Z-OR: Enhanced English Fluency and Confidence

Conference presentation later this month with Eileen McWilliams at the BCTEAL annual conference, entitled: How to Speak with Confident Vowels and Beyond! It is based on research I reported on at the 2022 Spokane ESL Conference: Using what you know: Embodied Oral Reading to Spontaneous Speech, with Volzhanina and Qie.

Here's the summary:

This workshop presents a haptic technique (using systematic movement and touch) based on strategic use of intonation and vowel quality for helping learners achieve more confidence in speaking based on developing awareness and control of the fundamental formant (lowest) in their speech, evident especially when one is relaxed and confident.

There are two terms we have been using: Haptic-Embodied Oral Reading (HE OR), and Spontaneous Haptic-Embodied Oral Recast (SHE-OR). Using the HE-OR technique, which involves using gesture and touch to accompany an oral reading, learners developed remarkable confidence and fluency in speaking and (they report) that the technique also improved their reading fluency. At the end of the study, learners switched to SHE-OR, where they managed their spontaneous speech using a fluency gesture as they were describing various locations and events. The apparent carry over from HE-OR over to SHE-OR was striking. Have just updated our terms a little. Now, instead of HE-OR or SHE-OR, we use the gender neutral, Z-OR, to refer to both fixed text and spontaneous embodied readings and recasts. 

If you can’t join us at BCTEAL, no worries. We’ll post the recording right after the conference.

Correct pronunciation by talking about it: Think or swim . . .

Photo credit: Seaglobe.com

Ever notice how students often will not notice well enough to "get it"  when you point out a pronunciation issue for them and skillfully provide them with a preferred form on the spot?

A recent study of noticing by Hanna, Mullainathan and Scwartzstein (2012) suggests something of why from a different perspective. When their subjects, seaweed farmers, were presented with data that was potentially very valuable for them in improving their work and problem solving, they didn't "uptake" much either--unless the relevance of the key elements was also explicitly linked back to why they were critical or relevant.

In other words, the new data had to be immediately linked (somehow) to acknowledged and perceived (or felt) relevance, what we (following Gendlin, 1972) refer to as "felt sense." In pronunciation teaching with adults, that at least means "getting back in touch with" earlier explicit explanation and guided practice. The problem is often, without sufficient physical experience and practice of the sound change in the first place or in the referring "teachable moment," there is little chance for most that merely pointing out or covertly throwing in correct models is going to work.

And taking valuable class time in the middle of a content-based discussion, for example, to go into an impromptu explanation right there as to why that particular sound issue is important to intelligibility for some subset of learners will probably not be productive either. So what should you do?

What does work, in our experience, in EHIEP/AHEPS, is haptic anchoring (gesture + touch on stressed words or syllables), that is much more strongly body-based initial experience of the sound or word. Having intensely experienced the physical properties of the sound early on, learners then have better access to that anchor when it is activated in a meaningful context. (The basic trick involved in hypnotic suggestion.) The primary contribution of haptic engagement in pronunciation learning or any learning system is integrating the senses, providing the link back to the experience and sound later.

That way, in spontaneous conversation or classroom talk, after a problematic word or stress pattern occurs, with a quick "haptic-anchored noticing" as the word is repeated by the instructor, often w/out even saying the word out loud, the connection is made. The same principle holds if the instructor, aware of a feature that a student or students are working on, haptically anchors some element as he or she produces it in doing an explanation or providing a comment: the visual gesture accompanying the spoken word is often enough for students to "feel" and register that token.

How well that works consistently is, of course, an empirical question, one that can and will be researched in time. In the meantime, take it from the seaweed farmers. The only way to experience this level of somatic, whole-body, experiential learning . . . is to jump in the (haptic teaching) water .  .  . and notice what happens. As we say, "Think or swim . . . take your pick!

Keep in touch.

Grafting melodious bird song on to animal, utilitarian pronunciation

This is just too much to resist. Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya of MIT make an interesting observation, following on from comments by Darwin, summarized by Science Daily: " . . . human language is a grafting of two communication forms found elsewhere in the animal kingdom: first, the elaborate songs of birds, and second, the more utilitarian, information-bearing types of expression seen in a diversity of other animals." The choice of term there, the "grafting" metaphor, is worth unpacking a little. It is one used frequently by theorists who focus on a narrow piece of a process and then leave the clean up to somebody else, the implication being that something is inserted into or combined in the organism and then we just step back and watch it morph! I do want to get the full article and see where that line of argument goes.

Clip art: Clker

Let's run with that metaphor a bit and see how it relates to pronunciation teaching . . . Perhaps the way to approach pronunciation should, indeed, be to address the two functions, the melodic and "informational," more independently, from a "grafting" perspective in the learner, rather than seeking to actively integrate them. In other words, we should not be so concerned with how or whether the learner manages to wind up using the sounds or terms in spontaneous speaking or writing. (That is apparently somebody else's bailiwick.) We are probably talking prosody vs lexical-level word stress and related grammatical-morpho-phonemic changes in the pronunciation of a word. I recently got an email from a well-known colleague, that, in effect said precisely that: Our job is to provide guidance, rules and opportunity for practice--not get "all worked up about" integration into spontaneous speech.

In reality, that is what goes on in much of pronunciation instruction anyway: the two "levels" are treated in relative isolation; conscious practice and explanation of the two "communication forms" are integrated in the syllabus but not in the moment-by-moment in the classroom. Those that assume that the learner will then just go ahead and integrate things in his/her spare time or cognitive processing may be right. But I doubt it still.

Got to be a way to better graft our song and dance into our clinical practice . . .  

Grasping Haptic II: Haptic presence

So what does it "feel" like, what is the "felt sense," when one is fully engaged in haptic-integrated pronunciation work? About the best term or metaphor I have encountered is "grasp," in the sense that McLuhan was alluding to (掴む 'tsukamu' in Japanese is even better.) It entails both perception of the object or person and the sensation of near-physical presence or connectedness to it. In this piece by Abeele et al (2007) the discussion of the distinction between social presence and connectedness points to the key notion in haptic anchoring: the former is entirely outward directed; the latter, more  internal, emotional.

In other words, effective haptic anchoring depends upon being able to totally embrace, momentarily, the somatic (body), internal sensations of a sound--completely disregarding "incoming" data and stimulation:  total, undivided attention! The ability to do that should later result in both more efficient monitoring of--and integration of new sounds into--spontaneous speech. And that is easily within the 掴む of any learner.

Essential English Pronunciation--Is that all there is to love?

Clip art: Clker

Pronunciation work should be exceedingly rewarding--and often downright fun--for both learner and instructor. If not, it probably is just not going far enough. There is general agreement in the field today on what elements of English pronunciation are essential for developing intelligibility. For example, here is the Jenkins model of essential Global English. Here is a relatively concise list for Vietnamese learners and an hour video of Gilbert's version @New School (also linked in a previous post on a different topic) that includes more than the essentials--and some I consider decidedly nonessential--but worth watching.

Where there is some consensus in how to
(1) prioritize those various "bits and processes,"
(2) which techniques are most effective in specific learning contexts,
there is far less (or even any discussion) as to how to 
(3) anchor and 
(4) integrate those elements into spontaneous speaking--along with creating a 
(5) consistent routine and 
(6) "phonological acquisition readiness."

HICP is really more about the last four than the first two. In principle, any theoretically grounded schema today (such as that of Jenkins, Gilbert or Tran) can be used in identifying the critical elements for a specific learner population. (See earlier posts on the "end" of pronunciation methodology!) Likewise, once the foundation is established, the course of further instruction is quite open. EHIEP protocols (12  basic teaching techniques) should be applicable in virtually all classroom or personal development settings. Hence the "haptic-integrated" in EHIEP and the "clinical" in HICP, beginning where most contemporary methodology leaves off or (typically) consigns to the learner how to figure out and manage. To paraphrase Buzz Lightyear: To ESSENTIAL AND BEYOND!

Choral repetition + haptic anchoring: Doing more with less!

Clip art: Clker

I have described the work of Olle Kjellin previously. Reports on his "extreme" choral repetition-based pronunciation teaching method by Kjellin and his followers are persuasive in demonstrating that getting students to repeat a phrase up to 100 times " . . . generate[s] a kind of statistical "feel" for the phonological, syntactical, semantic, and pragmatic aspects of the phrase, i.e. to really "learn" it."

 I don't doubt for a minute that that anchors the "feel" or felt sense described--assuming that you can get learners to stay with you in the process. The question is, however, if our target is "just" pronunciation change, with well-executed haptic anchoring can we cut back some on the number of reps? (For some examples of HICP-type "haptic anchoring," see the first comment below.) Although Kjellin has not published hard evidence on the long term effects of "mega-rep" work--other than alluding to having witnesses consistent results throughout his 30 years in the field,

I'll accept his claims on similar grounds to those made here for the efficacy of HICP work: the extensive research on haptic-based learning in several fields, and our experience with EHIEP protocols over the last decade or so (and, of course, my 30+ years in the field, as well!) So, about how many "haptic-choral-repetitions" are necessary? If learners are in "full-body-attention mode," as described in earlier posts, only a few in class and a few more in homework practice sessions should be sufficient to enable some integration into spontaneous speech. Trust me. I've seen it work repeatedly, "hundreds" of times, in fact.

Hammering in or "haptic anchoring" of new pronunciation!

Clip art: Clker

There are few accessible models today that attempt to explain how pronunciation gets integrated into spontaneous speaking, or how to make that happen. One of the more  radical (or "retro," depending on your perspective) is that of Dr Olle Kjellin, which involves carefully engineered, massive doses of what he terms "quality repetition." The choral repetition is accompanied by various types of body engagement or awareness of the articulatory process and ingenious exercises, but the fundamental driver of integration is repetition. (I'm a big fan of Olle's work and the degree of accuracy he is able to achieve consistently--although its general applicability is somewhat limited.) Contrast that with:

(a) Communicative methods (where genuine communication or attention to the correct form/pronunciation is seen as the critical link between the form and its pronunciation, not repetition drill) or
(b) More cognitive or metacognitive approaches (where planning and insight into the problem and the system are understood as the more important influences on ultimate anchoring new forms-- "simple" repetition being not favored or recommended generally) or
(c) HICP/EHIEP-based methods where with in-situ (haptic) anchoring (changing pronunciation in the context of ongoing content-based speaking or listening-focused instruction) there should be as few overt repetitions of changed forms as possible.

It is worth repeating, however: either drill change in with gusto as does Kjellin (assuming you can keep your students engaged, outgoing and motivated) or use a lighter, meaning-centered, integrated (haptic) touch to move them to intelligible change. There appears to be relatively little "communicative middle ground" available. (One of my heroes of the structuralist/ALM era and right up until his death in 2006 was, in fact, Hector HAMMERly.)

Metalinguistic feedback and "Tell backs" in correcting pronunciation errors

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

This interesting paper by Reed and Michaud that illustrates where the field is headed, especially how cognitive phonologists view the priorities of the process of correcting errors in spontaneous speech. The two key strategies are to (metalinguistic) instruct the learner to do something with the piece of sound to fix it, and then (tell back) have the student report back to the instructor in quasi-technical terms what the problem is and the preferred method for fixing it. And then fix it. (I may be overtruncating the process a bit, of course!) For some learners, I'm sure that works, especially those more advanced in EAP programs, where metalinguistic work (talk about language structure and awareness) is the essence of the pedagogical process.

Now haptic anchoring could, in principle, be applied after the student has talked back to the instructor--and I'm sure that would be the response from Reed and Michaud. There appears, however, to be no evidence at present to verify that method in correcting pronunciation, although there is substantial research supporting such metalinguistic "chat" in the areas of grammar and vocabulary. From a HICP/EHIEP perspective, of course, metacognitve reflection for the most part follows haptic anchoring, not the reverse. I don't  find this "tell back" innovation/development a cause for great optimism at this point, but I'm sure that I can be talked out it . . .

Could Krashen's "Monitor Model" have been 25% correct?

Clip art: Clker

Here is an article that begins with a quote from Krashen (1982) that states his initial articulation of the "Monitor Model," arguing, among other things, that attention to form or correction in L2 acquisition is not effective or productive, at best. Following on from recent posts, you can see how he had captured a critical dimension of the process but was tossing out even the possibility of any directed, modality-mediated monitoring of spontaneous speaking (that is, modulating attention appropriately to learner cognitive style profile among the four senses or modalities), as we have been exploring for some time now. I'm sure I am not the first to suggest that "Krashen's Error" was that he was  just slightly "out of touch" . . .