Deliberate (pronunciation) practice!

"Deliberate practice" as described in a Science Magazine summary report on an experiment using it at the University of British Columbia is an 
" . . . active, iterative process that involves working through their misconceptions with fellow students and getting immediate feedback from the instructor . . . [based on] the latest research in cognitive science, neuroscience, and learning theory . . . [that] begins with the instructor giving students a multiple-choice question on a particular concept, which the students discuss in small groups before answering electronically. Their answers reveal their grasp of (or misconceptions about) the topic, which the instructor deals with in a short class discussion before repeating the process with the next concept."

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Breathtaking huh! (Boldface there is mine. In elementary education the analogy would be the KWL chart on the wall: what we know, what we want to learn and what we learned.) So, how would we apply that amazing process in pronunciation teaching? I'm not entirely sure at this point, but I'm sure there is a cognitive phonologist out there someplace who can not only tell us how but who would take that and run with it. I have seen comments in various studies where student beliefs about pronunciation were "discussed" or where students were provided with the opportunity to talk about those issues in journaling, etc., but not in a systematic, interactive class and small group process. In one of the upcoming pilot studies with learners of sufficiently high general competence to pull it off, we'll give that a try. In fact, it should be possible to work out a general set of brief multiple choice tests to go along with each protocol for students. Let me discuss it with my "small group" here and get back to you . . . 

Individual versus pair work in (haptic-integrated) pronunciation teaching

The advice out there on using pair and group work in pronunciation teaching is mixed. For focusing on the comprehensibility side, for example, Gilbert and others have developed a range of effective communicative pair instruction formats where articulation of the sound is essential to meaning. In general, the enthusiasm for group and pair work, although well documented in other areas of instruction, has not been validated, the subject of published research in pronunciation teaching. Neither has peer-based monitoring and correcting of oral production in class, especially at the segmental level, been systematically explored. The same applies for what goes on in individual practice or after class in the form of homework or ad hoc student-initiated practices. (There are a few examples, such as Stevick's classic, Success with foreign language learning . . .  available on Amazon.com for about $265 now!) That is all indicative of an overall "non-clinical" approach to instruction in the field today--the motivation for this blog!
     Most would agree that both group and individual work are advantageous in all contexts but often unrealistic in some settings as well. In EHIEP work, for effective results, both must be exploited continuously. The key--somewhat being enabled now by the development of cheap, accessible web-based technology--is the idea that  outside of class learners should be able to learn and practice key pronunciation features from mirroring video models (See previous post.) At the same time they should also be working on their own, personal word lists and mini-dialogues, embedding and embodying new and changed elements. Efficient integration of pronunciation instruction in class and subsequent integration by students of those targets into their spontaneous speech, requires both effective "inside out" personal work and "outside in" social practice. The next breakthrough in pronunciation teaching is "mirror-ly" a matter of time--and (haptic-integrated) technology--as individualized practice first more systematically complements and then ultimately replaces the classroom. Keep in touch. 

Overcoming resistance to sticky, classroom-based pronunciation

Clip art: Clker

The (Stick-y!) EHIEP approach is based on the concept of providing accessible group-based and classroom-based essential pronunciation instruction for relatively untrained teachers. The 8, 30-minute training sessions (either "live" or on video) and follow ups  are designed to, in effect, "outsource" the initial training in the procedures so that they can be subsequently used by both teacher and students. The content is almost entirely "conversational language" focused. Since the basic instruction is constructed to be done by the class as a whole, for most part using choral "whole body" repetition or mirroring, it is critical that everybody in the room is on the same "somatic wave length." In the linked rather straightforward (working paper-like) research study on overcoming resistance to change in organizations, Pardo del Val and Martínez provide an interesting summary in Table 2 of the preliminary results of their (undated) study, ranking the sources of resistance. (The significance of the relative rankings is also not reported at this stage of the study.) Their list at least provides a fascinating look at the range of sources of resistance to organizational change in the study and in the literature. Even the rough ranking is revealing. Consider that list (or potential rubric) from the perspective of getting the right degree of "buy in" to your classroom pronunciation work, especially as we attempt to teach to and with the group initially, not just the individual. That list works for attempts to change any organization, of course, but I have found it very helpful in figuring out how and what to emphasize in orienting students and teacher trainees to the system:

• Deep-rooted values (2.70) That one, especially in relation to cultural attitudes toward body engagement and experiential learning just about says it all. 
• Capabilities gap (2.42) That we can fix.
• Departmental politics (2.42) That may not be reparable . . . 
• Low motivation due to cannibalization costs and cross subsidy comforts (2.31) That is about the only one that does not translate rather easily or analogically, but I love the image!
• Incommensurable beliefs (2.31) Ideas don't die . . . people do. 
• Different interests among employees and management (2.27) Ideas don't die, people do . . . 
• Communication barriers (2.23)
• Organizational silence (2.20) That can be a positive as well! 
• Low motivation due to direct costs of change (2.15) Especially the social or psychological costs involved. 
• Myopia, denial, perpetuation of ideas, implicit assumptions (2.11) A good methods course should be a corrective in that regard. 
• Lack of a creative response due to fast and complex environmental changes (2.05) That one we can manage. 
• Lack of a creative response due to inadequate strategic vision (2.04) That one is crucial and seems to be a key variable predicting success of EHIEP work. 
• Change values opposite to organizational values (2.04) Or the contemporary methodological perspectives on the role of the body in learning, in general. 
• Forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes due to obsession of promoter (2.01)
• Lack of a creative response due to resignation (1.96) You have to use a different sense of "resignation" there to make that one work, of course. 
• Leadership inaction, embedded routines, collective action problems (1.94)
• Cynicism (1.84) Good to see this one so far "down" the list!
• Forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes due to forgetting supervisors (1.67)
• Low motivation due to past failures (1.65) This one ought to be further up the list, I'd think, too. 

                                                             Sorry about the longish post there. It was also LONG overdue!