Pronunciation teaching and learning thresholds

Clip art: Clker

One of the "mysteries" of pronunciation work is the often seemingly abrupt changes that we see in the interlanguage of some learners. There are any number of reasons why that is the case, not the least of which is that we are generally not observing a learner 24-7. The concept of learning thresholds as summarized in Cousin (2006) helps to explain why. According to threshold theory there are seven or eight parameters that characterize such transitions:

(a) transformation,
(b) irreversible change,
(c) integration,
(d) bounded conceptual space--within a restricted field of study or experience,
(e) presence of "troublesome knowledge"-- elements that cannot be easily, logically resolved and synthesized,
(f) being set in a "liminal" space in development -- exists in a recognized transitional phase in the learning process, and
(g) recursiveness -- there are apparent, temporary moves back and forth across the threshold.

We could do a post on any one of those (and I will follow up later on three of them) but let's just consider the  idea of "troublesome knowledge." Pronunciation instruction is filled with all kinds, such as drills, explanations, random associations of sound to bizarre contexts which must be discarded or ignored during real-time speaking. Threshold theory sees those phenomena as potentially both positive and negative. What is critical is how it is managed or accommodated by the instructional program. On that count, in the field we have a "troublesome LACK of knowledge" as to the dynamics of pronunciation change. I could do a clinic on it . . . 

Learning and coaching new pronunciation and juggling

Clip art:
Clker

There are several "methods" for learning to juggle, as there are many methods for helping a learner change pronunciation. Linked above is a mathematician's method that presents a fascinating parallel with HICP/EHIEP haptic-integrated line-of-march. (Also check out Tim Murphey's sometime, too!) The 7 step process is very much "felt sense" based but moves systematically from conscious focus on individual movements to "automatic" performance. It involves three phases:
(1) anchoring the basic moves
(2) instructor and learner working together to integrate the moves
(3) learner "solos!"

In PHASE ONE, learner works on the felt sense of tossing (i) one ball in one hand, (ii) one ball going back and forth between hands, and then (iii) a second ball is introduced in the hand that will catch the other ball and be tossed away just before "main" ball arrives. The haptic parallel is basically anchoring the essential movements of the target sound without attempting to coordinate them. (There are rarely more than three critical parameters.)

In PHASE TWO, learner begins to combine features as the instructor/coach responds when needed in achieving accurate individual movements. Next learner and coach juggle/do the sound together. In the process, the learner's attention is directed away not only from environmental distractions but also from focus on the mechanics of each parameter, which is becoming more automatic and non-conscious. The instructor/student dance does much to enable that integration.

In PHASE THREE, learners "juggle" the new sound on their own. I have not seen a better model (or metaphor) for changing pronunciation. So should you learn to juggle first or simply "juggle" your teaching? It's probably a toss up . . .

Haptic coordination thresholds and caveats

This 2001 research by Kelso, Fink, DeLaplain and Carson may suggest an explanation for a frequent observation: in haptic-based work there seems to be a threshold of some sort. Once a learner puts it all together, the coordination of the visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile sensory input with the linguistic concept in focus, the learning process seems to go into overdrive, become much more efficient. Until that happens, however, it can be very frustrating for some.

Clip art: Clker

One conclusion of the study was that haptic engagement, if not well synchronized with the other sensory inputs, has the effect of seriously compromising the other elements, especially visual and auditory. (We know, for example, from other studies that visual can in some contexts easily cancel out auditory or haptic --but not combined auditory and haptic.) That may explain the sometimes contradictory results of studies looking at the benefits of kinesthetic strategies in instruction.

This also has important implications for haptic-based instructional task sequencing and scaffolding (or any type of multi-sensory teaching for that matter). To paraphrase "The Duke": "You ain't got a thing, if you don't [until you] got that swing."