The Schrödinger's Cat(ch) of Pronunciation Teaching

Clker.com

Bottom line: It’s almost impossible to LOVE pronunciation teaching unless you have seen or heard or had it done to you. And if you love it, much of your best work will be spontaneous or at least seem to be. And for the most part, up until now, there has been no “virtually” useful research or methods stuff that can take you there

Until now. . . Introducing a new podcast (working title): Teachable Moments in Pronunciation Teaching (TMPT)

Once a week or so I'll be chatting with a real, practicing master pronunciation teacher/lover, not a “non-practicing” theorist or methodologist—to learn from. Our conversations will take place as soon as possible after a good class they have just taught, where we talk about what actually happened, moment by moment . . . how and why it worked, based in part on an audio recording of the session. 

Here is what inspired it:

One of the most striking thought problems of all time, “Schrödinger's Cat”, revealed a potentially fatal flaw in a school of quantum physics. in effect it exposed a “black box” in the theory where two contradictory states had to be present, where it was logically impossible to know which condition was in effect (whether a cat in a box was dead or alive).

In pronunciation teaching, just like the (in)famous "black box" in Chomsky's early work, we have our own enigmatic box as well: What actually goes on in the classroom, the quality of the moment by moment engagement that underlies every research study but is practically never mentioned or analyzed. There were good reasons for that, a broad range of (quickly) researchable variables, cognitions, techniques and features of students' L1s to be explored and understood. 

Almost without exception, research on pronunciation teaching effectiveness that looks at classroom work reports only at the activity-level, noting which techniques were used generally, something like: presentation and then various kinds of controlled and freer practice. The data is there, however, in any number of studies where transcripts of actual class sessions were analyzed for specific features, but we do not have publicly accessible studies of the messy, thick instructional discourse itself. That is the window that the podcast will look through: recent replays of pronunciation teaching as rich conversational engagement between students and instructor.

Know somebody we should talk to? Let me know!

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!

Why using music helps learning pronunciation even when it doesn't!

clker.com

How did we ever teach or solve problems before neuroscience--or as we occasionally refer to it here: "near-ol'-science"? It is axiomatic that even when an experiment or study goes no place, or worse, it is still scientifically valid as long as it was well designed. (Try telling that to your tenure and promotion committee, however, or try and get a "no results" report published sometime, although that is changing when it comes to replicating well-known studies.)

Neuroscience has certainly added a new dimension to our work. Sometimes, for instance, it highlights a change in brain structure related to some experimental process, even if the treatment in the study didn't work as predicted.

Here's an example with particular relevance for pronunciation teaching, a "no discernable difference in main effect but related changes in the brain anyway" study, relating sound and movement. To misquote one of my favorite quotes from Bertrand Russell: A difference that doesn't make a difference . . . DOES make a difference in this case. Perhaps significantly.

In the study by Moore, Schaefer, Bastin, Roberts and Overy, summarized by Science Daily, Diffusion tensor MRI tractography reveals increased fractional anisotropy (FA) in arcuate fasciculus following music-cued motor training, subjects were trained in a pattern of finger movements either accompanied by music or not, and, of course, fMRI'd as well. The music treatment did not result in any significant difference in learning the skill but in the area of the brain connecting sound and movement, there was a striking increase in activity and activated "white matter". The music had still facilitated the learning in some sense, just not enough--but enough to suggest to researchers that the music-connection is indeed valuable in enhancing motor skill development.

My guess (based on common sense and the experience of generations of teachers who use music for this purpose and others) is that had the experiment involved a more complex skill and possibly more time, the gain by the music group would have been more evident. Another possibility is that the way that the skill was measured did not get at some other aspect of the process or look at it over a long enough time period. Perhaps had a second, related skill been learned next, the enhanced sound-movement connectivity would have been more "pronounced" . . . The researchers suggest as much in their conclusion.

The significance of the study, according the researchers was that: "The study suggests that music makes a key difference. We have long known that music encourages people to move. This study provides the first experimental evidence that adding musical cues to learning [sic] new motor task can lead to changes in white matter structure in the brain." Again, that key difference was in the brain, not in the hands. But if they are right, and I'm certain they are, it points to five important principles:

• Music facilitates (at least motor and sound connected) learning.
• The effect may be more cumulative, rather then evident in controlled "one time" studies.
• Pronunciation learning, especially early in the process is in many respects is a sound-motor problem for the learner.
• Evidence that training is consonant with brain development should be understood as more systemic, affecting and supporting other analogous processes in language learning as well.
• There is much we do now that we lack clear empirical evidence for but experience argues strongly for it. Before abandoning it, connect up fMRIs to students and see what is actually going on in the brain. You may be making all kinds of progress that will be evident soon, or a bit later. 

Publish it, using this study as your model! It's a (no) brainer!

Source:
University of Edinburgh. (2017, July 6). Learning with music can change brain structure: Using musical cues to learn a physical task significantly develops an important part of the brain, according to a new study. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 13, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170706113209.htm

TESOL 2018 Convention Haptic Pronunciation Teaching Proposals

It's that time again! Proposals are due June 1st! A number of topics have been suggested for us Hapticians. If you see one you like and want to participate in, let us know SOON!

• Half-day pre-convention institute - Basic training in haptic pronunciation teaching
• Research colloquium on haptic pronunciation teaching - This year's colloquium was very successful. Much more to report on next year. 
• Embodiment and the body in TESOL - This is a broader topic, one that has been suggested to me repeatedly. Reasonably certain it will be proposed.
• Unstressed vowels (a haptic approach) - The haptic pedagogical movement pattern system for unstressed vowels, especially schwa, is innovative and effective, used now primarily in accent reduction.
• Visible gesture in pronunciation instruction - With the recent publication of a couple of articles, this topic is finally getting some serious discussion. (This deals with visual signalling, more than the anchoring of gesture in the body of the learner.)
• Haptic pragmatics - I have done three successful workshops on this topic with Angelina VanDyke. The model has developed considerably.
• Haptic discourse intonation teaching basics - This one follows somewhat from the Haptic Pragmatics workshop. 
• Haptic pronunciation in literacy work - This would be a follow up on one of the presentations in this year's haptic research colloquium. 
• Haptic pronunciation for kids - The haptic model is used by many elementary school teachers.
• Haptic pronunciation teaching for volunteer teachers - The current haptic pronunciation teacher certification course developed out of work with volunteer teachers
• There will be a publishers session on v5.0 of the Haptic Pronunciation Teaching Certification course. 

Those could be in any of several formats, colloquia, workshops, teaching tips, etc.

Keep in touch - and check in if interested by May 1st!

"Haptenings" at the TESOL 2017 Convention in Seattle!

clker.com

If you'll be in Seattle in March for the 2017 TESOL Convention, please join us at one of the "haptenings" (haptic pronunciation teaching happenings):

• Haptic Pronunciation Teaching (workshop) (Kielstra, et al.) - Basics of the method. No prior training in phonetics or pronunciation teaching necessary. 
• Teacher cognition about haptic pronunciation teaching (colloquium) (Acton, et al.) - Reports on 5 recent studies of haptic pronunciation teaching in the classroom
• Rhythm and focal stress (poster session) (Teaman, et al.) - Haptic and other techniques for teaching rhythm and focal (sentence and discourse level) stress

A few other convention asides:

• As usual, we'll also set up some kind of networking session in the "networking" area late in the convention. 
• We will also video those sessions and make them available on Vimeo.com once we get home.  
• I'll be tweeting (@WmActon) as will other hapticians, I'm sure. 
• v4.5 of the Haptic Pronunciation Course will be out by then, with revised videos and coursebook additions.
• I'm also on a panel on research in L2 homework in which at least some of my data comes from haptic homework as well. 

Keep in touch! (So will we!)

(Really) great body-enhanced pronunciation teaching

If you are interested in using gesture more effectively in your teaching, a new 2016 study by Nguyen, A micro-analysis of embodiments and speech in the pronunciation instruction of one ESL teacher, is well worth reading. The study is, by design, wisely focused more on what the instructor does with her voice and body during instruction, not on student learning, uptake or in-class engagement.

The literature review establishes reasonably well the connection between the gesture described in the study and enhanced student learning of language and pronunciation. I can almost not imagine a better model of integrated gestural use in pronunciation teaching . . . The instructor is a superb performer, as are many who love teaching pronunciation. (Full disclosure: From the photos in the article I recognize the instructor, a master teacher with decades of experience in the field teaching speaking and pronunciation.)

From decades of work with gesture, myself, one of the most consistent predictors of effective use of gesture in teaching is how comfortable the instructor feels with "dancing" in front of the students and getting them to move along with her. The research on body image and identity and embodiment are unequivocal on that: to move others, literally and figuratively, you must be comfortable with your own body and its representation in public.

Knowing this instructor I do not need to see the video data to understand how her personal presence could command learner attention and (sympathetic, non-conscious) body movement, or her ability to establish and maintain rapport in the classroom. Likewise, I have not the slightest doubt that the students' experience and learning in that milieu are excellent, if not extraordinary.

The report is a fascinating read, illustrating use of various gestures and techniques, including body synchronization with rhythm and stress, and beat gesture associated with stress patterning. If you can "move" like that model, you got it. When it comes to this kind of instruction, however, the "klutzes" are clearly in the majority, probably for a number of reasons.

The one popular technique described, using stretching of rubber bands to identify stressed or lengthened vowels is often effective--for at least presenting the concept. It is marginally haptic, in fact, using both movement and some tactile anchoring in the process (the feeling of the rubber band pressing differentially on the inside of the thumbs.) In teacher training I sometimes use that technique to visually illustrate what happens to stressed vowels or those occurring before voiced consonants, in general. There is no study that I am aware of, however, that demonstrates carry over of "rubber banding" to changes in spontaneous speech or even better memory for the specific stressed syllables in the words presented in class. I'd be surprised to find one in fact.

In part the reason for that, again well established in research on touch, is that the brain is not very good at remembering degrees of pressure of touch. Likewise, clapping hands on all syllables of a word or tapping on a desk but a bit harder on the stressed syllable should not, in principle, be all that effective. That observation was, in fact, one of the early motivations for developing the haptic pronunciation teaching system.  By contrast, isolated touch, usually at a different locations on the body, seems to work much better to create differentiated memory for stress assignment. (All haptic techniques are based on that assumption.)

I, myself, taught like the model in the research for decades, basically using primarily visual-kinesthetic modeling and some student body engagement to teach pronunciation. The problem was trying to train new teachers on how to do that effectively. For a while I tried turning trainees into (somewhat) flamboyant performers like myself. I gave up on that project about 15 years ago and began figuring out how to use gesture effectively even if you, yourself, are not all that comfortable with doing it, a functional . . . klutz.

The key to effective gesture work is ultimately that the learner's body must be brought to move both in response to the instructor's presentation and in independent practice, perhaps as homework.(Lessac's dictum: Train the body first!)  Great performers accomplish that naturally, at least in presenting the concepts. The haptic video teaching system is there for those who are near totally averse to drawing attention to their body up front, but, in general, managed gesture is very doable. There are a number of (competing) systems today that do that. See the new haptic pronunciation teaching certificate, if interested in the most "moving and touching" approach.

Citation:
Nguyen, Mai-Han. (2016). A micro-analysis of embodiments and speech in the pronunciation instruction of one ESL teacher. Issues in Applied Linguistics. appling_ial_24274. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/993425h1

Why feedback on pronunciation (often) fails--and how to make it work better.

Clker.com

We are getting a much better idea from research as to what kind of feedback from teachers seems to produce best results in a range of contexts (various mixes of explanation, modeling and guided practice). Notice that I said SEEMS to produce best results. New research by Winstone and colleagues at the University of Surrey and Aston University (summarized by Science Daily) suggests there may be something else going on here that significantly contributes to the puzzle: what learners DO with the feedback, not the feedback, itself.

In a meta-analysis of a large number of studies in education, they found that the actual form of feedback was not contributing as much variance to results as was how students followed up on that feedback, either on their own, or preferably in some kind of ongoing dialogue with their instructor. Their primary recommendation is that we "talk" with learners more, seeing feedback more as a process rather than an event. If you do process writing, you certainly know what they are getting at.

A good example of "one way" feedback in pronunciation work is a nice study by Darcy and Ewert (2013) where explicit feedback and improvement on suprasegmentals (rhythm, stress and intonation) was associated with the kind of feedback provided. From the absract:

An analysis of classroom treatment recordings demonstrates that explicit phonetic instruction that makes learners notice L2 features (i.e., explicit presentation of contents, guided analysis and
practice, and corrective feedback.

What that research report did not look at systematically is how those four classroom activities actually happened. You could imagine a wide range of "interactivity" between instructors and students going on during any of those. In other words, something worked . . . but why exactly. According to Winstone et al., just listing those classroom pedagogical practices, especially the last does not tell really tell us much--or help us predict how well the same study would go with a different instructor who might be more or less "dialogic" in her teaching style.

In a 2016 study which complements that research, Feedback on second language pronunciation: A case study of EAP teachers beliefs and practices, Baker and Burri examine what EAP teachers believe about feedback and providing it. From the extensive literature review and the data analysis one question or theme in effect, did not even come up: What do students actually DO with the feedback you (or teachers, in general) provide--and how important is that?

That the researchers did not probe that line of inquiry, itself, reflects the near complete absence of research on what students consistently do either in class or out of class with pronunciation feedback, i.e., correction of various kinds. Teachers in the study did see the value of individualized feedback, which, if done face to face, would almost certainly involve monitoring of student response to feedback and a more dialogic approach to exploitation of feedback.

Granted, studying dialogic classroom engagement between instructors and learners to find out what is really going on is both time consuming and expensive, but you almost have to go there to figure out some of this. You can at least do that in your own classroom. 

Baker and Burri conclude by recommending use of oral journaling, for example, where students can be directed in any number of ways to actively work with teacher-provided feedback. That practice is, in fact, quite popular with language instructors in general, but I have been unable to find published research examining, in depth, what learners actually do with feedback in journaling or elsewhere that may significantly impact effectiveness of learning and uptake of targeted forms.

Welcome your contribution of other research sources and  feedback on this! 


Citations:

Baker, A. and Burri, M. (2016) Feedback on second language pronunciation: A case study of EAP teachers beliefs and practices, Australian Journal of Education 41(6). 
Gordon, J., Darcy, I., and Ewert, D. (2013) Pronunciation teaching and learning: Effects of explicit phonetic instruction in the L2 classroom. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th
Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference. Aug. 2012. (pp. 194-206). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.University of Surrey. (2016, September 21). Research shows that how students engage with feedback is as important as its content. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 2, 2016 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160921084806.htm

Why research on (pronunciation) teaching is often irrelevant to my method and my classroom

In 1994 Kumaravadivelu sounded what has turned out to be something of the death knell for the usefulness of much research on English language teaching for the individual classroom entitled: The Postmethod Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second and Foreign Language Teaching. At the time, it seemed liberating from many perspectives, but the intervening two decades have often proven otherwise. A recent, very revealing article in Education Week by Tucker goes a long way toward explaining why: Why Education Research Has So Little Impact on Practice: The System Effect.

Clker.com

In essence, what Tucker argues, based on a piece by Kane in Education Next, is that a technique (or variable) generally cannot be judged in terms of effectiveness outside of the system in which it functions. And, most importantly, research that attempts to isolate one procedure and then generalize to multiple learner populations is epistemologically invalid (the wrong question!) For a range reasons which Tucker outlines, such as time, resources, tenure and culture, especially North American researchers do not (or cannot) evaluate a variable, such as ability in the context of the method or system in which it is embedded--or compare that system, with its isolated variable to another nearly identical system with only that variable affected. That is especially true when it comes to studying change over time.

Kumaravadivelu identified the last "system" in language teaching, the last prevailing method where internal changes could be judged in terms of effectiveness: the structuralist "Audio-lingual" paradigm. It has (thankfully) nearly disappeared today. Its problems with generalizability were legend, but something also was lost: a common method where individual variables and techniques could be credibly assessed for effectiveness. Tucker's argument speaks clearly to our problem today.

Problem? Well, maybe it is also an opportunity for individual instructors to maintain perspective when reading research studies focusing on one variable or technique before trying it out on students--and more importantly trying to figure out whether something worked or not. ("Research" has overwhelmingly established that it is always far more difficult to learn from our successes than our failures.)

What is the solution? My guess is that a new paradigm, a more iconoclastic method--for teaching pronunciation in this case--will emerge from the chaos. What would that look like? Like ALM, it will at least initially show promise to provide a highly systematic model, a more comprehensive and complete set of tools for a wide range of learning populations and classrooms.

At the moment I can (not surprisingly) only think of one . . .

44 features of effective homework!

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