Bill Acton's Embodiment Blog: parameters

Showing posts with label parameters. Show all posts

Thursday, February 18, 2016

44 features of effective homework!

I'm doing a workshop this weekend, "Do your homework!" at the BCTEAL

Regional Conference in Victoria, British Columbia, that focuses on good homework practices in English Language Teaching. Although there is some obvious overlap in the 44 parameters that we pulled from research on homework in general, much of it from North America and Europe (See Reference Section), it is still a helpful inventory. Here is an adapted version of the workshop handout. Just for fun, go through it and see just how many features are evident in your courses (or at least your thinking!) If you can think of more, please add them as comments!

Some parameters of effective homework

You

do it?

1. Differentiated (for individuals)

2 Can be done independently (with no help from parents or other students)

3. Get started on homework in class

4. Students understand the purpose and value

5. Developmentally appropriate

6. Allows students choice(s) in what to do

7. Students can stop when they believe they understand the concept well enough

8. Graded (but not figuring in to course grade)

9. Comments requiring follow up

10. Subject matter differences evident.

11. Optimal hours per week? (max 2 per day/night)

12. Integration with lesson(s) recognizable and consistent

13. Student autonomy encouraged

14. Time management required or encouraged

15. Scaffolding implicit or explicit

16. Mentoring/coaching function evident

17. “embodied practice” (Do something other than sit and think and take notes.)

18. Data management system supplied

19. Multi-modality practice

20. Overlearning (especially for beginners)

21. Homework practice interviews done with instructors

22. Tasks that cannot be performed in class
23. Predicted time required indicated
24. Tracking actual homework task time
25. Homework counts toward grades
26. Homework packets provided
27. Recognized benefits to students & teacher presented and acknowledged
28. Effective in class follow up (i.e., checking homework orally; checking homework on the board; and collecting and grading homework)
29. Student “enjoyment” of homework
30. Online applications and storage
31. Cultural expectations met or moderated
32. Gains (8 ~ 31%) evident
33. Reflective practice required
34. Meta-cognitive (planned practice)
35. “learning lexicon” developed over time by students and/or instructor
36. Incidental study recognition
37. Portfolio review
38. Student recommendations, evaluations of homework effectiveness
39. “Filing” system required and reviewed
40. Homework ethnography (f2f interviews focusing on more than just practice)
41. Group homework proposals and review
43. Demonstrates competence
44. Is aesthetically pleasing

Selected references

Cooper, H., Robinson, J., & Patall, E. (2006). Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003 Review of Educational Research 76:1, 1-62.

Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic Effects of Homework in Privileged, High-Performing High Schools, Journal of Experimental Education, 81:4, 490-510.

Ozkan E., & Henderson, D. (2011). Are we wasting our children’s time by giving them more homework?, Economics of Education Review Economics of Education Review, 30:5, 950-961.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Retrieved February 2, 2016, http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeecoedu/v_3a30_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a5_3ap_3a950-961.htm.

The Hechinger report (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/05/study-homework-matters-more-in-certain-countries

Rosario, P., Nunez, J., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Suarez, N., Fuentes, S., & Moreira, T. (2015) The effects of teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' EFL performance: a randomized-group design http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528/full.

ASCD (2007). The case for and against homework. Retrieved February 4, 2016,

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar07/vol64/num06/The-Case-For-and-Against-Homework.aspx.

Challenge Success (2012). Retrieved February 2, 2016, www.challengesuccess.org.

Vatterott, C. (2016). Retrieved February 2, 2016, http://www.homeworklady.com/.

Safakova, Z. (2015). Reasons for doing/not online homework: insights from EFL students, A. & Cubri, M. (Eds). ECEL2015-14th European Conference on e-Learning, 510-518.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Marking the territory: What wolves can teach us about integrated anchoring and learning of L2 pronunciation

Clip art:
Clker

There are many who report using haptic anchoring in teaching pronunciation, techniques such as clapping hands, stomping feet, tapping on the desk or pulling at rubber bands-- coordinated with stressed words or rhythm groups in speaking. Such "marking of the territory" does certainly help to reinforce the goal of the activity, but it is not "haptic-integrated," in the sense that we use it here.

In the 2003 study of the marking behavior of wolves in Poland, by Zub, Theuerkauf, Jędrzejewski, Jędrzejewska, Schmidt and Kowalczyk, an elaborate system was revealed such that each incidence of territorial marking could only be interpreted by considering three parameters simultaneously: (a) significance, (b) variability, and (c) relationship to other marking(s). In other words, the efficacy and meaning of the "mark" was dependent entirely upon its relative place in an integrated, multi-dimensional map of the territory.

In the same sense, haptic anchoring of new pronunciation only contributes effectively when it is thoroughly integrated into speaking, listening, reading or writing tasks. If it is experienced outside of meaningful discourse, narrative and task sequencing, as traditional, isolated pronunciation exercises inserted in the midst of a lesson--no matter how vividly or dramatically the haptic anchoring is executed, chances are it will not be all that different or memorable in principle than when the wolves, themselves, employ the same marking "technology" for other, more mundane functions in the Bialowieza woods . . .

Monday, September 19, 2011

Thresholds in learning pronunciation

Clip art:
Clker

Previous posts have considered thresholds in several disciplines, including recent looks at learning to juggle and the use of hypnotic suggestion in facilitating pronunciation change. In Lessac's work there is a similar point in the 12-step process where the student has arrived at a level where a quantum leap has been achieved (the ability to perform "the call") and the voice has a new quality about it that does not follow directly from the work that has proceded. The same experience is frequent in development of skill with musical instruments and complex athletic skills.

Here is study of, of all things, "critical evaluation of information resources" by upper division undergraduates. Those who were seen as having crossed the threshold into their chosen professions, in some recognizable sense, were able to " . . . establish the authority, quality and credibility of [discipline-specific] information sources--a remarkable, if somewhat mystical experience.

Pronunciation change often happens as abruptly, with analogous parameters. The "authority" of a sound or word is best thought of as its place in the system or in those words where it occurs; the "quality" of the sound, its resonant and articulatory features; the "credibility," both the felt sense (haptic anchoring) and the confidence attributed to the changed sound or word. To the learner, a new pronunciation should, for the most part, just "show up," be a pleasant surprise, not be consciously integrated into spontaneous speech most of the time. For the instructor, the designer, the process and protocols must be transparent and managed. We haven't crossed that threshold yet, but we are closer.

What is haptic pronunciation teaching?

Basically, it is using gesture, touch and movement to teach pronunciation of English (or any language). What makes this method unique is that it is based on controlled and systematic use of gesture in doing that. (Often the problem with gesture use in language learning is that it can be "crazy" or random or intimidating or inconsistent, or not well-developed and tied to clear outcomes.)

The earlier "Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation (EHIEP) approach," now KINETIK, does a better job of enhancing presentation, modelling, feedback and correction. The method is simple and easy to follow. Once a 30-minute module is finished, teacher and students have a set of techniques to use in class anytime a pronunciation problem or opportunity comes up!

Haptic Preliminaries

I often begin workshops or papers with the comment that in about 40 years in the field I have had just one idea: that the systematic use of body movement is essential to effective and efficient pronunciation instruction. That has never been more relevant than today, with the general deemphasis on pronunciation and introduction of technology into the field. From both perspectives, the "haptic" perspective approach developed here offers great promise. I can at least promise you a "moving" experience!

What is the KINETIK Method?

KINETIK is the name of the new v6.0 haptic pronunciation teaching system. About six years earlier we were using the acronym, "Haptic Integrated Pronunciation for Other/Extended Circle English Speakers" (HIPOECES)--still there in the url of this blog!

Haptic-integrated clinical pronunciation is:

A different way to learn pronunciation, based in part on Arthur Lessac’s notion of “Training the body first.” It is also based on research in the use of movement and touch in learning and training. It:

Looks somewhat like a combination of aerobics, sign language and Taichi

Provides a basic foundation for continued, self-directed pronunciation learning and classroom instruction

Designed for use by relatively untrained teachers but appropriate for all teachers (and learners) of all levels

Focuses on pronunciation used in conversation (not all words in English)

Is a highly “brain-and-body-friendly” system that promotes efficient learning of integrated tasks in general

Designed to promote integrated classroom pronunciation instruction and enable integration of conscious pronunciation work into spontaneous speaking.

Introduction

This blog was formerly named: HIPoeces (pronounced 'hI-pƏ-cIs), basically an approach to teaching English pronunciation to speakers of "outer and expanding" circle Englishes (including that population commonly termed: non-native speakers) but also compatible with the use of local models other than simply Standard" American" or RP. Using Kachru's "Inner, expanding and outer circles" model to characterize the breadth of Englishes and speakers of those, HIPoeces (now HICP) systems focus on developing haptically-centered pedagogical models and methods which can be adapted for teaching the pronunciation of various Englishes as they are spoken and taught by "owners" of those varieties.

In theory, the underlying principles can be applied to teaching the sound system of any language. Most language instructors intuitively use a great deal of movement and tactile anchoring in the classroom. The essential question is how to use that resource systematically, especially so that those learners who are less "haptic" in nature are also "moved" by the method.

Simply put, the HICP model/method is based on the idea of speaking along with arm and hand movement, not all that different from that used in sign languages. Most movement patterns are taken from either typical classroom pronunciation instruction practice or from related fields, such as psychotherapy or sports.

Most blog posts link to research that relates to the general HICP model, that is studies dealing with the role of gesture, touch, movement, learning modalities, learning in output, use of the visual field in learning, and experiential learning.

DEFINITIONS:

"Haptic" techniques- procedures that involve both movement and touch (Obvious examples include clapping hands, tapping feet, or holding an object and shaking it to the rhythm of a poem.)

"HICP techniques" - procedures that are haptic and also explicitly coordinated with phonological structures and/or discourse prosody (For example, clapping hands on primary stressed syllables in multi-syllable words, or doing a dance step on key words in conversational turns.)

"Haptic integration"- The haptic dimension probably functions as much to anchor visual and auditory material as it does to assist the learner in getting the "felt sense" of the sound or sound process. Lack of integration into spontaneous speech being such a serious potential shortcoming of instruction, haptic engagement seems a promising bridge to more accurate fluency.

"Visual field" - in HICP extensive use is made of the visual field in front of the learner. (For example, a modified version of the IPA vowel chart is anchored haptically in the imagination of the learner, directly in front of the upper body, and used for several purposes throughout the program.)