Out of touch and "pointless" gesture use in (pronunciation) teaching

Two recently published, interesting papers illustrate potential problems and pleasures with gesture use in (pronunciation) teaching. The author(s) both, unfortunately, implicate or misrepresent haptic pronunciation training.

Note: In Haptic Pronunciation Training-English (HaPT-Eng) there is NO interpersonal touch, whatsoever. A learner's hands may touch either each other or the learner holds something, such as a ball or pencil that functions as an extension of the hand. Touch typically serves to control and standardize gesture--and integrate the senses--while amplifying the focus on stressed syllables in words or phrases.

This from Chan (2018): Embodied Pronunciation Learning: Research and Practice in special issue of the CATESOL journal on research-based pronunciation teaching:

"In discussing the use of tactile communication or haptic interventions, they (Hişmanoglu and Hişmanoglu, 2008) advise language teachers to be careful. They cite a number of researchers who distinguish high-contact, touch-oriented societies (e.g., Filipino, Latin American, Turkish) from societies that are low contact and not touch oriented (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean); the former may perceive the teacher’s haptic behavior (emphasis mine)as normal while the latter may perceive it as abnormal and uncomfortable. They also point out that in Islamic cultures, touching between people (emphasis mine) of the same gender is approved, but touching between genders is not allowed. Thus, while integrating embodied pronunciation methods into instruction, teachers need to remain constantly aware of the individuals, the classroom dynamics, and the attitudes students express toward these activities."

What Chan means by the "teacher's haptic behavior" is not defined. (She most probably means simply touching--tactile, not "haptic" in the technical sense as in robotics, for example, or as we use it in HaPT-Eng, that is: gesture synchronized with speech and anchored with intra-personal touch that provides feedback to the learner.) For example, to emphasize word stress in HaPT-Eng, in a technique called the "Rhythm Fight Club", the teacher/learner may squeeze a ball on a stressed syllable, as the arm punches forward, as in boxing. .

Again: There is absolutely no "interpersonal touch" or tactile or haptic communication, body-to-body, utilized in  HaPT-Eng . . . it certainly could be, of course--acknowledging the precautions noted by Chan. 

Clker.com

A second study, Shadowing for pronunciation development: Haptic-shadowing and IPA-shadowing, by Hamada, has a related problem with the definition of "haptic". In the nice study, subjects "shadowed" a model, that is attempted to repeat what they heard (while view a script), simultaneously, along with the model. (It is a great technique, one use extensively in the field.) The IPA group had been trained in some "light" phonetic analysis of the texts, before attempting the shadowing. The "haptic" group were trained in what was said (inaccurately) to be the Rhythm Fight Club. There was a slight main effect, nonetheless, the haptic group being a bit more comprehensible.

The version of the RFC used was not haptic; it was only kinesthetic (there was no touch involved), just using the punching gesture, itself, to anchor/emphasize designated stressed syllables in the model sentences. The kinesthetic (touchless) version of the RFC has been used in other studies with even less success! It was not designed to be used without something for the hand to squeeze on the stressed element of the word or sentence, making it haptic. In that form, the gesture use can easily become erratic and out of control--best case! One of the main--and fully justified--reasons for avoidance of gesture work by many practitioners, as well as the central focus of HaPT-Eng: controlled, systematic use of gesture in anchoring prominence in language instruction.  

But a slight tweak of the title of the Hamada piece from "haptic" to "kinesthetic", of course, would do the trick.

The good news: using just kinesthetic gesture (movement w/o touch anchoring), the main effect was discernable. The moderately "bad" news: it was not haptic--which (I am absolutely convinced) would have made the study much more significant--let alone more memorable, touching and moving . . .

Keep in touch! v5.0 of HaPT-Eng will be available later this summer!

Paying attention to touch in pronunciation teaching. (No applause, please!)

Clip art: Clker

The most frequent question we get at workshops is: "How does haptic work, anyway?" This 2011 study by Blankenberg of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin (summarized by Science Daily) was instrumental in helping me understand how using touch and movement, synchronized with speech could function to enable both encoding in memory and subsequent recall. The key, it turns out is something analogous to Gendlin's notion of "felt sense:" both touch and conscious attention to the haptic "event" are essential to effective pedagogical or therapeutic intervention. According to the research, access to haptic or tactile memory can happen at any of several levels, from conscious to unconscious.

For example, having touched the table as you say a stressed syllable of a word may help you remember both the word and the stressed syllable in it later in spontaneous speaking. It might not--but consciously recalling the sensation of the event when you touched the table should increase your chances considerably. In other words, touch may not automatically activate memory of the "nexus" of the word but consciously focusing on the tactile dimension of the event may.

Earlier posts and the linked research studies have examined why clapping hands on every syllable of a word but doing a stronger clap on the stressed syllable to anchor stress may not work: all those "touches" are preserved almost as equals in memory, at least for a time. Unless something more is done to mark the stressed one (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic or some combination), the contribution of touch, best case, can be a wash: worse case, it compromises the focus of the gesture.

In other words, as we have seen in many different studies, touch acts as the "exploratory glue" that helps bind the senses together, creating the multiple modality experience we call "haptic anchoring." So why call it "haptic anchoring" then? Just to better bring it to your attention--whatever haptic pronunciation target that you happen to touch upon . . . 

Connecting reading to pronunciation

Clip art: Clker

Fascinating study of the neurological correlates of literacy in children by Yeatman and colleagues at Stanford, summarized by Scientific American, "Brain connectivity predicts reading skills." The basic finding was that changes in the "white matter" connective tissues in the brain help explain individual differences in development of reading ability. Note how that happens:

" Differences in the growth of both tracts (the arcuate fasciculus, which conects the brain's language centres, and the inferior longitudinal fasciculus, which links the language centres with the parts of the brain that process visual information) could predict the variations in reading ability. Strong readers started off with a weak signal in both tracts on the left side of the brain, which got stronger over the three years. Weaker readers exhibited the opposite pattern . . . Both processes are influenced by experience — underused nerve fibres are pruned, whereas others are myelinated — so they occur at different rates and times in different people."

Clip art: Clker

The researchers go on to propose that " . . . individual children might benefit from reading lessons that are tailored to their patterns of brain development." Research on the underpinnings of the process and pedagogy of L2 phonological system development seems to point to a common "thread," if you will: relative connectivity of language-related brain centers. By extension, L2 learners also "benefit" from a pedagogical system that involves multiple-modalities and multi-senses. Does your pronunciation method need a touch of pruning or myelination? It does . . . 

Total recall: haptic anchoring and integration vs cross-modal reinforcement of pronunciation

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

There are an almost infinite number of ways to create heuristics to assist learners in attending to and remembering sounds. For a good overview of suggestions as to how that works in different modalities in teaching phonetics and pronunciation, see this 2011 summary by Wrembel and Mickiewicz  of the University of Poznan. From that perspective, in EHIEP there are half a dozen or so modalities involved: sound, movement, touch, positioning in the visual field (which includes associated colours), sensations of resonance in the bones, muscles and flesh of the vocal tract--even olfaction in the form of aromatic hand creams, or "taste" with mint breath strips in some cases. It is one thing to anchor a sound using a color or phonaesthetic word association or gesture in teaching a sound, as in phonetics, yet quite another to systematically integrate that into classroom instruction. In other words, "cross-modal" reinforcement (linking sound to some other sense) makes very good sense but it just the beginning. That association has to be both balanced appropriately, so that one does not cancel the other modalities (an important issue - See previous posts) and scaffolded in over time. In EHIEP, the "haptic anchoring" (a convenient short cut for full-body, multi-modal engagement) is employed in class or in personal practice regularly, whenever required,  for presentation, correction, practice or integration . . .  total (sensory) recall!

Screening learners in pronunciation instruction

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

In a couple of earlier posts, the question of the potential impact of field dependence on haptic-integration work was considered. The same concept as been researched extensively in several field: understanding individual variability in attention management, being more or less affected by environmental distractions, whether visual, auditory or some other potential sensory "background interference or clutter." Kwallek of the University of Texas, in describing the same personality style as it plays out in interior design, makes an interesting observation on the effect of red-coloured walls in working spaces:

"Studies have found that some individuals are more easily distracted by irrelevant stimuli, leading to decrement in performance. Other individuals actually improved their performance on task when irrelevant stimuli were introduced. These differences may be associated with an inability to automatically screen out less important stimulation. Individuals who are most adept at screening out the less relevant stimuli of their environments are referred to as high screeners, while individuals who typically cannot screen out incoming stimuli are referred to as low screeners."

Multiple modality engagement (See recent posts referring to FBIs--full-body interdictions!) should work to the benefit of both high and low "screeners." For low screeners, background interference is immediately curtailed; for high screeners, who may at first be stimulated to better performance by "red" walls, have also probably some advantage initially in haptic work, it heightens attention to the resonance of sound and inherent body movement involved in producing speech, both of which enable change and anchoring. (The backside of the screening style, however, is that low screeners also tend to be more at ease in interpersonal engagement.) Try wearing a red dress or red T-shirt next time you do an FBI and report back . . .

Learning intonation in your sleep? Nothing to sniff at!

Compliments of Dr Seuss

Clip art: Clker

You may have seen comment on this study someplace recently. Sobel and several colleagues at Academic College of Tel Aviv -- Jaffa, summarized here by Science Daily, found that by exposing sleeping subjects to both a tone and and odor together, that later after awaking, when exposed to the tone they would begin "sniffing!" Is that big or what? (To quote Dr Seuss in the Sleep Book, one of my absolute, all time favorite books, by the way) "Now that may  not seem very important, I know, but it is so I'm bothering telling you so!" I do dabble in olfaction in EHIEP work, often having students rub some Mary Kay "Mint Bliss" on their hands before class--which I would highly recommend, in fact. The relevant point here, however, is that there, in that study, you have an example of using one modality to "set off" or anchor another. (In our work we use movement and touch--and to some extent, color--in attempting to do the same thing with targeted speech, for example.) For decades there have been all kinds of "sleep" techniques tried for learning new language material or reinforcing it. None have been shown to be empirically verifiable, however. This one is interesting. What if the subjects had been played various prosodic features  or melodies in their dreams, such as intonation contours, instead of single tones--while breathing in Mint Bliss . . . who knows? Better sleep on it. 

A touch for teaching English rhythm and fluency

Clip art: Clker

A question in the hall at the conference yesterday woke me up this morning. Figuring out the neurophysiology of how rhythm is learned will be a major break through in understanding language acquisition--when it happens. At the moment, if it is systematically  part of instruction at all, rhythm is "taught" for the most part, inductively, through techniques such as identifying rhythm groups and then doing poetry or jazz chants, etc. In this research report from MIT, it was discovered that brain rhythms during habit formation differ radically from those evident once the "procedure" was initially mastered. In effect, during "learning" there is high gamma activity. Once the frenetic work is over; beta wave patterning dominates. Beta is the same pattern associated with meditative states of various kinds. Interesting. In the EHIEP system, the order of march of the syllabus and taught in the protocols is something like:

Warm up < (discourse prominence) < vowels < stress  < phrasal grouping < intonation  < rhythm < conversational "speed" < classroom integration.

Clip art: Clker

Wow. Rhythm is embodied using a pedagogical movement pattern based on a "TaiChi-like" set of moves that I first became aware of in Japan watching a group of seniors do TaiChi every morning in the park across the street. In general, rhythm is identified or experienced with structures of more than one focal or phrase grouping. And notice where that happens: after the "basic stuff" has been worked through. If you are working with a written conversational dialogue, that rhythm phase happens literally on the 5th pass through. (Discourse prominence would have been identified prior to the "Vowel" pass.) The felt sense of the TaiChi PMP is one of flowing fluency. (It was earlier termed the "TaiChi Fluency Protocol), in fact. Our intuitions were right all along . . .we just didn't have MIT behind us!

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.

Attention! Malleable L2 pronunciation? Just keep at it!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Malleable pronunciation. I like that term, especially in relation to error correction and so-called fossilized language. (Have another blogpost about ready on that topic, too.) How's this for an intriguing conclusion to a 2012 study by McClelland and colleagues at Oregon State University, reported by Science Dailey: " . . . the study gives compelling evidence that social and behavioral skills, such as paying attention, following directions and completing a task may be even more crucial than academic abilities . . . " Attention and persistence. Two of my favorite topics here on the blog. Now, of course, the research was looking at the correlation between subjects who could pay attention as preschoolers and their later success in graduating from college, but there is a relevant implication here. They then add: " . . . the good news for parents and educators, the researchers said, is that attention and persistence skills are malleable and can be taught." And how do you do that in your work? For adults, of course, it is not only that it should be part of instruction--and many students DO indeed need to learn how to be better at both--but it must be a constant feature, moment by moment, in the classroom. Multiple modality instruction and clear targeting and anchoring do much to achieve the former; systematic instruction and carefully planned homework and practice outside of class help achieve the latter. You paying attention? 

Haptic-integrated pronunciation . . . and "Ro-butts?"

Clipart: Clker

Clipart: Clker

(Caveat Emptor: There is probably a serious point in the following but it may not be all that obvious!)  The character in the  EHIEP logo off to the right, what we affectionately refer to as "EHIEP-bot," embodies a few key features of the system, including controlled, precise movements, the sounds of language in the visual field--and attitude! But up until now there was no plausible analogy or connection between the robot personna and the efficacy of touch in learning. Now there may be. Japanese inventor, Takahashi, has figured out how (or at least where) to do haptic anchoring with robots: on the gluteus maximus! I suppose, were it not for certain cultural constraints--or lack of them for example, here in a Youtube of a German folk dance move -- that might work on us non-robots in doing pronunciation, particularly rhythm, as well. Instead of using the visual field, looking forward, we might focus on pronunciation in retrospect! Actually, doing two of the more rhythm-oriented protocols when seated, the critical butts-in-chairs variable in group dynamics and sales-- does seem to help anchor or "nail down" the pattern being attended to, especially with the right Latin beat in the background. Wow. A whole new area of research and exploration here? This is supposed to be a "whole brain and whole body approach," after all! Ah . . . perhaps we'd better sit on that for the time being!

IPA (Intra-personal physical alphabet) basics for pronunciation teaching

Had a fascinating discussion with an ESL teacher recently who maintained that knowing basic IPA for English (international phonetic alphabet) was irrelevant--for him! Asked how students are to get the pronunciation of a new word, his response was simply ("All they have to do is consult . . . ": online audio from a learner dictionary or DVD.  (For some student populations, we could probably find some common ground there!) In phonics teaching there are probably hundreds of "body alphabet" schemas and dances. (I kind of like this one!) Where he actually had it right, I think, was with use of IPA with learners--when it is not used systematically in integrated instruction. If learners cannot accurately relate the symbol to the sound, (if it is not anchored well, in EHIEP terms) it is worse than pointless--at least those sounds that are especially problematic for a learner. As noted in several earlier posts, effective use of the dictionary for anchoring pronunciation, meaning and usage is generally essential to efficient learning beyond basic functional (primarily oral) usage, which requires at least orientation to a limited set of dictionary phonetic symbols. EHIEP work begins with physically anchoring of the vowel system, first lax (what we refer to as "rough" vowels) and then tense+off glide and diphthongs (what we refer to as "dynamic" vowels), something of an "Intra-personal, physical phonetic alphabet!" The best analogy is sign language. Here is a brief Youtube clip of me doing a  the "dynamic" vowels. That is representative of the entire EHIEP system, in fact. Before long, as soon as we get the complete EHIEP haptic-videos all edited and publicly available, the training of students--and instructor--can be done in IPPPA, as well! Keep in touch. 

Digesting pronunciation change: Bob's 9-step

Clipart: Clker

Clipart: Clker

"It'll take me a while to digest that . . . " That comment from a student after having been given the recommended "haptic-integrated" homework, got me thinking. Digestion is not a bad metaphor for the process of integrating pronunciation change, in fact. As always, when faced with a question like that, we turn to Science Bob for an answer! In teaching, I often use similar heuristics in examining pedagogical processes. (Semiotically speaking, process integration is process integration, regardless of where in our experience it occurs.) When I walked through it, I was surprised how it forced explicit consideration of some transitions  So, strap on your analogical transponder and consider the parallel to Bob's 9-Step:

Clipart: Clker

1. Teeth " . . . small enough pieces so that it can fit down our throats . . . "[Conceptual, explicit focus on form, generally initiated by the  appearance of a problematic pronunciation target during "regular" speaking or listening instruction] 
2. Saliva " . . . soften . . . in the mouth so that it is easier to swallow . . . break down . . . into simpler forms . . "[Basic presentation of "target" to learner and practice plan introduced in class] 
3. Tongue " . . . works  . . .  to form a "ball" that can be swallowed . . . helps us tell the difference between . . .sour . . . sweet . . . "[Embodiment and sensory, felt sense, haptic-integrated focus, using standard EHIEP protocol] 
4. Esophagus " . . . a transportation tube from the mouth . . .closing a trap door in our throat . . . moves . . .  using muscles not gravity . . . '[Integrated, directed execution and practice of sound, sound-in-word or phrase in class and in homework] 
5. Stomach " . . . moved around . . . .mixed . . .  for . . .  hours. When it is done . . . now . . . called chyme . . ."[Occurring in the next few days: haptic-integrated integration of sound-felt sense-meaning complex in memory] 
6. Liver/gall bladder " . . . breaking down . . . . fat  . . . supply . . . energy later . . . " [Regular, focused practice of sound and sound in words, generally in personal word lists] 
7. Pancreas " . . . adds . . . as the food leaves  . . . breaking down . . . carbohydrates" [Regular, context-based, integrated practice in conversationally relevant language, typically for a week or more] 
8. Small intestine " . . . the real hero . . .  where the real digestion takes place . . .  put to use by the body . . . thousands of tiny fingers called villi . . .  absorb . . . and send them off . . . "[Appearance in conversation in various forms, both in production and reception; noted after the fact] 
9. Large Intestine " . . . Whatever the body cannot put to use . . .  cannot be digested . . .necessary up until now . . . no longer needed . . ."[Change is fully integrated in conversation; pedagogical heuristics fade out and are discarded] 

Is physical exercise good for the brain--and pronunciation?

Probably, according to this recent research--unless, of course, you do not have quite the right genetic profile (without the correct BDNF balance), are a little too old, are a sedentary male, or some combination of those factors.

According to the summary, if you are a rat who is ADHD, that is another story, however! I know a couple of those, in fact. There is some research (some of which I participated in as a grad student and have yet to recover completely from) that other "treatments," for example, alcohol, valium, hypnosis, empathy--and a few others, may improve pronunciation, at least temporarily.


So the question is: How do the multiple-modality, directed body movement and rhythmic, dance-like routines employed in EHIEP fit into that framework? Are they closer to push ups, a good massage, a glass of wine or a Vente Carmel Frappuccino? My own read on this from about 30 years of body-based pronunciation work is that there is certainly something to it, that exercise is at least good for enhancing mind-body connectivity, body awareness, concept embodiment, kinaesthetic monitoring of speech performance and staying loose so you can learn.

At least for the time being, none of that seems to hold up too well under close empirical scrutiny. Bummer. I'd better go out for a run. 

Pronunciation in ESL/EFL integrated skills instruction

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

As developed in many previous posts, haptic-integrated pronunciation should alway be understood in two senses. First, pronunciation teaching as a skill set should be thoroughly integrated into general instruction--almost to the point that it disappears as a distinct subject of attention. (See this very nice, 2001 summary by Oxford, for instance.) Second, pronunciation, itself, or attention to sound processes, should be multi-modality-based, most senses integrated in haptic-based procedures. Grading a set of term papers recently where the focus was on integrating pronunciation techniques into speaking-listening lessons, I was struck by the effect that previous classroom teaching experience teaching speaking (probably not listening, writing and reading as such) appeared to have on students' success in designing such integrated lesson plans. Those who had some such training and experience were successful in figuring out optimal contexts for attention to pronunciation. Those who didn't . . . weren't. One student even noted in a footnote that pronunciation should be the last skill that teachers are trained in, for that very reason. Not sure I agree with that entirely, but she has a very good point: you must have something to integrate something into! Integrate that idea into your teacher training program curriculum. I'm going to!

Bilingual teenage brain stems listening comprehension!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Here is a Science Digest summary of a fascinating study on the advantages of being bilingual just published. (This is one of those pieces that I could go off a dozen directions on and really have fun with--but I'll try to "stick to the facts," regardless!)  In essence, it was discovered that the brain stems of bilingual subjects were significantly better at sound/pitch discrimination than monolinguals in one context: when the sound was strongly masked with static or white noise. The researcher notes some pretty amazing implications of that: "The bilingual's enhanced experience with sound results in an auditory system that is highly efficient, flexible and focused in its automatic sound processing, especially in challenging or novel listening conditions," and " .  . . evidence for system-wide neural plasticity in auditory experts that facilitates a tight coupling of sensory and cognitive functions." [italics, mine] Wow. The study does not explicitly establish that "tight coupling," although in terms of general understanding of the function of the "reptilian" brain stem (in addition to managing emotional response), that case can be made rather easily. But teenagers "paying attention?" Really? This may suggest one way around some of the  "critical period" problem in pronunciation or accent development: enhanced (full mind-body) attention training. Now let me think . . . how could that be done? Keep in touch.

Mixed "modal" arts in HICP (Haptic-integrated, clinical pronunciation)

Photo credit: mma-training.com

Even if you are not a big fan of Mixed Martial Arts, you almost have to admire the focus on bringing to the ring superb, full-body conditioning and an amazing set of tools (techniques) derived from several traditions: boxing, wrestling, jiu jitsu, Muay Thai, weight lifting and others. From a "professional development" perspective, these people get it; enhanced conditioning and development of new techniques are simply part of the job. Having listened to a couple of recent interviews with top MMA fighters, I was struck by what avid learners they are--and what extraordinary body awareness and fine tuning is required. (The imaginary MMA fight scenario on the linked page could as well be describing one's deteriorating state of mind and body in a late afternoon ESL class!) The ways in which they characterize or explain the relationship between practice and conditioning outside of the ring and successful performance in it were extremely detailed and systematic. The parallel to effective HICP work or speaking and voice instruction in general is worth considering. I always recommend that instructors who use EHIEP protocols (techniques) in their classes should practice them regularly, themselves, both in class and out of class. (I, myself, do a basic set of about a dozen techniques most mornings.) Part of the reason for that is that the (Lessac-inspired) procedures are not only designed for in-class modelling and correction, but also for cultivation of what Lessac referred to as "Vocal Life," overall voice quality and body flexibility, along with an accompanying attitude of openness to learning and exploration. In the PEPI model, that means beginning your day with a cup of coffee at 6 o'clock (on the circumflex) and going counterclockwise. For example, starting with (a) EHIEP protocols, or yoga or exercise, then (b) prayer, meditation or reading the paper, then on to (c) planning your day's priorities, and then (d) setting out your concrete action plans. By the time you get back around to (d), 9 'clock, you'll be ready when the bell rings .  . . 

Getting the "fat" out of pronunciation teaching

From my perspective--and take this for what it is worth, probably the best models for understanding efficient pronunciation teaching and learning are physical conditioning and fat loss systems. And not all of them. In fact, my favorite for some time has been Craig Ballantyne's "Turbulence Training" system.  I don't recommend that you go out and buy his stuff immediately, but his approach to training is a good "buy," to say the least.  Full disclosure: I am absolutely addicted to high-intensity weight training done three times a week.That practice regimen obviously influences my thinking and approach to this kind of teaching as well. The above link takes you to his website and his audio introduction to that system. If you are (a) not a regular exerciser, (b) would really like to slim down but don't have the time or understanding of how to do it,  or (c) do not have a system for getting learners to practice their pronunciation regularly, it is worth listening to for the first 15 minutes (the last five is pitch for you to buy the books, etc.) The analogy between high intensity weight training and full-body, multiple modality, (haptic-integrated!) pronunciation training and change is more than an analogy. The principles are virtually identical. As Craig says, training should be fun, intense and efficient. Does that describe your system? 

Affective haptics

Clip art: Clker

In the earlier post on the upcoming 2012 Haptics Symposium, I mentioned the Workshop on Affective Haptics. Here is the note from the summary of the workshop:

"Affective Haptics is the emerging area of research which focuses on the design of devices and systems that can elicit, enhance, or influence the emotional state of a human by means of sense of touch. Human emotions can be easily evoked by different cues, and the sense of touch is one of the most emotionally charged channels. Affective Haptics is a wide interdisciplinary area, strongly related to such fields as multi‐modal interfaces, affective computing, neuroscience, psychology, mediated communications, telepresence, robotics, etc."

HICP work draws from most of those areas, even the last. Note the EHIEP logo, which draws something of its character from the robot-like control of the upper body required for mosts protocols. Keep in touch. 

The felt sense of writing (speaking, listening and reading) with the body

Clip art: Clker

I think I missed a great workshop by Sondra Perl on writing with the body. In previous posts I have commented on the felt sense of haptic-integrated pronunciation work and the "full-body" or kinesthetic listening comprehension that gradually develops. If you can write "with" the body, you can obviously read with the body, as well. In part, that means that the writer or reader is intentionally trying to access and validate less conscious memories or perceptions of sensations of various kinds and integrate them in more effectively with conscious processing of the task at hand. (That is the essence of the concept of "felt sense" and the central concept of HICR/EHIEP instruction.)

There are many exercise, training and performance systems that use similar concepts and language.  Were I to attempt to identify the most pervasive problem with contemporary pronunciation instruction today, it would have to be either dis-integrated/decontextualized methods or lack of systematic "body" engagement. One or the other . ..  think I'll go with the body!

Magic pronunciation change: Look at that sound in your ear!

One of the great mysteries (or complexities or frustrations) of working with multi-sensory or multiple modality pronunciation learning systems is understanding the relative contribution of one sense to the effectiveness of the process. As you might guess, some research reveals that the senses are in some contexts highly integrated; in others, quite the opposite: the incoming data is interpreted and remains relatively partitioned. In looking at the range of possible configurations of learner cognitive styles (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic--and all possible combinations of those three where one is dominant and the other to some degree less prominent, such as: visual-auditory, auditory-visual, auditory-kinesthetic, kinesthetic-visual, etc.) the puzzle becomes even more complicated. What some research suggests, such as this 2009 study by Jacobs and Sham, is that some degree of separation or isolation of the senses might work for us in changing pronunciation.

An earlier post, Change the Channel Fallacy, focused on how difficult it can be to change "the channel," for example, modify auditory output by doing simple repetition of the correct sound, without engaging a learner's nondominant modalities, perhaps visual or kinesthetic.What that could mean is that the best avenue or potential impact  might be through nondominant modalities, not catering to the learner's preferred modality as is the common practice.

So, for the visual-auditory learner, emphasize auditory; for the auditory-visual, visual; for the kinesthetic-auditory, auditory, etc. And for almost any combination of the three main senses, try teaching more through haptic (adding touch to movement), which is generally even more outside of conscious awareness, less likely to disturb ongoing communication or thought. EHIEP methodology is not magic, but it certainly does involve a focus of attention away from the problem channel to a parallel modality where change can take place less obtrusively, a nice,  haptic "slight of hand", if  you will . . . and you should!