Good, or at least less "distracting" distraction in (pronunciation) teaching

Now here is some "different" research from the Journal of Food Science Education and the journal, Perception, that you may have missed (summarized by Science Daily). The first, by Schmidt of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, titled: Distracted learning: Big problem and golden opportunity; the second, by Hipp, Olsen and Gerhardstein, Mind-Craft: Exploring the Effect of Digital Visual Experience on Changes to Orientation Sensitivity in Visual Contour Perception.

In pronunciation teaching, and especially so in haptic work, distraction can be lethal, depending on which modality it is coming through! Dealing with it is always high priority. We manage distraction and attention several ways, but principally with gesture, touch and management of the visual field. 

Schmidt's report reviews research on sources of potential distraction evident in the multitasking world of today and then considers a number of potentially effective measures for addressing them. Hibb et al examine an intriguing phenomena where the brain/eyes are seen adapting in surprising ways to the visual digital milieu, especially shifting among different environments that we are engaged in today. Taken together, the two studies seem to suggest that, probably for a number of reasons, distraction is emerging as a much more complex and variable phenomenon in the experience of those who have "grown up" in that milieu than we often assume. 

In other words, the impact of disruptive elements on learning and teaching-- and consequently the potential effectiveness of mediation procedures, needs to be reconsidered. Listed below, paraphrased and reorganized into three categories, are the set of recommendations from Schmidt's study: 

Pre-Conditions:

• Removing extraneous devices from workspaces
• Incorporating movement into classroom activities
• Promoting and implementing active learning
• Using a work-reward system

Classroom protocols: 

• Alternating intensive periods of focused work with preplanned bursts of pleasure
• Developing course content on topics of students' choosing 
• Having them teach it to other students

Cognitive and meta-cognitive:

• Encouraging development of internal locus of control
• Fostering a work-hard, play-hard mindset
• Encouraging setting of goals related to academic performance 

Nothing there, in itself, surprising, of course, but taken together or reconsiderd as a fuller set of strategies that may, in combination, work to moderate distraction--as a more primary/preliminary target of instruction with today's learners, with their evolving attentional systems, is worth "attending to!" 

Bottom line: The impact of both distraction and of those mediation strategies on "native media-ites," those who have grown up in computer mediated experience (and devices), probably those now in their mid to late 20s or somewhat earlier, may be evolving or emerging in new forms. In other words, multitasking for those learners is apparently becoming experientially and phenomenologically different than it is to earlier "pre-media" generations: they seem to be adapting in ways such that they can be both less . . .  distracted and, consequently, more amenable to pedagogical mediation. 

In a subsequent post, I'll continue this thread exploring specific mediations that apply to (haptic) pronunciation teaching. 

Sources: 

Shelly J. Schmidt. Distracted learning: Big problem and golden opportunity. Journal of Food Science Education, 2020; 19 (4): 278 DOI: 10.1111/1541-4329.12206

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, News Bureau. (2020, October 14). Distracted learning a big problem, golden opportunity for educators, students. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 17, 2020 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201014140932.htm

D. Hipp, S. Olsen, P. Gerhardstein. Mind-Craft: Exploring the Effect of Digital Visual Experience on Changes to Orientation Sensitivity in Visual Contour Perception. Perception, 2020; 030100662095098 DOI: 10.1177/0301006620950989

Binghamton University. (2020, September 30). Screen time can change visual perception -- and that's not necessarily bad. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 17, 2020 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200930144422.htm

Paying attention to paying attention! Or else . . . !

Two very accessible, useful blogposts, primers by Mike Hobbis, PhD student in neuroscience @UCL on attention in teaching worth a read, one on why there should be more research on attention in the classroom, and a second, which I like a lot, on attention as an effect, not a just cause.

Clker.com

Hobbis' basic point is that attention should be more the "center of attention" in methodology and research today than it is. Why it isn't is really good question. In part, there are just so many other things to "attend to"  . . .

I was really struck by the fact that I, too, still tend to use attention more as a cause, not an effect, meaning: if students are not paying attention in some form, my lesson plan or structure can not possibly be at fault: it is probably the continuous "laptopping" during the class or lack of sleep on their parts. The research on the impact of multitasking at the keyboard in school on a whole range of subjects and tasks, for example, is extensive . . . and inconclusive-- except in teaching pronunciation, where, as far as I can determine, there is none. (If you know of some PLEASE post the link here!)

There is, of course, a great deal of research on paying attention to pronunciation from various perspectives, per se, such as Counselman 2015, on "forcing" students to pay attention to their pronunciation and variance from a model. But, the extent to which variable attention alone contributes to the overall main effect is not pulled out in any study that I have been able to find.

Now I am not quite to Counselman's level of "forcing" attention, either by totally captivating instruction or capturing the attention and holding it hostage along the way, but Hobbis makes a very good point in the two blogposts that must go in both directions, if not simultaneously but at least systematically. In haptic pronunciation work--or most pronunciation teaching for that matter-- the extensive use of gesture alone should function at both levels. The same applies to any movement-enhanced methodology such as TPR (Total Physical Response) or  mind-body interplay, as in Mindfulness training. The question, of course, is how mindful and intentional in methodology are we.

There has been a resurgence of attention to attention in the last decade in a number of sub-disciplines in neuroscience as well. Have you been paying attention--either to the research or in your classroom? If so, share that w/us, too! (The next blogpost will focus on the range of attention-driven, neuroscience-grounded best practice classroom techniques.) Join that conversation. You have our attention!

Revenge of the multi-taskers: Distracted during motor (or pronunciation) learning or practice? No problem!

This is the second in a series of posts on creating and managing effective language or pronunciation practice, (analogically) based on Glyde's guitar practice framework. (See earlier post.) His

Clip art:
Clker.com

principle #5 was common-sensical: Failing to avoid distraction.

Earlier posts have looked at the interplay between haptic (movement and touch) and visual and auditory modalities. One general finding of research has been that visual stimuli or input tend to override auditory and haptic. In part for that reason, we have worked to restrict extraneous visual auditory distraction during haptic pronunciation work. In therapy, on the contrary, many times distraction is used quite strategically to draw the patient's attention away from a problematic experience or emotion.

Now comes a fascinating study by Song and Bedard of Boston University (summarized by Science Daily - See full citation below) demonstrating how visual distraction during motor learning may at least not be problematic. As long as subjects were subjected to relatively similar distraction on the recall task, the fact that they had been systematically distracted during the learning task seemed to have little or no effect. Furthermore, if the "distracted" subjects were later tested in the "non-distracting" condition, they did not perform as well as their "distracted" fellow subjects.

In other words, the visual context of motor learning was not a factor in recall--as long as it was reasonably consistent with the original learning milieu.

So, what does all that mean for effective pronunciation practice? Quite a bit, perhaps. Context, from many perspectives is critical. Establishing linguistic context has been a given for decades; managing the classroom environment (or the homework practice venue) so that new or changed sounds are recalled in a "relatively similar setting" to how they were learned is another question.

One of the principles of haptic pronunciation teaching is to use systematic gesture + touch across the visual field to anchor sound change--maintaining as much of learner attention as possible for at least 3 seconds. In practice, the same pedagogical movement patterns (PMP) are used--and, according to learners, even in spontaneous later recall of new material the PMPs often figure prominently in visual/auditory recall as well.

So, to paraphrase Glyde's 5th principle: Avoid inconsistent distraction (in pronunciation teaching), at least in those more motor-based work or phases. Or better yet, embrace it!

Citation:
Brown University. (2014, December 9). Distraction, if consistent, does not hinder learning. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 18, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141209120141.htm

May I have your "undivided" attention? (For pronunciation instruction)

Clip art: Clker

In this interesting 2003 MA thesis by Hamblin, the effect of divided attention on simultaneous speaking and movement fluency were studied from a number of perspectives. One relevant finding was that (for right handers) left hand movement tasks were significantly more disruptive to speaking fluency and language generation than were right-hand tasks. One explanation was that such multitasking (simply) demands more attention on the part of the non-dominant hand's related neural hardware--which normally does not exert as much control over ongoing speech and language production.

In HICP work, that effect is exploited to advantage by systematically using the movement of both hands, but especially the left hand, in part to demand and maintain as near total concentration of the learner on the target sound, word or phrase. (See earlier post on the potential effects of left-handedness on HICP teaching and learning: minimal, at best.) Because the EHIEP protocols (techniques) do not at least initially demand generation of new language, but only require repetition of provided targets, it is relatively easy to progressively keep learners (near) fully engaged and on task.

Adding conscious attention to the felt sense of both the movement and the essential touch of each pedagogical movement pattern (PMP) does much to keep the contemporary, multi-tasking-prone, visual- media-addicted learner's brain and attention as "undivided" as haptically possible.