Meta-coupling: Freeing mind, map and project from the chimera of AI

Caveat emptier: This post was drafted with help from an AI assistant (Perplexity)— but ideated and edited extensively by the human, Bill Acton. Also, at the very end is my usual quick soft sell on IDshield!

We may have rushed to “use AI,” but the key 21st‑century skill set is up another level: meta‑coupling—the ongoing ability to know how AI is shaping your work and thinkinig while you are using it, and to adjust that relationship on purpose, dynamically. Meta‑coupling asks, “What did AI add here, what did I add, and is that actually the mix I want?” 

Clker.com

Instead of treating AI as a magic typewriter, meta‑coupling turns it into an explicit, visible, yet subordinate "partner" whose influence you must monitor, identify, and generally resist. You are not only writing the email, lesson plan, or sales pitch; you are also tracking the hand‑offs between your judgment and the model’s suggestions; you uncouple to manage the process. 

From “Using AI” to a meta-cognitive grounded relationship

Most advice stops at “Use AI for brainstorming, then rewrite in your own words.” Helpful, but shallow at best. Meta‑coupling goes much further. It requires you to notice:

• Who framed the problem—me or the model?  
• Who/what chose the structure—my sense of the audience, or the ghost in the machine (deux ex machina)?  
• Which features I could still defend or justify on my own, without AI.

That shift matters. Research in both education and management notes that generative AI can either erode critical thinking or strengthen it, depending on whether people simply accept outputs or actively interrogate and revise them. If you stay coupled to AI from start to finish, the system quietly does the heavy lifting: it chooses what counts as important, supplies the wording, and even suggests the tone. When you meta‑couple, you deliberately "uncouple" at key junctures to question, reframe, and revise, so your analysis and experience remain constantly in play. 

Think of AI as a fast, opinionated collaborator who never tires (but should!). Meta‑coupling is, in part, the habit of stepping back regularly and asking: “Is this still my project . . ?” 

Schools that are teaching meta‑coupling

Some schools are already designing around this deeper layer. At Stamford American International School in Singapore, teachers report explicitly presenting AI as a “thinking partner, not an answer machine.” Students might ask AI for example, for multiple interpretations of a text or different solutions to a problem, but then the "real" work begins: they have to critique those outputs, compare them, and explain what they accept, what they reject, and why. That kind of structured reflection—using AI to generate ideas and then teaching students how to evaluate them—is exactly what recent studies recommend for building (or at least maintaining!) critical thinking in the age of generative AI. 

Meta‑coupling is built right into the assignments. Students must be able to identify which ideas came from AI, where they see bias or gaps, and how their own perspective differs. They are not just consuming AI answers; they are practicing the move: “Here’s what the system offered—and here is what I think about it,” and how to continue the dialectic to conclusion. 

A similar pattern shows up in university programs that use AI to enhance experiential learning. At the University of South Florida, for example, faculty development efforts encourage instructors to use AI to simulate negotiations or customer interactions, while insisting that students still build deep subject understanding and reflective practice outside the tool. Faculty are learning to ask not only, “Did this AI scenario help?” but “Where should AI carry the load, and where must students still stand on their own understanding?”—a classic meta‑coupling question.

Businesses that keep humans in the pilot (not Copilot!) seat

Companies are discovering the same thing: the best results come when AI acts as co‑pilot, not autopilot. Analyses of human–AI collaboration show that performance improves when AI handles data‑heavy pattern‑spotting and humans retain ownership of context, values, and trade‑offs. Leaders are urged to treat AI recommendations as powerful input—not as final decisions—especially when the stakes are ethical, legal, or reputational. That is meta‑coupling at the leadership level. Instead of blindly “trusting the AI” or reflexively rejecting it, managers learn to:

• Treat AI outputs as hypotheses, not conclusions.  
• Probe where those suggestions come from and what they leave out.  
• Override the system when local knowledge or human impact demands it. 

AI speeds up the work; meta‑coupling keeps it accountable to human judgment.

The “UNCUPLE IT!” Meta‑coupling checklist

To make this concrete, here is more personified checklist. 

1. Spot the Hand‑Off – “Where did I give the wheel away?”  

Name exactly what you just outsourced: ideas, structure, wording, or fact‑checking. If you can’t say it in a phrase, AI may already be doing more than you think. 

2. Tag the source – “This line is mine; that block is bot.”  

 Look over the page and mentally label sections as YOU or AI. Make sure at least one key move—central idea, story, or structure—is unmistakably yours.

3. Flip the Frame – “If AI went dark and I lost this draft, what would/could I do?” 

Take any AI‑generated outline or argument and imagine one alternative way you could approach it. You don’t have to write it out; just prove your own route still exists. 

4. Unplug and Rewrite – “Close the tab, find my voice.” 

 Do one pass with AI turned off. Rearrange, cut, and rephrase until you can hear your own cadence and convictions, not the model’s neutral hum. Highly recommend that that be done reading OUT LOUD!

5. Interrogate the Output – “If this is wrong, where and why?” 

Treat AI as a challenger, not a judge. Ask what could be missing, biased, or flat‑out mistaken—and make your own call about which weaknesses matter.

6. Draw the line – “AI can help, but it cannot decide.”  

 Decide in advance which decisions AI is allowed to own, other than ethical judgments, promises you make to others, or anything signed with your name. 

Spot. Tag. Flip. Unplug. Interrogate. Draw the line. 

That’s the meta‑coupling rhythm —a relationship with AI that stays visible, adjustable, and genuinely human‑led.

Postscript: Meta‑coupling minds are harder to scam

There is one more bonus to cultivating a meta‑coupling mind: you become much harder to fool. Studies suggest that blind confidence in generative AI correlates with weaker critical thinking, while reflective, self‑aware use is linked to better scrutiny and decision quality. The same habit of asking, “Who really wrote this, and what are they trying to get me to do?” makes you far more likely to catch AI‑driven phishing, deepfake messages, and too‑smooth scam pitches before you click. 

You do not have to do all of that alone. A dedicated security service—such as IDShield (the company I'm with, BTW!)—can act as your always‑on first line of defense, monitoring for identity theft, suspicious activity, and emerging fraud patterns in the background, while your meta‑coupling instincts stay focused on what humans do best: noticing when something feels “off,” asking better questions, and choosing when to unplug, uncouple, and walk away.

References consulted by Perplexity AI; all confirmed for general relevance to the section appended

Conerly, B. (2026, January 20). Combining AI and human judgment in strategic business decisions. Forbes. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2026/01/20/combining-ai-and-human-judgment-in-strategic-business-decisions/)

Deloitte. (2026, March 3). 2026 global human capital trends. Deloitte Insights. (https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/human-capital-trends.html)

Frontiers Editorial. (2024). Using genAI in education: The case for critical thinking. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11564148/)

Larson, L., et al. (2024). *Critical thinking in the age of generative AI. Academy of Management Learning & Education. (https://research.vu.nl/files/382320511/larson-et-al-2024-critical-thinking-in-the-age-of-generative-ai.pdf)

Lee, J. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking. Microsoft Research. [(https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf)

Stamford American International School. (2025, November 5). AI in the classroom: Using technology to support, not replace, critical thinking. (https://www.sais.edu.sg/school-life/our-news-events/ai-in-the-classroom-using-technology-to-support-not-replace-critical-thinking/)

TechClass. (2026, January 30). How to blend AI insights with human judgment for better outcomes? (https://www.techclass.com/resources/learning-and-development-articles/how-to-blend-ai-insights-with-human-judgment-for-better-outcomes)

University of South Florida St. Petersburg. (2025, April 30). How educators are using AI to enhance, not replace, experiential learning. (https://www.stpetersburg.usf.edu/news/2025/how-educators-are-using-ai-to-enhance-not-replace-experiential-learning.aspx)

University of South Florida. (2025, July 13). USF equipping K–12 teachers with tools for an AI‑powered future. (https://www.usf.edu/education/news/2025/usf-equipping-k-12-teachers-with-tools-for-an-ai-powered-future.aspx)

University World News. (2026, January 27). Over 90% of faculty say GenAI is killing critical thinking. [universityworldnews](https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20260128145305278)

Center for Engaged Learning. (2025, March 24). Unlocking the link between generative AI confidence and critical thinking skills. (https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/unlocking-the-link-between-generative-ai-confidence-and-critical-thinking-skills/)

EDUCAUSE Review. (2025, March 5). AI as a thought partner in higher education. (https://er.educause.edu/articles/2025/4/ai-as-a-thought-partner-in-higher-education)

The New York Times. (2026, January 25). Why A.I. can’t make thoughtful decisions.(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/opinion/ai-human-judgment.html)

LinkedIn. (2025, December 15). AI as thinking partner, not answer machine.(https://www.linkedin.com/posts/leslie-ngugi-328a7313_ai-learning-criticalthinking-activity-7406611724923187200-AiiA)

wracton@gmail.com

williamacton.legalshieldassociate.com (Check this out both for both legal and ID protection, plus a promising small business opportunity!)

Distracting new research: Try some "strategic attention" or a millennial!

Clker.com

This could be either a sign of things to come or at least a pleasant "distraction."

I have done literally dozens of blogposts here (out of the roughly 1,000) that involve in some way the concept of "attention". Likewise, in our decade or so of experience with haptic pronunciation teaching, capturing the learner's attention--for at least 3 seconds--has been shown to be critical. Any number of factors may serve to seriously distract the student and undermine the process.


Now comes a study, Selectively Distracted: Divided Attention and Memory for Important Information, by Middlebrooks, Kerr, and Castel of UCLA, summarized by Sciencedaily.com, suggesting that background distraction can be overcome . . . by "strategic attention", characterized this way:

"The ability to prioritize high-value information during study was consistently immune to the effects of divided attention, regardless of the extent of the distractions that participants faced . . . the current results intimate that divided attention did not incapacitate metacognitive mechanisms in either of the current experiments leaving participants capable of judging their memory capacity, performance, and methods by which they might compensate for additional demands on attention (p. 32)"

Subjects were subjected to various distractions while learning sets of words, such music and having to attend to random numbers during the treatment phase. Although overall performance/recall was not quite as high among the "distracted", they were later equally successful in recalling key words in the post tests.

This sounds like partial validation of the "hyper-cognitivist's" position that just by pointing out (pronunciation) errors or pointing to key (phonological) features in texts, for example, learners may "uptake" such focused input and effectively make use of that information later. Could be. We have all witnessed such potentially "teachable moments", but with so many other things going on in the classroom environment, what are the chances, really?

According to the study, it all comes down to what has been prioritized by the learner, the instructor and the context. Wow. But wait . . . just who were the subjects? Any chance that they were just more naturally adept at dealing with distraction? 192 paid undergraduates, probably in introductory psychology courses, the usual guinea pigs in such studies. Interestingly, the researchers do not comment on the young millennials' social media competence.

Any number of other recent studies have observed, seemingly to the contrary, that the "hyper-media generation" is in some respects less capable of keeping their eye on the ball. (Even the NBA has gotten the message, planning to shorten games!) Surprise . . . 

The good news: Perhaps upcoming generations are in fact becoming more "immune" to distraction in learning and studying, especially in certain e-contexts.  If so, that has intriguing implications for instructional design and tolerance for random iPhone use in class.

The bad news: Wonky studies like this one can easily distract us (or at least me!) from the more important work of creating classrooms where our priority, our attention is focused totally on effective teaching and learning. Just thought that I should point that out . . .

Citations:
Association for Psychological Science. (2017, June 21). Strategic studying limits the costs of divided attention. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 26, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170621082442.htm

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

Remembering new pronunciation (or anything) . . . in a flash!

Here is another for your "So THAT's why it works" file, from neuroscience. (Hat tip: Robert Murphy.)

Clker.com

The phenomenon, explored by Morris and researchers at Edinburgh reported by Neuroscience News, is called: flashbulb memory. (See full citation below.) Working with mice, they found, basically, that a vivid, striking event can cause the release of dopamine by the locus coeruleus, which, in turn " . . . carries dopamine to the hippocampus . . . " which affects how effectively memories are stored.

So, if you (and your mouse) are about to learn something new--or just did, it will be remembered more efficiently if it is "bookended" by a "flashbulb" event . Talk about counter-intuitive! I have done dozens of posts over the years on how attention figures into learning. (In our haptic work, for example, we often note that we need the attention of the learner for only 3 seconds to anchor a new sound.) In the Neuroscience news summary it is noted that "Our research suggests that a skillful teacher may be able to take advantage of these little surprises to help pupils learn and remember.” Really? How so? They don't speculate--for good reason. How might you adopt that insight?

My first thought was to go find one of those camera flash attachments and try it out next week. But wait. There may be more to this, more than just dopamine.

About 35 years ago, I was very much interested in clinical hypnosis, in part as a way to better understand unconscious communication and learning in the classroom. One basic feature some models of trance work was that you had to be very careful to distract the learner (or client) immediately after a significant suggestion has been provided or "uploaded".

The explanation was that that would keep the conscious mind of the learner from deconstructing and dismissing or undermining the suggestion or metaphor, not letting it be absorbed in toto, in effect. That could be accomplished in any number of ways, such as switching topics abruptly, showing a picture or doing something more physical or kinaesthetic, such as standing up or a gesture of some kind.

In other words, the principle, of selectively partitioning off classroom experience makes sense. Rather than thinking in terms of always integrating the entire class period and lesson so that learners are metacognitively "on top of it all", so that they constantly know why they are learning what and consciously (metaphorically) attempting to file everything away for later use, think: switch-flash-divert-surprise.

I knew that my distinct tendency toward ADHD-like excessive multi-tasking was really a good thing! If you have a good "Flash dance" technique that you can share w/us, please do!

Keep in touch!

Full citation:
University of Edinburgh. (2016, September 8). How New Experiences Boost Memory Formation. NeuroscienceNews. Retrieved September 8, 2016 from http://neurosciencenews.com/experience-memory-neuroscience-4991/

Stop assigning pronunciation homework! (Unless it is systematic and you follow up on it!)

Clip art: Clker

Time to check your homework . . . How's this for a formula for success: Instruction (in class, f2f or online) + out-of-class-work + student ability and initiative. You with me so far? The key factor is often said to be the last one, which entails motivation and a number of other more personal variables, including being organized and disciplined. 

It is always good to have "just blame the student" (or his or her genes) on the list of legitimate excuses for lack of progress. It is, of course, the insidious flip side of metacognitive practice: train the learner how to manage his or her learning in and out of class--and then he or she is on his or her own. 

How does your homework or out of class practice regimen work? How do you know? Do you care? 

As reported is several other blogposts, the research on homework is extensive (in the field of Education and others) and all over the map. Every disciple speaks to that process is some fashion, even car manufacturing. 

Many intensive language programs (20+ hours per week) program in systematic practice on site or online that involve monitoring and assessment. Good for them. I'm only interested here in instruction where pronunciation is not the sole focus of the class but is integrated into other skill and content teaching. (Haptic-INTEGRATED)

Just as an example, a guideline, here is the general EHIEP approach:

Systematic homework practice is "the bottom line" of Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation (EHIEP) teaching system. Basically, when a word or phrase containing a problematic sound or sound process (e.g., rhythm, stress, juncture or intonation) is targeted it should be assigned to a list of some kind and briefly practiced by the learning outside of class about six times over the course of two weeks. (To understand what targeting and "haptic practice" is about in this method, check out the general description on the website.) The practice times and work done should also be noted in some kind of journal or "pronunciation log" for continuous review by the instructor. 

We should do a book on this--or at least develop a good comment thread on the topic below! There is a new appendix in AHEPS, v3.0 (rolling out this fall) on homework protocols. 

Keep in touch--and do your homework.

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!

Physical vs social domains in pronunciation work

Ever wonder why students may not be able to use a new piece of pronunciation in pair work or controlled conversation or on their way our the door? Forthcoming research (already!) published in NeuroImage by Jacka, Dawsona, Beganya, Leckiea, Barrya, Cicciab and Snyderc, fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains (in the brain) suggests part of the answer: "Regardless of presentation modality, we observed clear evidence of reciprocal suppression: social tasks deactivated regions associated with mechanical reasoning and mechanical tasks deactivated regions associated with social reasoning."

clip art: Ckler

The implications of that for integration of pronunciation work, both in the lesson and in the brain of the learner, are worth an "uninhibited" reexamination. For one, perhaps insight, explanation, meaningful conversations, "lite drills" and metacognitive encouragement are not enough for efficient "uptake" to occur. Likewise, decontextualized "body drills" that focus primarily on the mechanics of articulation are not going to automatically bridge the "domain gap" either--in the classroom or on the street. Optimal learning in both domains must go on either simultaneously or in some kind of intricate dance that achieves both outcomes. Haptic integration is one answer to that, where the "channels" of communication and change are not quite in as direct competition. The only problem is often just overcoming the inhibitions of the "haptically challenged."

Pronunciation improvement: analyze or empathize?

Just not at the same time, according to new research on the interplay between analytic and emotional processing in the brain (Summarized by Science Daily) by Jack and colleagues at Case Western Reserve. One of the conclusions: "Empathetic and analytic thinking are, at least to some extent, mutually exclusive in the brain." Turns out, both types of processing occur in the same "channel," in the same neurological network, so to speak. (An earlier post, The change-the-channel fallacy, addressed some similar questions in relation to basic pronunciation change, and why, for example, oral repetition as a strategy to correct an "incorrect" articulation may not be effective in many cases.) That also explains, in part, how meta-cognitive (analysis, monitoring, reflection, planning) activity can compete with embodiment (affect, movement, felt-sense of articulation and vocal resonance) for the attention of the learner. It's sort of analogous to just not having enough "band width" to handle all the messaging.

Or it would be something like trying to listen to Fraser and Dornyei simultaneously . . . Fraser in your right ear; Dorneyi, in your left--which would be a terrific idea for a symposium, by the way. (Dornyei's new website is a gold mine of free downloads, by the way--as is Fraser's.) 

De-fossilizing pronunciation instructors

Clip art: CLker

Clip art: Clker

Very nice 2010  study by Boettinger, Park and Timmis of Leeds Metropolitan University, entitiled, "Self-directed noticing for de-fossilization: Three case studies." It is good from a couple of perspectives, first in how well it describes the  highly meta-cognitive, strategies used by three researchers (themselves) in attempting to de-fossilize aspects of their own L2 speech production and second, by the absence of virtually any reference to somatic or kinaesthetic strategies, other than to engage in more "facial effort" in producing a vowel more accurately. The study focuses on "autonomous de-fossilization," in that the three researcher-participants did not attend classes or consult with each other during the period of the study. The strategies they came up with and their reflections on the process are revealing, especially in the fact that in their own attempts to solve their problems  they occasionally even had to fall back on traditional, less theoretically-correct techniques such as . . . repetition! Overall, the range of strategies arrived at--and the overwhelming faith in meta-cognitive, self-reflective techniques--is wonderfully illustrative of the general aversion to analysis of embodied practice, even when it there. In reality, from indirect references in the three narratives, I think we can safely assume that the ability of any of the three to use awareness of movement and vocal resonance in their de-fossilizing may have been substantial. In the report on the study, however, it is  for the most part absent, perhaps assumed to be a predictable consequence of disciplined, meta-cognitive direction and prodding. For some learners, especially those at the head of the class, that is unquestionably true--for most, nonetheless, in de-fossilizing pronunciation, explicit, systematic body engagement is a necessity. Required reading. 

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 . . . 

How to reach (pronunciation) goals

Clip art: Clker

Based on Halverson's book on accomplishing goals, an anonymous website which I occasionally consult for health and fitness ideas, came up with this pretty much standard list for achieving fitness: (a) Imagine! (b) Dream Big! (c) Stuff is rarely enough! (d) Be realistic! (e) Be specific! (f) Assess! and (f) Zip it! That is also a very interesting template for highlighting some key aspects of pronunciation instruction (particularly EHIEP!). For example:

Clip art: Clker

A. Imagine - Especially using visual models of what the learner should move and sound like and can be used for mirroring occasionally.
B. Dream Big! - This one is quite controversial today. Should the model be the native speaker of some dialect or a near-peer model. I still favor the native speaker--with the proviso of "D" below.
C. Stuff is rarely enough - This one, too, is very much in the spotlight in the field today. The range of technology coming online is amazing. It is going to revolutionize pronunciation instruction. But not just yet. The EHIEP system is designed to be compatible with virtual reality instructions but also somatically-grounded (body-based). My view is that full body engagement with technology will be key.
D. Be realistic! - The problem here is that it just takes time to work with the individual to create both goals and a path to get there--not necessarily the "ideal" probably impractical model. The demands on the instructor to frame this well require both experience and time. (See C, above!)
E. Be specific! - Here, too, getting to specific can simply be expensive, especially (ironically) if the instructional program is excessively, individualized too soon in the process. (See earlier posts on this topic and how it is done well!)
F. Assess! - There is great promise here for technology, both in terms of measuring progress and providing remediation and practice. The EHIEP perspective is that changing sounds and sound-processes requires working from haptic anchoring (the felt sense of sounds, not what is "coming in" through the ears!) and also monitoring change, at least in part, somatically.
G. Zip it! - In earlier posts on "hypermentalizing" the research was reviewed that demonstrates that talking too much about goals is actually counterproductive, in effect creating the "felt sense" that more is being accomplished than what actually is.
                                                                                                                  So, how fit is your method? 

Sound memory? Of mice and men . . .

In this 2007 Yale University study, summarized by ScienceDaily, it was found that both exercise and mental stimulation (Details not specified but we can assume it was some kind of metacognitive "inner eye" candy . . . ) enhanced memory in "old" mice. In middle aged and young mice, however, only physical exercise did the trick. Now what are we to make of that? (I know . . . "Warning! You are now entering the usual Acton Analogical Zonenubergang, not to be confused with the high-end olfactory AAZ--which could be the next frontier in HICP exploration, of course!) Maybe this? For very "mature" learners, which I will categorize as either older than I am or prematurely "pre-frontal" (victims of too much metacognitive, explanatory massage or too much linguistics--brand unspecified), deductive, pronunciation mind games and explanation-to-the-death soliloquies (see previous post) may, indeed, pay off in better anchoring and memory for sounds and vocabulary. For the rest, it may serve some other function--like buying time or buying off the non-kinasethetic for the rest of the lesson. I have for some time suspected that we have some old, very haptic-averse mice connected to some researchers and methodologists in the field, but there is hope! Gotta get one of those!

Keeping your pronunciation teaching house in order (the Martha Steward checklist approach!)

Following up on the previous blogpost on PTC, I came upon yet another kind of capital, what let's term "Integrated House Keeping Capital!" And where better to find out about that then at the "Source," Martha Stewart! Check out that deceptively simple, 6 Things to do Everyday Checklist. All six TBDs represent principles of system integration that work regardless of context, especially where it is critical that attention and time be managed efficiently. Let me interpret the application of those to our work: (This is, of course, really obvious in some respects, but the specific connection to haptic-integration is worth foregrounding.)

Clip art: Clker

Photo credit:
Martha Stewart Living

• Make the bed - (Tidiness begets tidiness.) The interplay between planned integration and impromptu anchoring of "targets of opportunity" such as mispronunciation of a key word during discussion is critical.
• Manage Clutter - (Insist that everyone . . . do the same.) Especially visual clutter is often toxic to haptic anchoring.
• Sort the Mail - (Keep a trash bin near . . .) Skill at strategic decision making as to what to anchor or correct in the course of spontaneous classwork develops with experience. That is, in fact, one of the best indices of "time in grade." 
• Clean as You Cook - (Don't "sink" too much!) Ultimately, the simpler, more focused interventions and corrections of pronunciation are optimal. Simple "pointing out" or "noticing" is generally at best a waste of time, potentially leaving more distraction than lasting anchors. 
• Wipe up Spills while They're Fresh - (e.g., sauce and make up!) Context, context, context. Timing, timing, timing. 
• Sweep the Kitchen Floor when you're done - (Makes mopping up much easier!) In addition to having a good closer and picking up loose ends, especially with haptic interventions, "seal off" the felt sense of the lesson so that learners are not "sinking about" the anchored sounds or words as they walk out the door. (See earlier posts on effective in- versus out of class practices.)  

Over-personalizing pronunciation instruction: grapheme personification

Clipart: Clker

As you may have noticed, one of my hobbies is following synaesthesia rabbit trails in research. Linked is the abstract of a new article in a special issue of the Journal of Neuropsychology by Amin, Olu-Lafe, Claessen, Sobczak-Edmans, Ward, Williams, and Sagiv on a relatively rare condition, what they term a form of "social synaesthesia": giving letters of the alphabet personalities and other human attributes. Would that my institution were fortunate enough to have a subscription to that journal. (I may even consider forgoing a week of venti carmel frapps and buy that.) Apparently they haven't visited many preschool phonics classes in North America where letters are routinely given names, faces, bodies and identities . . .  The last line of the abstract, however, is most interesting: "This benign form of hyper-mentalizing may provide a unique point of view on one of the most central problems in human cognition – understanding others’ state of mind." Now I could go a dozen different directions with that, but I think I'll stick with this: hyper-mentalizing. What a concept! That finally may explain why some applied linguists have such difficulty with pronunciation instruction, especially HICP: they just get too up close and personal with their phonemes and begin hyper-mentalizing. Should that fit you to the letter . . . we have the antidote.
.

From rumination to pronunciation

Clip art: Clker

As previous blogposts have illustrated, the process or mental state required in changing behavior in one area of experience is often quite like or analogous to another. When I see these "How to" pieces, I am always most interested in the order in which the writer introduces the principles, especially to what extent they line up with the general HICP/EHIEP model. Here is one on overcoming excessive rumination summarized by Amy Macklin.

As you review the steps, consider the parallel to effective haptic-integrated pronunciation change:
(1) If you can, take action.
(2) Challenge your beliefs.
(3) Redirect your attention.
(4) Resist the urge to talk it out.
(5) Observe "mindfulness."
(6) Be patient.

That could almost serve as a basic reminder before any HICP/EHIEP work. With the exception of 2 and 6, those have been addressed repeatedly. 2 is, of course, almost a given with this work; 6 is possible, in part because of 1-5. Likewise, 4 is easier because of 1, 3 and 5, all three being essentially body-based acts that help one manage the pre-frontal, highly cognitive tasks represented in 2, 4 and 6. In other words, being a bit "odd" in this work is the best way to get even . . . 

Cognitive pronunciation work and mastication-induced arousal

Photo credit: UPI Photo/Ezio Petersen

Ah . . . at last we may have discovered a way to make excessive conscious, cognitive and metacognitive talk about pronunciation in the classroom less distracting and pointless: chew gum. In a much-hyped summary in the media, it is reported that St. Lawrence University researcher, Onyper, had discovered that such masticatory action before a test (chewing gum), " . . . gave the subjects multiple advantages, but only when chewed for five minutes before testing, not for the duration of the test. Benefits persisted for the first 15 to 20 minutes of testing only." Mastication-induced arousal was "credited" with the boost. The summary goes on to note that, "Many studies have shown that any type of physical activity can produce a performance boost . . . "

So there you have it, friends--although 15 or 20 minutes of talk ABOUT pronunciation still sounds deadly to me--getting students' cognitive and masticatory processes up and running in that manner before class may not "gum up the works" at all--on the contrary. (One of the HICP consonant protocols does, after all, involve some biting of the sides of the tongue with back mandibulars!) Just a little something there for you to chew on . . .

FRIENDS of pronunciation teaching

Attending a MA thesis defence that involves examination of the well-known, but highly controversial,  FRIENDS anxiety management program for kids. The acronym FRIENDS stands for: "FEELINGS,  REMEMBER to relax, I CAN do it! (I can try my best!),  EXPLORE solutions and coping step plans, NOW reward yourself! (You've done your best!),  DON'T forget to practice! and SMILE! Stay calm for life." One of the basic mantras is: Your body is  your friend!

That is a nice, memorable mnemonic. The question, of course, from our perspective is, in essence, what specific haptic-based techniques are associated with each step in the process and how are they related and scaffolded. It is actually an interesting glimpse at the relationship between basic  learner meta-cognitive frameworks so widely promoted today (by cognitive phonologists, for example)  and potential method protocols, which can vary almost infinitely.  Try connecting up your current teaching framework to  FRIENDS. Anxiety-provoking? If so, try something more HICP-FRIENDLY . . . 

Not aware of an effective HICP technique? Good!

Clip art:
Clker

Clip art:
Clker

We often use the terms "attention" and "awareness" interchangeably in informal conversation or in describing what is going on at any moment in the instructional process. I have used the acronym, AFAPAI (Attention-Focus-Anchoring-Practice-Awareness-Integration), pronounced: "half-a-pie," for some time. (See earlier posts on the HICP learning model.) That "half" models the process of sound change; the other half is that being learned: sounds, words, processes and patterns.

"Unaware" of the research linked above, I had apparently gotten close to one theory of how those two concepts, awareness and attention are related. In essence, what the study by Watanabe, Cheng,  Murayama, Ueno, Asamizuya, Tanaka, and Logothetis. summarized by Science Daily, demonstrated was that, in principle (neurophysiologically, at least), it is possible to pay attention without being aware, and vice versa. So what does that mean for classroom instruction? Simply this: If learners are just "aware" of what is being presented, nothing may "stick" later; focused/undivided attention is required, which, in effect, limits general awareness, especially of the visual field but, apparently of all modalities as well. In other words, complete, at least momentary attention is required for maximal impact.

In the six-step HICP process (AFAPAI), note where awareness comes into play: after regular practice, generally in conversation, as both "old" and "repaired or new" forms are brought to awareness in a manner that seems almost accidental or incidental, but not purposefully attended to. (See also posts on post-hypnotic suggestion and related strategies.) That, in turn, should help to further along the integration process. If you have been paying attention, that should be exciting stuff. If not, you are at least now aware of the research. After all, even AFAPAI is better than (just) noting!

The "Harold Hill" approach to pronunciation change

In my graduate methodology class I have often poked fun at what I refer to as the "Harold Hill" method. In the musical, The Music Man, the con-man band instrument salesman is suddenly forced to actually teach some of his victims how to play the instruments he has sold them. Knowing nothing about music, he simply urges them to "Think, men, think!" And, miraculously, of course, they start playing . . . sort of. (In no time at all, they have turned into a 1,000 piece marching band w/baton twirlers, et al.)

Clip art:
CLker

The more I have explored haptic phenomena and learning, the more I realize that Hill was on to something. The strong, somatic "hedonic" focus (see recent post) of a hands-on experience can rapidly anchor desired behavior or movement, even if stumbled upon by accident with a trombone. And the reverse is true. Even visualizing yourself moving an object--or trying to do it "telekinetically", if you will, can focus the attention dramatically and sometimes create workable haptic-like anchors, as well--a "standard" technique in some types of hypnotherapy, virtual training systems and contemporary "haptic" performers (See earlier posts.)

Once PMPs, pedagogical movement patterns, are established in HICP/EHIEP, learners often report "feeling" the anchor, the touching of hands, even if using only one hand-- a good test of the "stickiness" of an anchor. So, if you are not yet "moved" to join us or get "in touch," at least imagine that you are. That will probably suffice.

Pronunciation change is just (like) a piece of (cup) cake!

Clip art: Clker

Another nice summary from Science Digest. It is, indeed, so intriguing that I really hesitate to even explain it. What the study demonstrated was that word of mouth (WOM) explanation had differing effects on attractiveness or emotional engagement, depending on whether the object in question was to be a sensory or "hedonic" experience (such anticipation at eating a cupcake) or more practical or functional (such as buying a new USB stick.) As the researcher Moore (University of Alberta) notes, "Although we have a natural tendency to explain the events in our lives, it is not always in our best interests to do so." Explanation tended to enhance attractiveness of the USB stick and diminish appeal of the cupcake.

Likewise, the parallel for our work--since we certainly do do WOM!-- would be that to the extent that pronunciation change is essentially physical/somatic (Cognitive Phonologists' "manifesto" not withstanding), excessive explanation and "meta-cognating" on it may work against adequate engagement. On the other hand, doing the same with grammar or rhetorical analysis or verb conjugations might just have the opposite effect. Delicious thought, eh? Don't mention it . . .