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

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 . . .

Cooperative pronunciation (fluency) learning

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

For most learners, efficient pronunciation change requires having consistent opportunities to practice the new sounds socially, in "friendly" situations and groups. I learned early that in most cases small group pronunciation work is consistently superior to one-on-one tutoring, from several perspectives. New research by Rand and colleagues at Harvard on what enables effective cooperation in groups suggests something of why that might be. In essence, cooperative communication or engagement proceeds much more efficiently when participants interact or respond "intuitively" or "quickly" without undue pausing to reflect, think or plan what they are going to say. Of course, the right kind of classroom-based group conversation activities can create those conditions consistently, where learners not only can but must experiment with the new or changed forms. The key is in the task design and "community of practice" that allows both targeted usage and corresponding supportive social setting. In that environment not only can learners speak and respond spontaneously but targeted feedback by both the instructor and their classmates can be experienced as absolutely appropriate. The bottom line here: Don't even think about not doing it in your work . . . 

A key to pronunciation exercise and practice persistence: perceived incremental progress

Clip art: Clker

Several earlier posts have referred to the use of "self determination theory" in exploring factors relating to exercise persistence. SDT (Deci & Ryan 1985) holds that four factors may combine in various settings to account for exercise persistence: (Professed) autonomy, relatedness (to group or institution), (program or group) support and (achieved or initial) competence. In a 2011 MA thesis by Martinez, which looked at physical exercise program persistence over the course of a semester, only the latter was shown to predict persistence, and that only in women, not men.

Clip art: Clker

There are no systematic studies that I am aware of in pronunciation instruction that look at (a) what kind of homework is prescribed in pronunciation instruction, (b) the effects of "homework persistence" or (c) personality characteristics or context support features which might support persistence in doing assigned pronunciation exercises and procedures outside of class. If we assume that (a) is important and that (b) is essential to success and that (c) is at least worth considering, then Martinez' research gives us an interesting clue, perhaps a place to start. Why would achieved competence appear to be the sole significant motivator of persistent exercise, and that only in women? Martinez' conclusion is that (probably) the course was structured so that participants could recognize incremental progress on an ongoing basis, week to week, and were thus motivated to keep going. (The men, apparently, were (predictably) not quite as attentive to the "details" of the work or the course, itself.)

Designing physical exercise regimens of that kind seems, at least at face value, to be an easier job than managing pronunciation improvement. In haptic-integrated work, where consistent practice and developing precision of pedagogical movement pattern is tied to pronunciation accuracy, evidence of change and progress, in part because of the "physical" basis of the work, should be easier to both build in and (for both students and instructor) easier to perceive. (See earlier blogposts on "future pacing" and benchmarking trajectories.) Now that is progress. 

Pronunciation feedback: KISS errors goodbye . . .

There are literally dozens of posts on this blog relating to error correction in pronunciation work, including this one from 2011. The research literature, in general, does not find strong support for systematic error correction, although all methodologists maintain, correctly, that it is essential at some levels in the process. Where and when is always the question. This research, by Osman and colleagues, focuses on the potential negative effects of feedback in a somewhat different domain: " . . . about 100 people . . . were given the task of choosing how best to either predict or control the state of health of a baby, revealing that feedback can play a negative role in a particularly complex decision-making scenario . . .  how complex the task is in the first place  . . . will determine how much feedback will actually interfere with rather than facilitate performance." What is interesting about this perspective is that it helps pull apart relatively "simple" (KISS=Keep it simple for students!) error correction of pronunciation from more general, complex and  "constructive" feedback on grammar, vocabulary or usage, discourse structure, etc. In other words, there are probably at least a half a dozen distinct responses to "errors" in the classroom. Some will substantially interfere with communication, some have a chance of being "uptaken" or at least registering with the learner at some level, and some don't. Pronunciation feedback, especially that focusing momentarily on pronunciation at the word and phrase level--and haptically integrated and anchored, of course-- works. Correct me if I'm wrong . . . 

The "truthiness" (or thereabouts) about haptic-integrated pronunciation teaching

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

I have gotten several questions as to why I use clip art and the "left-pointing hand" on blogposts. Other than the obvious, just to "spiff" things up a bit, it turns out that those visuals actually reinforce the "truthiness" of the post.  Newman and colleagues, in research inspired by comedian Stephen Colbert, summarized in Science Daily, report that: "A picture inflates the perceived truth of true and false claims . . . In four different experiments they discovered that people believe claims are true, regardless of whether they actually are true, when a decorative photograph appears alongside the claim." Then, at the conclusion of the summary, in another one for your "Well, duh . . ." or "Ya think?" file, the authors are quoted as observing, "Our research suggests that these photos might have unintended consequences, leading people to accept information because of their feelings rather than the facts." Unintended consequences? I am almost tempted to go back and edit out all the graphics from the last two years--and then have you reread--or ignore many of them, just to check that theory. We could, alternatively, just go back to "pre-haptic-integrated" pronunciation teaching. As noted in several previous blogpost, haptic engagement has been shown believably to at least constrain the influence of visual "clutter" and interference with auditory and somatic anchoring, processing and retrieval. (And, as usual, ignore the hypnotically beautiful, engaging geisha over there to the left . . . or the finger off to the right pointing to the geisha on the left!)

Anchoring pronunciation . . . @ peace!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

This is actually a bit of a follow up to an earlier post, "When to do pronunciation work and what to do before it." In a study looking at enhancement of learning "something verbally new," Dewar and colleagues, according to a summary by Science Daily, discovered that, " . . .  memory can be boosted by taking a brief wakeful rest." Having students sit there in class (or out of class) doing "nothing" for 5 minutes or so in the contemporary Western language teaching program is pretty far out of the box, but certainly worth considering in principle in reference to the process of anchoring learning. The technique is evident in any number of therapeutic, religious and meditative traditions. Research in haptic learning processes has demonstrated the power and necessity of managed attentional focus and limiting distractions, especially visual and past-memory-based. Although the idea of systematically providing brief periods of "emptiness" (not reflection) after the learning act is seemingly different, in function it is not, in part because the overall task sequence includes the "time out" as closure and it does much to structure the nature of what is taught so that it can be experienced and remembered more holistically. Decades ago, when I was experimenting with hypnotic techniques I worked with something analogous, especially in prescribing homework routines for "fossilized" learners. At the time, I did not have a sufficiently systematic understanding of what that should accomplish or a sufficiently integrated mind-body model (See previous post.) We do now.  In the near future, when I have a new student to work with who seems to have the right personality make up to tolerate "nothingness" in at least small bits, I'll try it again. With the scaffolded,  integrated structure of the EHIEP protocols it should be more possible. But try it, too, and report back.  Peace . . . 

Let's get clinical (pronunciation instruction)!

Clipart: Clker

Clipart: Clker

With apologies to the all time favorite aerobic dance anthem, having read over yet one more thread of comments, "a near-conversation" between clinical and experimental psychologists on a blog, the parallel to where we are in the field of pronunciation teaching today was too much to miss. In essence, the experimental types were saying "There is no real evidence for the validity of your clinical practice, especially the procedure that you are recommending." The clinicians, in response, were responding that "Your studies are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to dealing holistically with our real clients. Experience, especially as it is applied to "similar" treatment contexts--and people--is enough to go on, at least for the time being." Sound familiar? A recent research study summarized by Science Daily on the efficacy of online peer support groups, which does relate somewhat to recent posts on group learning theory, ends with the quintessential retort from researcher/clinician, Salazar of Temple University: "These groups likely provide some degree of comfort in sharing a similar experience . . . While we can't yet quantify the benefit with our measurements, it does appear that participants benefit in online contacts with one another . . . If anything, clinicians should become more familiar with online groups because of their prevalence . . . They should be discussing their use with clients, and talking about ways to safely navigate online resources to get the maximum benefit." Now, substitute in any pronunciation teaching technique that you find especially effective for the word "online or groups" in that quote. Does that work in the context of your integrated, "clinical" pronunciation practice? It should. If not, just consider this your online support group and tell us all about it . . . here or on the EHIEP teaching blog!

Embodied, imaginative pronunciation practice

Clipart: Clker

Clipart: Clker

In workshops, I often begin with the question: What do you know about how your students work on their pronunciation outside of class? Do they? (To paraphrase a current country western song, "What happens in pronunciation class, all too often . . . stays in pronunciation class!") In a nice piece on learning a new piece for the flute--which is easily translated into our work, Lea Pearson offers the following:  "Embodied practicing is practicing in which you engage your whole self - body, mind, emotions and multisensory awareness - in all you do. It has three main aspects: Learning the music away from the flute, imaginary practicing and regular practicing." Note especially the bridge from cognitive, intellectual attention to the piece of music as communication, to "regular" whole-person, normal performance: imaginary practicing. By that she means ' . . . imagining everything you might be doing to make the music – finger movement, breathing, embouchure changes, dynamics, articulation, expression, etc – all with a multisensory awareness." What this framework contributes to our understanding of (haptic-) integrated practice is the role of expressiveness and creativity in anchoring changed pronunciation. As noted in earlier posts, expressiveness and enthusiasm do not always contribute positively to the process (both can also serve to undermine anchoring of specific targets as well) but carefully managed "embodied practice" as described by Pearson seems very promising. More on the specifics of how that "bridge" might work in EHIEP instruction later. Imagine that!