Why exact repetition may be exactly . . .wrong (in pronunciation teaching and elsewhere)

This study is potentially something of a game changer, at least conceptually. A little background. In KINETIK work we make extensive use of gesture synchronized speech. Extensive. Something we "learned" early on was that 

• In modeling the gestures and getting learners to move along with us it was apparently critical to at least some learners that you try to stay in the same "track" in the visual field every time you use it in instruction. 
• If you didn't, some students (possibly as much as 5%) would become disoriented, unable to synchronize their body movements with the model. Some even experienced some "motion sickness." 
•  In effect, the variability in the position in the visual field could be disconcerting and disruptive. 

Turns out, we may have been actually approaching the problem from the wrong direction, that is doing our best to be as consistent in the patterns of the gestures we use as possible  . .  . was actually counterproductive!  

New research by Manenti, et al, Variability in training unlocks generalization in visual perceptual learning through invariant representations, summarized by NeuroscienceNews.com, demonstrated that variability in the repeated application in the visual field/tract may actually enhance learning of the pattern, itself. It does that in part, apparently, by presenting the pattern in varying contexts, perhaps giving it potentially wider applicability. 

Excerpt from the (exceptional) study: 

• . . . four groups of subjects were trained to detect small differences in the orientation of a line pattern. The relevant task was to detect the clockwise or counterclockwise slope of the lines. For each of two groups, the number of lines was changed during the experiment. This was the irrelevant stimulus.
• The subjects were still able to recognize the differences in the orientation of the line pattern, even when the number of lines was changed. They were able to perform the task even when they were shown entirely new line patterns or a new position on the screen that had not appeared during training. Thus, the increase in variability did not cause the learning process to deteriorate, but rather to generalize and even improve learning performance.
•  “We found that varying the number of lines during training led to better generalization of the actual task performance,”

Undoubtedly, that the same principle applies to repetition of sounds or words in instruction--and even formulations of ideas and concepts as well. (There is substantial research on the contribution of paraphrase training in writing instruction, for example.) 

The insights from this study are certainly worth repeating!

Source: 

Manenti, G., Dizaji, A.,Schwiedrzik, C. 
“Variability in training unlocks generalization in visual perceptual learning through invariant representations” in BioRxiv doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.26.505408

The "music" of pronunciation teaching: Just "duet!"

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

It would be difficult to find anyone who does not support the use of music in language teaching, for any number of reasons. For the most part the rationales are common sense and intuitive--and backed by generations of validating classroom and extra-classroom experience. But here is a study by Lindenberger and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute (reported by Science Daily) that goes the other direction, examining the synchronous brain activity that is evident in "making music together," in this case two guitarists playing a duet, connected up to fMRI technology (including the usual bathing caps with dozens of wires attached!)

There are similar studies of "duets" of conversationalists, lovers, mothers and infants and others, which show coordination or mirroring of minds and brains. Likewise, studies of empathy show analogous "sync-ing" in between participants. (In EHIEP work, there is extensive mirroring, complementary background music and use of music in supporting rhythmic practice.) Can you imagine a more effective occasion for anchoring of new or changed pronunciation than when instructor and learner are locked in (neurophysiologically and pedagogically appropriate) synchronized dance from across the room--making music together? That is music to more than the ears--and not a bad place to begin in understanding when instruction enables uptake and when it doesn't. Take note . . . and your mp3 player. 

"Sensational" pronunciation teaching? Chances are about 50/50.

Clip art: CLker

Here is a brief summary of an article by Killingsworth and Gilbert published in the journal, Science. It includes this interesting quote from the article: “The ability to think about what isn’t happening is a significant cognitive achievement, but one that comes at an emotional cost.” The data revealed that most of us are "in the present moment" emotionally, only about 50% of the time, at best. The concept of "mindfulness," sensing as much as possible the "felt sense" of our body (e.g., heart rate, muscle tension, breathing) and learning to function within it--not trying to escape it or cool it down consciously-- is applied extensively in many fields today.

One of the great advantages of multiple modality instruction is that it provides a means of (at least momentarily) capturing the full attention of the mind to the task at hand. Haptic techniques, engaging the body as they do, if done with correct form and perhaps some eye tracking, are "mindful" or mind-filling in the best (felt) sense. It is not that clear explanations, discussion, insight, planning and disembodied drilling related to a learner's pronunciation are not helpful; they are, of course--but they can also easily interfere with efficient anchoring of sound change.

In other words, stop thinking about pronunciation and how difficult, time-consuming and anxiety-producing it can be. Just do it (haptically)!

Mirroring, Tracking and Listening

M, T and L are basic tools of pronunciation teaching. It has been assumed for some time that tracking, that is having a learner speak along with a simple audio recording, is something of an overt form of what naturally goes on in the body in listening. There was earlier research that seemed to suggest that the vocal apparatus (mouth, vocal cords, etc.) moved along with the incoming speech at a subliminal level.

Clip art: Clker

Turn outs, according to this research, by Menenti of the University of Glasgow, Hagoort of Radboud University, and Gierhan and Segaert of the Max Planck Institute, summarized by Science Daily, that general listening (without seeing the speaker, "live," visually) does not necessarily involve such sympathetic "vibrations." In other words, the felt sense of listening in some contexts can be decidedly non-somatic or divorced from embodied attention.

That does not mean that tracking is still not a useful technique for assisting learners with the intonation of the language, but clearly, the neuro-physiological rationale may be suspect. This raises several interesting questions related to the complex inter-relationships underlying listening, speaking and pronunciation skills--and how to teach them, especially in adults. The evidence that mirroring, on the other hand, engages the body is unequivocal. That certainly speaks to the HICP/EHIEP--and any pronunciation teaching practitioner who is listening . . .