One who hesitates is NOT lost (when repeating new words to remember them better by)

                                                   

(Credit: Clker.com)

Actually, the study (Summarized by Neurosciencenews.com) Repeating New Words Out Loud Isn’t Always the Best Way to Learn Them, by Kapnoula et al. Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL) is, more or less, a neuroscientific validation of a principle established decades (and decades ago) by experienced language teachers: sometimes pausing for a instant before you repeat the new word (or piles of words) is the better way to learn and remember it. 

The research does, however, point indirectly to an important development in the field in the last few decades: learning new words out of context, even if the meaning is provided in some form, is a very delicate and complex process, best case. Simply put, subjects in one condition either (a) repeated a new  English-looking, nonsense word (e.g., penivasher) immediately or (b) paused slightly and then repeated the word out loud. With a 4-second pause, their memory for the latter words the next day was significantly better than the former. From the study:

“When a person repeats a word immediately after hearing it, cognitive resources are dedicated to preparing the production of the word and, as a result, these resources cannot be used to deeply encode that word. In contrast, if production is delayed for a few seconds, this overlap is avoided, allowing deeper learning and encoding to take place.”

Ok. That makes sense. But then we have this: 

“Understanding these cognitive mechanisms can teach us how to use repetition more efficiently in educational contexts. For example, teachers can encourage students to repeat a new word the first time they hear it, but after this first exposure, the learning processes should focus more on listening rather than on production,” 

What? Why do I suspect that the researchers have never taught or been taught language--or if they have, poorly, at that?

 " . . . repeat it (once) but after this first exposure, the learning process should focus on listening rather than production . . .?" 

Imagine in just what teaching system/context would that apply. Granted, if all you are working with are new words IN ISOLATION (without associated meaning), where the goal is just reading or listening comprehension for some reason--maybe passing an L2 reading test, not speaking, that figures. But if the new words are actual L2 words, encountered in a rich, memorable context and high frequency collocation--the general M.O. of contemporary language methodology--then radically switching away from productive, out loud repetition/use of words in learning is  . . . well . . . arcane, to put it mildly. 

This may be a case where researchers take what is actually a very nice study and pretty much fanta-(or over)-size its potential application, or don't spend enough time on the concluding paragraph. (I'd pause a bit before assuming it is but the latter . . . )

Now if you do want to experience full-body, memorable engagement/repetition of new words--without hesitation--go to: www.actonhaptic/kinetik 

Keep in touch.

Bill

Source: Wait long and prosper! Delaying production alleviates its detrimental effect on word learning. Kapnoula, C. & Sameul, A. 2023 Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2144917

/i/ or /ɪ/: Perception to Production

Nice piece of research by Lee and Lyster (Lee and Lyster, 2015 - Full citation below) demonstrating the impact of feedback on "instructed" L2 speech perception. (Hat tip to Michael Burri for pointing me at it!) In a simulated-classroom setting, native Korean language students significantly improved their ability to perceive the distinction between /i/ and /I/ in English. The full article is worth the read. Just a couple of caveats before we talk about what that might mean for teaching in the classroom:

• The title is a bit deceptive, as the authors note: " . . . our use of simulated classrooms in this study begs the question as to whether such intense instruction would be feasible in a regular classroom curriculum and whether the results would be similar."
• The tasks are, indeed,  excellent and well controlled--but give almost any competent pronunciation teacher about 6+ hours of classroom time with a homogenous group to work on just that single contrast and see what happens. (I may try to do that, in fact!) 

That does not diminish the importance of the study. The point is that with focused instruction, perception of vowel contrast can be radically improved--and by implication, production also. The question is, how can we begin to approximate that effect in the classroom? (If you are a regular reader of the blog, I'm sure you can see what is coming!)

Photo credit: EHIEP, v4.0 logo
Anna Shaw

Dealing with that /i/-/I/ distinction in North American English (as opposed to British or Australian) is one of the most straight-forward and effective features of the EHIEP (Essential, haptic-integrated English Pronunciation) system. Rather than taking about 5 hours to set things up (and in Lee and Lyster, 2015 there is no long-term follow up on the effect of the study), the EHIEP method, were it to focus only on that contrastive pair, would in toto run less than 1 hour initially and then be integrated into general classroom instruction from there on. 

Without going into all the details here (detailed in AHEPS v3.0 and coming this fall, v4.0), check out the free demos: lax/rough vowels, tense/double vowels and/or our 2012 conference write up, citation below), the procedure is basically:

• Introduce the EHIEP lax and tense vowel pedagogical movement patterns, either with the video (about 15 minutes each) or do it in person.
• Practice just those two vowels in word lists and in context in class: about 30 minutes
• Begin providing both modelling and corrective, in context feedback in class regularly.
• Watch how the contrast shows up in student spontaneous production

I realize that sounds far too simple and obvious to be effective. Great classroom techniques are often like that! We now have over a decade of experience using that basic procedure. Given Lee and Lyster (2015), a classroom-based study using the EHIEP framework, and integrating some of those tasks, especially the Bingo and card sort techniques, seems very possible. Before we get to that, try it yourself and let us know. 

Full citations:

Acton, W., Baker, A., Burri, M., Teaman, B. (2013). Preliminaries to haptic-integrated pronunciation instruction. In J. Levis, K. LeVelle (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference,Aug. 2012. (pp. 234-244). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2015). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000194.

More than a gesture: When to use gesture in L2 teaching

Should you still need more convincing as to the value and contribution of gesture in L2 learning and instruction, the September 2014 issue of The Modern Language Journal (98) has two excellent,  complementary articles that you should read, one by Dahl and Ludvigsen on the effect of gesture on listening comprehension and a second, by Morett, on gesture as a "cognitive aid" during speaking production and communication. (See full references below.)

The first study examines how observing gesture complements comprehension; the second then demonstrates how actually producing the gesture as you learn and then communicate with a new L2 term in the early stages of the process results in more effective acquisition, retention and recall. 

The learner populations involved are quite different, as are the research methodologies, but the two studies together contribute substantially to our understanding of how and when gesture works. (You'll have to access them through your library online or shell out the usual 5-6 Vente Carmel Frap equivalents for each, of course--but it may be worth it in this case.) There is also an earlier (free, accessible online) 2012 paper by Morett, Gibbs and McWhinney, The Role of Gesture in Second Language Learning: Communication, Acquisition, & Retention, that lays out the theoretical background for the new study as well.

One striking (but not surprising) finding of the Morett study is that using a gesture while speaking and communicating results in better acquisition than just observing the gesture being used by someone else. The other study examines the conditions under which seeing gesture performed functions best. 

AH-EPS v3.0

The bottom line: Systematic incorporation of gesture in (at least initial) L2 learning is again shown to be exceedingly effective. It must be carefully timed and linked to meaning, but the results of both studies are very persuasive. Another good example of that, of course, is AH-EPS v3.0 Bees and Butterflies - Serious fun! (Which rolls out this month, in fact!) 

Full references:
Dahl, T. and Ludvigsen, S. (2014). How I See What You're Saying: The Role of Gestures in Native and Foreign Language Listening Comprehension The Modern Language Journal, 98, 3, (2014), pp. 813–833.

Morett, L. (2014) When Hands Speak Louder Than Words: The Role of Gesture in the Communication, Encoding, and Recall of Words in a Novel Second Language, The Modern Language Journal, 98, 3, (2014), pp. 834–853.

The bread and butter of pronunciation use and homework: units of change and practice

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

There is virtually no systematic published research on what goes on outside of class when learners practice their L2 pronunciation assignments  or work on their own. (There was a blogpost earlier based on a study by three linguists who talked about their own self-directed pronunciation strategies and practice but the concept of what size of unit or speech string was the focus was not specifically adressed.) A very interesting study by Christiansen and Bod at Cornell, summarized by Science Daily, "How hierarchical is language use? brings into question the idea that language production relies on a seemingly multi-layered deep structure, analogous to that proposed 50 years ago by Chomsky and friends. Specifically:

" . . . language is actually based on simpler sequential structures, like clusters of beads on a string . . . What we're suggesting is that the language system deals with words by grouping them into little clumps that are then associated with meaning," he said. Sentences are made up of such word clumps, or "constructions," that are understood when arranged in a particular order. For example, the word sequence "bread and butter" might be represented as a construction, whereas the reverse sequence of words ("butter and bread") would likely not."

Any number of models of language use and instruction rely on a similar core constructs, relatively "shallow" structure and meaning "circuits" involved in moment by moment language production. EHIEP, for example, is based on the idea of using only noun and verb  phrase "length" units as vehicles of pronunciation change focus--not word-length or longer than phrase-length sequences.

Not doing enough pronunciation work? You may be doing too much . . .