We have met the enemy (of pronunciation teaching in TESOL), and he is us!

Clker.com

Am often reminded of that great quip in the political cartoon Pogo, by Walt Kelly, embellished in the title of this post. In workshops we often encounter the following three misconceptions about pronunciation teaching, based vaguely and incorrectly on "research" in the field. Recently, in the comments of one reviewer of a proposal for a workshop on teaching consonants for the 2016 TESOL convention--which was rejected, by the way--all three showed up together! Here they are, with my responses in italics:

Currency/Importance/Appropriateness 
"Most learners have access to websites that model phonemes, such as Rachel’s English and Sounds of Speech by the University of Iowa."

Really? "Most" learners? What planet is that on? Billions of learners don't have web access, including the preponderance of those in settlement programs here in Vancouver. And even those that do still need competent instruction on not only to use them effectively, but find them in the first place. Furthermore, those sites are strongly visual-auditory and EAP biased, better suited to what we term "EAP-types" (English for the academically privileged). For the kinaesthetic or less literate learner, those web resources are generally of little value. There are half a dozen other reasons why that perspective is excessively "linguini-centric."

Theory, Practice and Research Basis ·      
"There has been much research, which has shown the central importance of the peak vowel in a stressed syllable. The focus on consonant articulation is less important."

That represents an "uninformed" consensus from more than a decade ago. Any number of studies have since established the critical importance of selected consonants for intelligibility of learners of specific L1s. Think: Final consonants in English for some Vietnamese dialects or some Spanish L1 speakers of English. 

Support for Practices, Conclusions, and/or Recommendations ·      
"The article made a nice specific connection between haptic activities, and acquisition of consonant sounds. However, there was only one source."

Good grief. The workshop was proposed as a practical, hands-on session for teachers, presenting techniques for dealing with specific consonants.(The one reference is a published conference paper linked off the University of Iowa website.) Have heard similar reports from other classroom practitioners, such as myself, who had  proposals rejected: Only "researcher certified" proposals welcome. So much for our earlier enthusiasm in TESOL for teacher empowerment . . .

Captain Kirk's 6 principles of leadership applied to teaching pronunciation teaching!

Clip Art:
Clker

In a recent conference presentation, a noted methodologist asserted that "Teacher educators (generally) don't teach ESL/pronunciation (themselves)--and (consequently much of) what they do teach their teacher trainees about it hasn't been tried out in the classroom!"

She has a point.

But I'd even take that a step further and say that if a theorist or methodologist or textbook writer is not currently teaching pronunciation in a real classroom, then her words, theories, observations about what teacher educators do--and recent editions of her textbooks--should all be dismissed as well!

Should that dire predicament describe your current pronunciation teaching praxis (or lack there of) then you need to follow our (unauthorized) adaptation of the leadership principles of Captain James T. Kirk (of Star Trek) as they apply to pronunciation teacher trainers*:

1. Never stop learning (even if it means periodically taking up some kind of new pronunciation-related  skill development, such as another language or musical instrument).
2. Have advisors of many different worldviews (from different theoretical perspectives and related disciplines, such as body imaging).
3. Be part of the away team (Stay in the classroom, yourself, even if means just occasional one-on-one pronunciation tutoring).
4. Play poker, not chess (focus on hand to hand, minute by minute pedagogical experience, not just strategy and meta-communication).
5. Intuition is the key to knowing without knowing how you know (and central to embodied pronunciation teaching and avoiding burn out).
6. Destroy the Enterprise (but first try being just annoyingly heretical, before resorting to calls for revolution).

Even better: "Boldly go where no man has gone before" (but many are now!) and sign on board with haptic pronunciation teaching (No noncombatants permitted!) 

*Revised excerpt from AHEPS v3.0 (Instructor’s) Notes (by Bill Acton), Introduction, pp. 4~6. (For free copy, contact: info@actonhaptic.com.)

Post-method Pronunciation Teaching and Research: Myths and (Haptic) Method

To understand something of the conundrum faced by teachers new to pronunciation work today, you probably need to begin with Kumaravadevilu's (2003) initial characterization of the "Post-method" era, or, even better, Kumaravadevilu (2007). That, along with a great new book just out, Pronunciation Myths, edited by Grant and Brinton, provides a good perspective on the question. 

Clip art:
Clker

In essence, the first (a) builds a compelling case for the idea that no one method can possibly work in all contexts and (b) provides a set of 10 strategies for, in essence, building your own personal classroom teaching method--while at the same time warning that an inflexible "method" is to be avoided at all costs. In part that is because the only way you can test a method is to try it yourself, in your classroom. And also you must--at least temporarily--believe the "testimonies" of those who use it, while you test it. 

The second, "Myths," while thoroughly dispensing with several common misconceptions (and a few "straw men") about pronunciation teaching, provides a very useful review of the range of research-tested techniques that have, in fact, been shown to be effective. (I count 40 or 50 discrete techniques or variants in all.) 

Add to those two the current theoretical perspective that pronunciation must to the extent possible be integrated into general instruction and you have the post-method conundrum: How do I personally assemble the techniques that can be integrated and will work in my (unique) classroom? (Murphy's chapter in "Myths" addresses that issue quite well in fact.) 

What we refer to as "Haptic-integrated pronunciation teaching" is, in fact, a method based on the use of a wide range of well-established and proven techniques. (All reported in "Myths!") What makes it different is just that (a) the techniques are generally anchored (or reinforced) using movement and touch--based on multiple "haptic" studies in other disciplines, and (b) the method focuses principally on modelling, feedback and correction--and to some extent integration into spontaneous speech. Those are dimensions of pronunciation teaching that have been studied extensively in "the lab" but not in the classroom, especially in terms of long term improvement. 

And to finish up the post-modern stew: EHIEP (Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation)  work is essentially experiential, both learning with it and about it. The best evidence that we have now that the method, itself, "works" are about a decade of reports from students in the classroom and related research from a dozen other disciplines. The same is the case with all methods, of course. 

For a number reasons, it is exceedingly difficult to test a method, among them the fact that no matter what the results, in today's "hyper-localized" theoretical view of methodology,  the nature of the learner population may radically limit generalizability. Few if any classroom studies or action research in pronunciation teaching provide much in the way of detail as to how the techniques or treatments were actually conducted or relate to the other instruction or ongoing experiences that students/subjects were involved in at the time of the study.  

Theoretically, one should, of course, be able to generalize from the local. (That is, after all the raison d’etre for the dominance of qualitative research in the field currently.) In practice, research is today still so thoroughly “critical-agenda-driven” that general applicability of methodology cannot be of interest. In time, in depth studies of one teacher's method will again be in fashion and doctoral dissertations. (I'm working on a book proposal that will do something like that.) 

For the time being . . . Just do it!

Symbiosis: Waiting for Godot (and research on pronunciation) to tell us how to teach!

Rereading a nice 2007 article from Educational Leadership by Marzano & Pickering, "Special topic: The case for and against homework," when I came on this paragraph which also could beautifully describe the state of the field today on pronunciation teaching:

"If relying solely on research is problematic, what are busy practitioners to do? The answer is certainly not to wait until research “proves” that a practice is effective. Instead, educators should combine research-based generalizations, research from related areas, and their own professional judgment based on firsthand experience to develop specific practices and make adjustments as necessary. Like medical practitioners, education practitioners must develop their own “local knowledge base” on homework and all other aspects of teaching. Educators can develop the most effective practices by observing changes in the achievement of the students with whom they work every day."

Clip art:
Clker

What I particularly like are two phrases there: "research from related areas," and "Like medical practitioners." I am currently finishing up work on the pronunciation homework procedures in AH-EPS. There is virtually nothing in the field that is of use, but in Education in general, there is more than two decades of (often very controversial) research on the topic. For one, based on the general formula, an undergraduate should have a maximum of 3 hours of it  every night. (Next time my grad students complain about all the reading . . . ) And second, the tie to the medical profession, as clinicians,  is exceedingly appropriate in haptic-integrated pronunciation teaching. HICP.

 

Keep that one handy the next time somebody in the coffee lounge or from the conference podium throws a "Well . . . research has not yet established that that technique is effective!" at you. And, of course, KIT!

March 2007 | Volume 64 | Number 6, Responding to Changing Demographics Pages 74-79, retrieved May 5, 2013.

Clinical "Pronouncephobia": Had-beens and HIPs

Clip art: Clker

Clker: Clip art

 If you ever need a quick personality test on most anything, go to the BBC Science site. Sometime ago, half tongue in cheek, I combined the succinct definitions of Idealist and Strategist there to come up with "Theorist/Researcher," especially those who used to or had been teaching pronunciation in the classroom earlier (Had-beens)--and Realist and Performer, to come up with "Pronunciation Teacher," especially "haptically-integrating" practitioners (HIPs). As I look back on it now, it actually helps explain why many leading theorists in pronunciation-related areas are still not genuinely interested in the clinical side of our work yet. They are still principally concerned with how pronunciation is acquired and what is taught--not how, at least not on a moment-to-moment basis. (Never forget Yogi Bera's dictum: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice--in practice, there is!") They are, both types, important to the field, of course, just in different ways!

Had-beens:

• Make sense of the world using inner values AND quiet, easy-going and intellectually curious
• Focus on personal growth and the growth of others AND use logical, objective thinking to find original solutions to problems
• Think of themselves as bright, forgiving and curious AND think of themselves as logical and individualistic
• May sometimes appear stubborn AND may forget practical issues, such as paying bills or doing the shopping

HIPs:

• Loyal and steady workers who meet deadlines AND performers
• Believe in established rules and respect facts AND prefer hands-on learning to reading a book
• Think of themselves as mature, stable and conscientious AND think of themselves as enthusiastic, sociable or sensitive
• May appear too logical or tough-minded and forget their impact on other people AND may forget about commitments--because they're having so much fun! (Rather like in this blogpost!) 

I know many "Had-beens" who are becoming hip, in fact. If you are now, or are moving in that direction, join us at the organizational meeting of the International Association of Haptic-integrated Clinical Pronunciation Researchers (IAHICPR - "I, a hiccuper!") at the TESOL international convention in Dallas next March. (The earlier announced meeting date has been moved from February 2013 to March; a first order of business will be to change the name of the organization!)

L2 Identity, pronunciation and body imaging

 One of the effects of haptic anchoring and attention to the felt sense of the L2 sound system for many learners is an inevitable refining or consolidating of their L2 image and identities. There has been a great deal of research on the nature of L2 identity and its socio-cultural dimensions in the field but relatively little in our field on the dynamics of how language, and especially one's pronunciation or accent figure in to that process. (There is, however, a great deal of research and writing in the general  area of embodiment theory and identity.)

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

We need only turn to professional actors for insight. Here is the "mission" statement from an ongoing project at the University of London: "In a long-term enquiry this project is investigating the best methods of maintaining psychological and physical health within the acting community, regarding informed and intelligent awareness of self/body/identity within the complexities of professional and industry contexts." Much of the discussion could apply as well to our work where the learner's professional image and identity, from any number of perspectives, come into play.