to mimic facial expressions." With that add on filter, the chopstick, the treatment group was better/faster at recognizing facial expressions than the control group. Now exactly why the chopstick was necessary is not explained, but it was apparently needed to cancel out initial, unconscious facial/physical imitation that would have complicated things. 

The conclusion: "These results suggest that imitation-inhibition training increases self-reported empathy and allows for a similar level of recognition of others’ emotional states, regardless of discrepancies between the condition of self and others."

Wow . . . 

So . . . suppressing initial emotional response, in this case realized in facial imitation, enhances empathy partially defined as being able to recognize emotions in others. That is certainly an aspect of the metacognitive dimension of empathy, or maybe empathy, Japanese style? I have lived there; could be, in fact!

But what might that same suppression of imitative "mirroring" do during learning, of pronunciation, let's say . . . I can tell you, actually. 

That is a near perfect metaphor or analogy for instruction that either formally or informally restricts body response and engagement, which is far too often the case. Imitation today has a bad name in the field, in part, seen as being essentially simplistic, noncognitive. Consequently, that is how it is treated or applied, dismissed as being not meaningful enough or superficial. And without holistic body engagement in the first place, that is . . . well . . . accurate. 

The implicit restrictions today on spontaneous body response, to a large extent the result of  conscious/cognitive bias and media (versus face-to-face interaction) involvement in the field--at least in  adult education--work against us, the learner and learning. 

The "chopstick chomp" at least has entertainment value . . . and being able to read other's emotions, detached from your body and your own has got to be a good thing, occasionally.  

So try the "Chopstick Chomp" with your friends playing a game that normally involves some emotional juice, or with your class sometime. I have. The effect is sometimes "dramatic;" sometimes, not. 

There, of course, is a better way to do pronunciation!

Keep in touch!

Bill

Original Research: Closed access.
“Imitation inhibition and facial expression recognition: Imitation-inhibition training inhibits the impact of interference with facial mimicry” by Naoyoshi Matsuda et al. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society

Touching pronunciation teaching: a haptic Pas de trois

Wikipedia.org

For you ballet buffs this should "touch home" . . . The traditional "Pas de trois" in ballet typically involves 3 dancers who move through 5 phases: Introduction, 3 variations, each done by at least one dancer, and then a coda of some kind with all dancing.

A recent article by Lamothe in the UK Guardian, Let's touch: why physical connection between human beings matters, reminded us of some the earliest work we did in haptic pronunciation teaching that involved students working together in pairs, "conducted" by the instructor, in effect "touching" each other on focus words or stressed syllables in various ways, on various body parts.

In today's highly "touch sensitive" milieu, any kind of interpersonal touching is potentially problematic, especially "cross-gender" or "cross-power plane", but there still is an important place for it, as Lamothe argues persuasively. Maybe even in pronunciation teaching!

Here is one example from haptic pronunciation teaching. Everything in the method can be done using intra-personal and interpersonal touch, but this one is relatively easy to "see" without a video to demonstrate the interpersonal version of it:

• Students stand face to face about a foot apart. Instructor demonstrates a word or phrase, tapping her right shoulder (with left hand) on stressed syllables and left elbow (with right hand) on unstressed syllables--the "Butterfly technique". 

As teacher and students then repeat the word or phrase together,

• One student will lightly tap the other on the outside of the her right shoulder on stressed syllables (using her left hand).

• The other student will lightly tap the outside of the other student's left elbow on unstressed syllables (using her right hand). 

Note: Depending on the socio-cultural context, and depending on what the general attire of the class is, having all students use some kind of hand "disinfectant" may be in order! Likewise, pairing of students obviously requires knowing well both them individually and the interpersonal dynamics of the class. Consider competition among pairs or teams using the same technique. 

If you do have the class and context for it, try a bit of it, for instance on a few short idioms. It takes a little getting used to, but the impact of touch in this relatively simple exercise format--and the close paralinguistic "communication"-- can be very dramatic and . . . touching.

Keep in touch!

Enhanced courage and L2 pronunciation through acute alcohol consumption!

Clker.com

Some studies are enough to drive you to drink . . . and then miss numerous unaccounted for sources of variance.

You may have seen popular commentary on this recent study, "Dutch courage? Effects of acute alcohol consumption on self-ratings and observer ratings of foreign language skills" by Renner, Kersbergen, Field, and Werthmann of the University of Liverpool, published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.  (ScienceDaily recast the title as: "Dutch courage: Alcohol improves foreign language skills."

This study had potential. What they found, basically, was that rater evaluation of pronunciation , as opposed to overall speech production, was better but  (interestingly!) that the subjects, themselves, did not perceive their L2 speech to be better. The subjects had been provided with a pint of something a bit earlier--not the raters or the experimenters, as far as we can tell.

Another relatively interesting feature was that the evaluations were done by blindfolded judges (which in itself, may have been problematic as noted in recent blogposts here) and the speech was evaluated during dialogue (interesting, again, but not sufficiently unpacked), not just with controlled repetition in a laboratory setting as had been the case in many past studies (e.g., summary of  Guiora et al, 1972 by Ellis).

Two terminological issues:

• By "acute" the researchers indicate that it was a "low dose", one pint of 5% beer or equivalent. Now in the field of psychopharmacology that term, acute, may just mean something like "one time" or unusual. (I find conflicting opinions on that.) In normal North American English usage, of course, that usually is taken to mean something like: severe, critical, long term, etc. --or, of course, insightful, attention to detail, etc.  In Guiora, et al (1972) the alcohol dosage where the main effect was evident was at about one ounce of alcohol in a cocktail, roughly equivalent to that used in this study--but it was not described as "acute!"
•  The subjects were termed "bilingual" (absent any empirical measurement of what that meant exactly) who had learned dutch "recently", at best a loose interpretation of what "bilingual" is generally taken to mean in the field today. That proficiency question may have had significant impact on the outcome of study, in fact.

So, why was the perceived improvement in subjects' speech just in their pronunciation, not other aspects of their speech or behavior? In Guiora et al (1972), for example, to explore that effect, subjects also had to perform a motor skill task, putting shaped blocks in holes of different shapes. What they found, not surprisingly, was at the 1-ounce level, both pronunciation improved and manual dexterity declined. The "physical" correlate was clear. One of the main criticisms of that alcohol study was that the alcohol effect may have been primarily "just" loosening up of the muscles and vocal mechanism, not some more higher level cognitive functioning. (Brown, 1989, also cited in Ellis, above).

Guiora et al (1972) were ultimately looking for the impact of that effect on "language ego", perception of one's identity in the L2. In a way they found that--a correlate. It is to some extent a matter of design directionality: loosening up the body does the same to the vocal mechanism. Will it be any surprise to find out that other non-pharmacological yet still "somatic" treatments, such as hypnosis, mindfulness or simply kinaesthetic engagement, such as gestural (or even haptic) work do something similar? Not at all.

In other words, the "pharmacogs" seem to have come up with a possible explanation for a well-appreciated phenomenon: after a shot, you'll be more courageous (or foolhardy) and your L2 pronunciation will be perceived as improved as long as your date is blindfolded or the room is very dark--but you won't know it, or care . . .

A little more interdisciplinary research and theory-integration, along with more in depth concern for the relevant "cocktail cognitions" of the subjects, might have made this more a fun read. Of course, the ultimate source of insight on the effect of  alcohol will always be Brad Paisley!

Source:

Fritz Renner, Inge Kersbergen, Matt Field, Jessica Werthmann. Dutch courage? Effects of acute alcohol consumption on self-ratings and observer ratings of foreign language skills. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 2017; 026988111773568 DOI: 10.1177/0269881117735687

Bedside manner in (pronunciation) teaching: the BATHE protocol

Clker.com

Sometime the doctor-patient metaphor does work in our work!

Recovering from recent surgery here at home, and especially recalling the wonderful way that I was treated and prepared prior to the operation by the nurse in pre-op, this study, "Inpatient satisfaction improved by five-minute intervention," summarized by Augusta Free Press, published originally in Family Medicine by Pace, Somerville, Enyioha, Allen, J, Lemon and C. Allen of the University of Virginia really hit home, both as an interpersonal framework for dealing with problems in general and (naturally) pronunciation teaching!

The research looked at the effectiveness of a training system for preparing doctors better for talking with patients, bedside manner. In summary, patient satisfaction went up substantially, and time spent per patient generally went down. The acronym for the protocol is BATHE. Below is my paraphrase of what constitutes each phase of the process:

B - Start with getting concise background information with patients
A - Help them talk about how they are feeling (affect)
T - Together, review the problem (trouble)
H - Discuss how the problem is being handled.
E - Confirm your understanding of the situation and how the patient is feeling (empathy).

That is a deceptively elegant protocol. Next time you have a student (or colleague) or friend approach you with a difficult problem, keep that in mind. That also translates beautifully into pronunciation work, especially where there is appropriate attention to the body (like in haptic work, of course!) Here is how the acronym plays out in our work:

B - Start with providing a concise explanation of the target, also eliciting from students what their understanding is of what you'll be working on.
A - Anchor the target sound in a way that learners get a good "felt sense" of it, i.e., awareness and control of the sensations in the vocal track and upper body
T - Together, talk through the "cash value" and functional load of the target and practice the target sound(s) in isolation and context. 
H - Discuss how the student may be handling the problem already, or could, and what you'll do together going forward, including homework and follow up in the classroom in the future.
E - Finally, go back to brief, active, "physical" review and anchoring of the sound, also providing some realistic guidance as to the process of integrating the sound or word into their active speaking, especially the role of consistent, systematic practice.

One remarkable feature of that system, other then the operationalized empathy, of course, is the way it creates a framework for staying focused on the problem and solution. How does that map on to your own "BATHE-side manner?"

Empathy for strangers: better heard and not seen? (and other teachable moments)

The technique of closing one's eyes to concentrate has both everyday sense and empirical research support. For many, it is common practice in pronunciation and listening comprehension instruction. Several studies of the practice under various conditions have been reported here in the past. A nice 2017 study by Kraus of Yale University, Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy, examines the effect from several perspectives.
😑
What the research establishes is that perception of the emotion encoded in the voice of a stranger is more accurately determined with eyes closed, as opposed to just looking at the video or watching the video with sound on. (Note: The researcher concedes in the conclusion that the same effect might not be as pronounced were one listening to the voice of someone we are familiar or intimate with, or were the same experiments to be carried out in some culture other than "North American".) In the study there is no unpacking of just which features of the strangers' speech are being attended to, whether linguistic or paralinguistic, the focus being:
 . . . paradoxically that understanding others’ mental states and emotions relies less on the amount of information provided, and more on the extent that people attend to the information being vocalized in interactions with others.
😑
The targeted effect is statistically significant, well established. The question is, to paraphrase the philosopher Bertrand Russell, does this "difference that makes a difference make a difference?"--especially to language and pronunciation teaching?
😑
How can we use that insight pedagogically? First, of course, is the question of how MUCH better will the closed eyes condition be in the classroom and even if it is initially, will it hold up with repeated listening to the voice sample or conversation? Second, in real life, when do we employ that strategy, either on purpose or by accident? Third, there was a time when radio or audio drama was a staple of popular media and instruction. In our contemporary visual media culture, as reflected in the previous blog post, the appeal of video/multimedia sources is near irresistible. But, maybe still worth resisting?
😑
Especially with certain learners and classes, in classrooms where multi-sensory distraction is a real problem, I have over the years worked successfully with explicit control of visual/auditory attention in teaching listening comprehension and pronunciation. (It is prescribed in certain phases of hapic pronunciation teaching.) My sense is that the "stranger" study actually is tapping into comprehension of new material or ideas, not simply new people/relationships and emotion. Stranger things have happened, eh!
😑
If this is a new concept to you in your teaching, close your eyes and visualize just how you could employ it next week. Start with little bits, for example when you have a spot in a passage of a listening exercise that is expressively very complex or intense. For many, it will be an eye opening experience, I promise!
😑

Source:
Kraus, M. (2017). Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy, American Psychologist 72(6)344-654.

Metacognitive competence: Know thy L1, L1C and inner parts to better acquire L2 and L2C

Clker.com

As reported in the Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (and summarized by medicalxpress.com), Böckler of the Max Planck Institute and Maxmilians of the University of Würzburg seem to have established empirically yet again--or maybe for the first time--what the ancient Egyptians had observed: "Man, know thyself, and you are going to know the gods". Well, their study is a bit more modest. You should at least be capable of gaining a better understanding of the "mental state" of others.

In the 3-month study that focused on "perspective taking" skills, including their "superpersonalities" and (I like this) their "inner parts" subjects developed enhanced ability to understand the position of the Other--which should result in improved engagement and learning. Psychologically healthy empathy operationalized, not just the ability to "sync" with others but beginning from a realistic and grounded understanding of who we are.

Have been unable to find any recent research or even reports on current practice where learners first go through a systematic "pre-language learning" program, gaining formal metacognitive and experiential knowledge of their L1 and L1 culture before actually getting to the L2. (My only first hand experience with that was the 3-months or so of military basic training that I went through in the US Air Force prior to beginning a one-year ALM experience in Russian language. Near perfect preparation!)

There are, of course, hundreds of studies looking at learner readiness and aptitude. In addition, most of us would contend that we continually do things and set up conditions that work toward enhancing learning, in effect accomplishing the same thing, in some sense like the B&M study. Culture and pragmatics are now thoroughly integrated (in theory) in instruction; L1 usage and reference are now much more widely accepted as well.

Many programs and courses place importance on general cultural awareness; some use the structure and sound system of the L1 as a point of departure as well. In haptic pronunciation teaching (EHIEP), for example, it is recommended, whenever possible, to train learners in the basics of the L1 sound system before introducing them to English or at least early on in the process. 

In our MATESOL program we are now using for the first time a "know thyself" instrument, the Strength Deployment Inventory, that shows promise in developing some of the same kind of "metacognitive competence". Tell us how you get at the same target in your pronunciation (or any other kind of) teaching! That is if you are aware of it . . .

Anne Böckler of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Science and Julius Maximilians University Würzburg in Germany

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-thyself.html#jC

nne Böckler et al, Know Thy Selves: Learning to Understand Oneself Increases the Ability to Understand Others, Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s41465-017-0023-6

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-thyself.html#jCp

nne Böckler et al, Know Thy Selves: Learning to Understand Oneself Increases the Ability to Understand Others, Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s41465-017-0023-6

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-thyself.html#jCp

(Really) great body-enhanced pronunciation teaching

If you are interested in using gesture more effectively in your teaching, a new 2016 study by Nguyen, A micro-analysis of embodiments and speech in the pronunciation instruction of one ESL teacher, is well worth reading. The study is, by design, wisely focused more on what the instructor does with her voice and body during instruction, not on student learning, uptake or in-class engagement.

The literature review establishes reasonably well the connection between the gesture described in the study and enhanced student learning of language and pronunciation. I can almost not imagine a better model of integrated gestural use in pronunciation teaching . . . The instructor is a superb performer, as are many who love teaching pronunciation. (Full disclosure: From the photos in the article I recognize the instructor, a master teacher with decades of experience in the field teaching speaking and pronunciation.)

From decades of work with gesture, myself, one of the most consistent predictors of effective use of gesture in teaching is how comfortable the instructor feels with "dancing" in front of the students and getting them to move along with her. The research on body image and identity and embodiment are unequivocal on that: to move others, literally and figuratively, you must be comfortable with your own body and its representation in public.

Knowing this instructor I do not need to see the video data to understand how her personal presence could command learner attention and (sympathetic, non-conscious) body movement, or her ability to establish and maintain rapport in the classroom. Likewise, I have not the slightest doubt that the students' experience and learning in that milieu are excellent, if not extraordinary.

The report is a fascinating read, illustrating use of various gestures and techniques, including body synchronization with rhythm and stress, and beat gesture associated with stress patterning. If you can "move" like that model, you got it. When it comes to this kind of instruction, however, the "klutzes" are clearly in the majority, probably for a number of reasons.

The one popular technique described, using stretching of rubber bands to identify stressed or lengthened vowels is often effective--for at least presenting the concept. It is marginally haptic, in fact, using both movement and some tactile anchoring in the process (the feeling of the rubber band pressing differentially on the inside of the thumbs.) In teacher training I sometimes use that technique to visually illustrate what happens to stressed vowels or those occurring before voiced consonants, in general. There is no study that I am aware of, however, that demonstrates carry over of "rubber banding" to changes in spontaneous speech or even better memory for the specific stressed syllables in the words presented in class. I'd be surprised to find one in fact.

In part the reason for that, again well established in research on touch, is that the brain is not very good at remembering degrees of pressure of touch. Likewise, clapping hands on all syllables of a word or tapping on a desk but a bit harder on the stressed syllable should not, in principle, be all that effective. That observation was, in fact, one of the early motivations for developing the haptic pronunciation teaching system.  By contrast, isolated touch, usually at a different locations on the body, seems to work much better to create differentiated memory for stress assignment. (All haptic techniques are based on that assumption.)

I, myself, taught like the model in the research for decades, basically using primarily visual-kinesthetic modeling and some student body engagement to teach pronunciation. The problem was trying to train new teachers on how to do that effectively. For a while I tried turning trainees into (somewhat) flamboyant performers like myself. I gave up on that project about 15 years ago and began figuring out how to use gesture effectively even if you, yourself, are not all that comfortable with doing it, a functional . . . klutz.

The key to effective gesture work is ultimately that the learner's body must be brought to move both in response to the instructor's presentation and in independent practice, perhaps as homework.(Lessac's dictum: Train the body first!)  Great performers accomplish that naturally, at least in presenting the concepts. The haptic video teaching system is there for those who are near totally averse to drawing attention to their body up front, but, in general, managed gesture is very doable. There are a number of (competing) systems today that do that. See the new haptic pronunciation teaching certificate, if interested in the most "moving and touching" approach.

Citation:
Nguyen, Mai-Han. (2016). A micro-analysis of embodiments and speech in the pronunciation instruction of one ESL teacher. Issues in Applied Linguistics. appling_ial_24274. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/993425h1

Alexander Guiora - Requiescat in pace

Last month the field of language teaching and language sciences lost a great friend, colleague, researcher and theorist, Alexander Guiora, retired Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan. To those of us in English language teaching, his early work into the concepts of empathy, "language ego" and second language identity, the famous "alcohol" study and others, were foundational in keeping mind and the psychological self foregrounded in the field. As Executive Editor of the journal, Language Learning, he was instrumental in elevating it to the place it holds today, the standard for research publication by which all others are to be measured.

Working with him, doing research as a doctoral student was a unique experience. His research group, composed of faculty and graduate students from several disciplines over the years, met every Friday morning. There was always a project underway or on the drawing boards. Several important, seminal publications resulted. Shonny was an extraordinary man. I recently shared the following with his family:

I think the great lesson we learned from him early on was how to be brutally honest--and yet still love and respect our colleagues unconditionally. All of us, recalling when were newbie grad students, "cherish" memories of being jumped all over for making a really stupid mistake-- which we would surely never commit again! And then, minutes later, he could just as well say something genuinely complimentary about an idea or phrasing in a piece that we were responsible for. Talk about cultivating and enhancing "language researcher ego"! He taught us to think and argue persuasively from valid research, how to not take criticism of our work, personally. Few of us did not develop with him a lasting passion for collaborative research.