Lying with verbal working memory: the truth about foreign language pronunciation training

ClipArt:
Clker.com

“No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar!” (according to  Abraham Lincoln), but according to a recent study by Alloway, et al of University of North Florida, summarized by Sciencedaily.com, 7 year old kids with better verbal working memory (as opposed to stronger visuo-spatial working memory) CAN be--and not only that, but they will probably be better at multitasking and social media and networking and more intelligent as adults!

Wow! Got all that? Sorry. I can't afford the 4-Starbucks-vente-carmel-frappacinno-equivalent to pay for the original article at the expensive Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, title, also courtesy of our friends at ScienceDaily.com (full citation below): Liar, liar, working memory on fire: Investigating the role of working memory in childhood verbal deception. 

Do high VWMs have an unfair advantage in other things, such as learning language and pronunciation as well? Any number of studies certainly suggests that. But can anything be done to level the playing field? Maybe . . .

Reminds me of a note on a back page of an accent reduction website some time ago that said, in effect that if you were happened to be a highly visual learner, as opposed to auditory, it might take you a little longer to fix your accent and cost you a little more money . . . In practice, the company would often turn down extremely "visual" students, based on their simple, online cognitive style questionnaire alone. Actually, my earlier experience in pronunciation and accent work might tend to confirm that, at least in the case of some of the most fossilized among my former students, except for recent fascinating developments in our understanding of both brain plasticity and the "myth" of cognitive or learning style preferences.

Bottom line: learners and their brains can be trained, with less pain than you might imagine, to develop more productive, integrated use of  their "less-preferred" ways or styles of learning. If you doubt that, go to Luminosity.com. Of course the irony here is that just studying language in school, with a few exceptions (cf. the Pimsleur method), requires a relatively higher level of visuo-spatial operating (and seat work) to survive, along with strong verbal (more auditory) working memory. And we wonder why girls are better language learners than boys?

So what does the study suggest for language and pronunciation learning in general? Basically, two things: First, use of visuo-spatial techniques, such as video and graphics--and even simple written text, without rich, integrated verbal practice is potentially more counterproductive than often thought. (No lie!) In other words, just reading explanations and a bit of "disembodied" practice "silently" done half-heartedly may be more than just a waste of time. It can, by taking an easier, more dis-integrated path, even further disconnect the two modalities, (verbal-auditory) sound from (verbal-visual) meaning.

Second, as noted above, because it is now very much possible to train learners to be more effective in modalities other than their favourite(s)--and counter to a number of other recent studies on the problems with multi-tasking--enhanced meta-cognitive, multi-tasking in verbal working memory is still critical to most forms of language learning, but especially pronunciation. How to integrate those key modalities efficiently or at least better has always been the important question.

I realize that is a lot to think about, but, to tell the truth . . . there is, as always here, at least a haptic answer to that question! Haptic pronunciation work, although definitely more visuo-spatial in practice also adds potent tactile anchoring to the mix, which serves to integrate the other two more effectively. One way, but not the only way, of course.

Keep in touch!

Citation:

ScienceDaily.com page: University of North Florida. "Good working memory can make you a better liar." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 20 June 2015. .

The "feel good" factor in pronunciation teaching: Multiple-modality uni-tasking vs multi-media multi-tasking

Clip art: Clker

Pronunciation instruction is not generally something one associates with good "vibrations,"or a felt sense that it is (almost) rewarding to even practice L2 target sounds--but it should be, of course! Had a student not long ago tell me that she felt like she was able to do pronunciation practice best--while working on her laptop with the TV on showing English-language (British) dramas, including Pride and Prejudice. I was naturally a bit skeptical at the time . . . however . . . Research Wang at Ohio State University, summarized by Science Daily, ends with this observation: "This is worrisome because students begin to feel like they need to have the TV on or they need to continually check their text messages or computer while they do their homework. It's not helping them, but they get an emotional reward that keeps them doing it. It is critical that we carefully examine the long-term influence of media multitasking on how we perform on cognitive tasks." The same principle applies to haptic-integrated pronunciation instruction: multiple-modality engagement does much to manage attention effectively, whereas multi-media multitasking, along with the typical, fragmented cognitive, affective and kinesthetic delivery of  instruction in the contemporary classroom, where the student's mind and attention can wander almost at will, probably does not. Most research on pronunciation effectiveness relies upon a major piece that is something like student satisfaction or how students "feltl" about the class and their achievement. (Pronunciation) "customers" may not always be right, no matter how emotionally or intellectually satisfying the lesson was. Even if it keeps them coming back for less.

Monkey see and monkey do: efficient multi-tasking in pronunciation work

Clip art: Clker

Here is one of those research reports that inevitably evokes the same somewhat exasperated reaction from me (and I expect from most of you, as well). Ready?  It has been discovered that we--well some of our purported "cousins," at least-- are wired to multitask! Think of it . . . you can, for example, now watch TV and read a book at the same time or run on a treadmill without worry that you are going against your very nature or doing irreparable harm to your equipment.

It is an important study, reportedly one of the first to establish that empirically. The trick apparently is just how closely related the two tasks are. If they are sufficiently distinct, either in terms of intra-modality contrast (like two pictures) or inter-modality (like singing and knitting), go to it! Any number of previous posts have looked at the interplay among visual and auditory and haptic modalities, coming to much the same conclusion: that we can, under the right circumstances attend quite well to both haptic and auditory (and in controlled contexts, visual) simultaneously.

HICP/EHIEP is based on the idea of continuous, simultaneous engagement of multiple modalities (what we often refer to with the acronym "CHI"--for continuous haptic integration, haptic having the primary function of anchoring and integrating.) In other words, doing pedagogical movement patterning and seeing (tracking those movements of the hands across the visual field) and speaking at the same time should be a piece of cake. If not, we may just  have too much time on our hands--or not enough. Certainly nothing to HICP at!

Multi-tasking puts multiple-modality learning on ice!

Research in training athletes revealed long ago just how critical it is that learners are able focus on only "one task at a time," so to speak. For the figure skater, for example, that means that all of the components and skills of the performance routine must be developed to a level where there will be no conscious attention required to them during the "show." The same goes for learning and training periods: no "fractured" or partitioned attention allowed.

The parallel to pronunciation teaching is apt: learning a new sound or sound process is also by its very nature a multiple-modality problem which should be a thoroughly "whole body" experience, involving all modalities simultaneously. If it isn't, there is a very good chance that, just as in figure skating, it risks not engaging enough of the mind and brain for the target to be learned efficiently--if at all. Krashen (1972) and others were right that "monitoring" can be quite destructive to fluency and learning, but it goes considerably further.

So much of contemporary pronunciation instruction is at best "dis-integrated," and even more likely to be relatively dis-embodied, as well. That is especially the case with methods that over-rely on listening, explanation, uni-sensory repetition and non-systematic "learning-in-real communication" -- accompanied by the inevitable, random, multi-tasking and compromised, temporary, partial attention.

That "figures," doesn't it? They are just out of touch . . .