Killing pronuciation 8: Unproductive goals and their "goalees!"

Clker.com

The goal (of this) post is to at least partially relieve you of the burden of meeting many of your pronunciation teaching goals--and suggest a better way to reach them! Or at least "Clear-ify" them!

How would you describe your students' personal goals in terms of their English pronunciation, or their L2 learning in general? What would they tell you? Where did they come from? Do they work? Do they make sense? How do you work with them? Are they clear? Are you clear? Good questions. More research needed . . .

 One of the apparent "problems" with pronunciation teaching we are told is unrealistic or "utopian" goals (Derwing, 2010). There is certainly some of that, to be sure.

The actual problem, however, based on a new piece by James Clear, Forget About Setting Goals. Focus on This Instead: Continuous Improvement, may be the practice of (unproductive) goal setting in the first place. (If you, personally, have defective goals, that is a great piece for sorting things out. Clear is good, very good.) Clear's basic point: progress is generally best achieved by following a method, not by simply "keeping your eye on the prize", not by ad libbing your way along with exercises and practice decisions. Good advice, but how do we do that? What's the method?

I am always interested in what pronunciation teaching books recommend to students and instructors regarding goals. Here is a typical example from Learning  English VOA News that really doesn't say much but is actually about half right (The sentence in italics!):

"Start by setting a reasonable goal. Choose one or two sounds that are difficult for you to pronounce. Then, work to improve those sounds. When you have improved, study other sounds. Progress might be slow for you, but don't give up!" There is no clue there or on the website as to HOW you work or practice, but the idea that you commit to an ongoing process of improvement is what Clear is referring to. 

That VOA prescription is still at least as helpful as the typical, high-level, intelligibility-centered goal approach:

• "Aim for intelligibility, not accuracy"
• "Model yourself on an articulate educated L2 speaker of English from your L1"

 Or the more entertaining accent reduction approach:

• "Strive for perfect pronunciation" 
• "Lose your accent"

What Clear is talking about, based on research in physical training, motivation and discipline development, is that what works is commitment to a method, in effect letting the method take over and (get ready!) . . . following it consistently. Hence, the conundrum in contemporary teaching, in general.

On the one hand we want students to take responsibility and control over their learning; on the other, we want them to do what we know is best for them. Short of handing it off to the computer, which is on the horizon to be sure, what do you do? The answer is "clear", a method. Here is a little check list, based on Clear's general framework, of what that method should probably include. You don't need all the pieces but probably most of them, depending on your available "tool kit!"

• Clear sense of what needs to be done.
• Clear, relatively complete procedures for working on the problem sound/sound process, including recommended time-on-task instructions.
• Clear feedback from something/body periodically
• Clear guidelines for out-of class or independent practice and exploration
• Clear reporting or journaling on work/progress.
• Clear signs of progress becoming evident.  
• Clear criteria as to when the goal is achieved.
• Clear understanding and trust between the learner and the instructor.
• And, of course, clear commitment to ongoing progress as "the goal", not just some unattainable model. 

Are we clear on that? If not, ask your local haptician (instructor trained in haptic pronunciation teaching) or personal trainer at the gym about her method.

Derwing, T. M. (2010). Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference,

TESOL 2018 Convention Haptic Pronunciation Teaching Proposals

It's that time again! Proposals are due June 1st! A number of topics have been suggested for us Hapticians. If you see one you like and want to participate in, let us know SOON!

• Half-day pre-convention institute - Basic training in haptic pronunciation teaching
• Research colloquium on haptic pronunciation teaching - This year's colloquium was very successful. Much more to report on next year. 
• Embodiment and the body in TESOL - This is a broader topic, one that has been suggested to me repeatedly. Reasonably certain it will be proposed.
• Unstressed vowels (a haptic approach) - The haptic pedagogical movement pattern system for unstressed vowels, especially schwa, is innovative and effective, used now primarily in accent reduction.
• Visible gesture in pronunciation instruction - With the recent publication of a couple of articles, this topic is finally getting some serious discussion. (This deals with visual signalling, more than the anchoring of gesture in the body of the learner.)
• Haptic pragmatics - I have done three successful workshops on this topic with Angelina VanDyke. The model has developed considerably.
• Haptic discourse intonation teaching basics - This one follows somewhat from the Haptic Pragmatics workshop. 
• Haptic pronunciation in literacy work - This would be a follow up on one of the presentations in this year's haptic research colloquium. 
• Haptic pronunciation for kids - The haptic model is used by many elementary school teachers.
• Haptic pronunciation teaching for volunteer teachers - The current haptic pronunciation teacher certification course developed out of work with volunteer teachers
• There will be a publishers session on v5.0 of the Haptic Pronunciation Teaching Certification course. 

Those could be in any of several formats, colloquia, workshops, teaching tips, etc.

Keep in touch - and check in if interested by May 1st!

Post-method Pronunciation Teaching and Research: Myths and (Haptic) Method

To understand something of the conundrum faced by teachers new to pronunciation work today, you probably need to begin with Kumaravadevilu's (2003) initial characterization of the "Post-method" era, or, even better, Kumaravadevilu (2007). That, along with a great new book just out, Pronunciation Myths, edited by Grant and Brinton, provides a good perspective on the question. 

Clip art:
Clker

In essence, the first (a) builds a compelling case for the idea that no one method can possibly work in all contexts and (b) provides a set of 10 strategies for, in essence, building your own personal classroom teaching method--while at the same time warning that an inflexible "method" is to be avoided at all costs. In part that is because the only way you can test a method is to try it yourself, in your classroom. And also you must--at least temporarily--believe the "testimonies" of those who use it, while you test it. 

The second, "Myths," while thoroughly dispensing with several common misconceptions (and a few "straw men") about pronunciation teaching, provides a very useful review of the range of research-tested techniques that have, in fact, been shown to be effective. (I count 40 or 50 discrete techniques or variants in all.) 

Add to those two the current theoretical perspective that pronunciation must to the extent possible be integrated into general instruction and you have the post-method conundrum: How do I personally assemble the techniques that can be integrated and will work in my (unique) classroom? (Murphy's chapter in "Myths" addresses that issue quite well in fact.) 

What we refer to as "Haptic-integrated pronunciation teaching" is, in fact, a method based on the use of a wide range of well-established and proven techniques. (All reported in "Myths!") What makes it different is just that (a) the techniques are generally anchored (or reinforced) using movement and touch--based on multiple "haptic" studies in other disciplines, and (b) the method focuses principally on modelling, feedback and correction--and to some extent integration into spontaneous speech. Those are dimensions of pronunciation teaching that have been studied extensively in "the lab" but not in the classroom, especially in terms of long term improvement. 

And to finish up the post-modern stew: EHIEP (Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation)  work is essentially experiential, both learning with it and about it. The best evidence that we have now that the method, itself, "works" are about a decade of reports from students in the classroom and related research from a dozen other disciplines. The same is the case with all methods, of course. 

For a number reasons, it is exceedingly difficult to test a method, among them the fact that no matter what the results, in today's "hyper-localized" theoretical view of methodology,  the nature of the learner population may radically limit generalizability. Few if any classroom studies or action research in pronunciation teaching provide much in the way of detail as to how the techniques or treatments were actually conducted or relate to the other instruction or ongoing experiences that students/subjects were involved in at the time of the study.  

Theoretically, one should, of course, be able to generalize from the local. (That is, after all the raison d’etre for the dominance of qualitative research in the field currently.) In practice, research is today still so thoroughly “critical-agenda-driven” that general applicability of methodology cannot be of interest. In time, in depth studies of one teacher's method will again be in fashion and doctoral dissertations. (I'm working on a book proposal that will do something like that.) 

For the time being . . . Just do it!