Showing posts with label pronunciation change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pronunciation change. Show all posts

Thursday, June 4, 2020

CPR for Pronunciation homework and teaching . . . that works!

Clker.com
Excellent study by Martin, "Pronunciation Can Be Acquired Outside the Classroom: Design and Assessment of Homework-Based Training," a real MUST READ for you if you are serious about pronunciation teaching, demonstrating that at least one kind of (computer-mediated)  homework system is not only effective, but may work as well as classroom-only instruction. 

The basic process in the homework phase was what is termed, iCPR, computer-based, intelligibility focused cued pronunciation reading. Learners are provided with explicit instruction, explanation and then both perceptual and production training and practice, with feedback in the perceptual phase/practice only. 

The study involved adult learners of German, extending over 10 weeks, with the equivalent of about 30 minutes of instruction either in class or out of class. The in-class lessons seemed to closely mimic the process and time allocation of the homework. From a number of perspectives, either treatment showed equally significant improvement and student satisfaction. Methodologically, the project seems tight, although the use of the term, homework, is probably a little misleading today when the learner never really "leaves" the web in some form during the day except for sleep . . . 

In corresponding with the researcher, my only question was: How (on earth) did you get the students to DO their homework? Surely it  had something to do with the "sell" up front, the allocation of grade points (easily accounted for in the computer-mediated system) and (probably) early student awareness to some degree of the program's efficacy. So . . . it looks well conceived, a highly detailed blueprint of how to set up a similar system. 

Setting aside the question of just how readily the process can be adopted and adapted for the moment, what this shows or means is that Martin has given us another intriguing picture of the future of pronunciation teaching: pronunciation work handled outside of in-class instruction. 

To paraphrase Lincoln Steffens: "I have seen the future (of pronunciation teaching) and it works. [remark after visiting the Soviet Union in 1919]” or maybe even Marshall McLuhan: "If it works, it's obsolete." . . . The field is changing fast. Pronounced change, to put it mildly!

Source: 
The Modern Language Journal, 0, 0, (2020) DOI: 10.1111/modl.12638 0026-7902/20/1–23 National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations

Thursday, August 18, 2011

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!