Mi Coursa; Su Coursa! (NEW KINETIK "GE-T-UP" course!)

GE-T-UP - Gesture-enhanced-teaching-up-take (pronounced: Get-T-up! as in "Giddup!") Custom-made, "memorable" pronunciation course, using your course content. 

• Enhanced memory for course content, especially vocabulary and story. 
• Improved speaking clarity and pronunciation

Here's how it works. Basically, you share with us one or more brief excerpts in the form of stories or written dialogues from any speaking, listening or reading course that you'll be teaching. We'll provide you with a video-recorded KINETIK lesson for your students. There are potentially 10 possible lessons, presented (basically) in this order, but it can be further customized for your class: 

• Rhythm 1 (syllables and stress)
• Fluency 1 (basic)
• Vowels 1 and 2 (tailored to your students' L1s)
• Consonants 1 and 2 (tailored to your students' L1s)
• Intonation 1 and 2
• Rhythm 2 (spontaneous speaking)
• Fluency 2 (spontaneous speaking)

Here's what those lessons look like:

• Students view and move along with a 15 to 20-minute training video
• Video begins with brief training in a GE-T-UP haptic movement, tone and touch technique (MT3)
• That technique is then used in an augmented embodied oral reading (AEOR) of the text from "Su coursa" that you provided. (We may have to add some additional text, along with annotation as to how to gesture along with the text as it is spoken.)
• The homework assignment is explained and practiced.
• Students practice the 5-minute haptic exercises in the homework assignment (ideally) 4 times per week
• Student work with the lesson is always better if they have earlier already been engaged with the text from your class earlier. The lesson also helps students remember that content as well! 
• (Ideally) teachers also use the GETUP MT3 in class anytime from then on to:
• Help students remember vocabulary or new terms or phrases
• Help students improve their pronunciation (and remember it!)

The cost per custom-made module begins at about $200, depending on how many we do together.  If you'd like a (free) estimate and demonstration video made with your material from "Su Coursa," get in touch: wracton@gmail.com

(If you are new into the impact of gesture on memory, check out this piece from the Scientific American last year.)

Spring 2023 we will also be again offering the online 12-week haptic basic pronunciation course through Trinity Western University, and along with that, a 12-week KINETIK Teacher Training course. If you'd like to offer either one of those through your school or some other venue . . . get in touch, of course!

To gesture or not to gesture (to provide spontaneous correction in language teaching) Part 1

A new study by Nakatsukasa (2019) demonstrates that using simple gesture to correct grammar (use of the 'ed' past tense) may not work. Amen to that. Signalling with a deictic/metaphorical gesture as the instructor recasts (repeats) the piece of language correctly when there is a error--and not requiring any kind of response from the learner--and furthermore still expecting some kind of meaningful uptake or noticing is . . .well . . . silly, but good to see that proved conclusively.

From the study:

"When the participants did not use the past tense in the obligatory context in two tasks, the researcher consistently provided recasts with or without gestures (pointing back over shoulder with thumb) immediately following the participants’ utterances, depending on learners’ assigned conditions."

clker.com

Now that, in principle, sounds like a pretty good signalling technique, one which I have seen used "repeatedly" over the years by teachers (Hudson, 2011). But . . .

"For the VR condition (verbal recast w/o gesture), the researcher provided recast only verbally, putting her hands down next to the side of her body to avoid gesturing."

Now, does that (standing motionless w/hands at sides) sound like anything close to natural teacher behavior/gesture? Really? I have got to see a video of that!  In fact, I’d really have to see a video of everything that went on, to make sense of the study.

"In addition, the researcher tried not to stress any part of the recast in either condition to keep consistency."

Wow. How could you provide anything close to effective, meaningful feedback without stressing the part of the defective sentence or phrase that is being corrected?

"In all the instances, learners had the opportunity to modify their output; however, production of modified output was not enforced in the present study, to keep the flow of interaction and the saliency of feedback as equal as possible across conditions."

Not requiring at least some minimal "embodied" verbal response to such a gesture seems about as disembodying as you can get! Apparently, it was.

The research on the use of simple recasts, as Nakatsukasa points out, is pretty clear that they are, for the most part, not worth wasting your time on. So, "pointing out" a basically ineffectual recast with a disembodied gesture is supposed to make it more effective? It didn't. Surprise.

This is an important study, however, in that it represents quite accurately, I think, the way in which many researchers and practitioners view the place of gesture in language teaching, or even human communication for that matter: "add ons" that can be understood out of context and disembodied (not demanding a corresponding physical response in the body and mind of the other--the learner, as if gesture can be understood independent of the meaningful interaction in which it occurs.)

Something of a “How not to” guide of sorts.

What then is the "right" embodied and contextualized way to use gesture in teaching? Thought you were never going to ask! See Part 2, The right (haptic) way to use gesture in (at least) pronunciation teaching. Forthcoming, shortly!

Source:
Nakatsukasa, K. (2019). Gesture-enhanced recasts have limited effects: A case of the regular past tense, Language Teaching Research (11)1-29.

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!

Anxious about your (pronunciation) teaching? You’d better act fast!

Probably the most consistent finding in research on pronunciation teaching from instructors and student alike is that it can be . . . stressful and anxiety producing. And compounding that is often the additional pressure of providing feedback or correction. A common response, of course, is just to not bother with pronunciation at all. One coping strategy often recommended is to provide "post hoc" feedback, that is after the leaner or activity is finished, where you refer back to errors, in as low key and supportive a manner as possible. (As explored in previous posts, you might also toss in some deep nasal breathing, mindfulness or holding of hot tea/coffee cups at the same time, of course.) Check that . . .

A new study by Zhan Slow Is Also Fast: Feedback Delay Affects Anxiety and Outcome Evaluation, published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, adds an interesting perspective to the problem. What they found, in essence, was that: 

Learners who tended toward high anxiety responded better to immediate positive feedback than such feedback postposed, or provided later. The same type of learners also perceived overall outcomes of the training as lower, were the feedback to be provided later.
Learners who tended toward low anxiety responded equally well to immediate or delayed feedback and judged the training as effective in either condition. There was also a trend toward making better use of feedback as well.
Just why that might be the case is not explored in depth but it obviously has something to do with being able to hold the experience in long term memory more effectively, or with less clutter or emotional interference.






I'm good!

So, if that is more generally the case, it presents us with a real a conundrum on how to consistently provide feedback in pronunciation teaching, or any teaching for that matter. Few would say that generating anxiousness, other than in the short term as in getting "up" for tests or so-called healthy motivation in competition, is good for learning. If pronunciation work itself makes everybody more anxious, then it would seem that we should at least focus more on more immediate feedback and correction or positive reinforcement. Waiting longer apparently just further handicaps those more prone to anxiety. How about doing nothing?


This certainly makes sense of the seemingly contradictory results of research in pronunciation teaching showing instructors biased toward less feedback and correction but students consistently wanting more

How do you provide relatively anxiety-free, immediate feedback in your class, especially if your preference is for delayed feedback? Do you? In haptic work, the regular warm up preceding pronunciation work is seen as critical to that process. (but we use a great deal of immediate, ongoing feedback.) Other instructors manage to set up a more general nonthreatening, supportive, open and accommodating classroom milieu and "safe spaces". Others seem to effectively use the anonymity of whole class responses and predictable drill-like activities, especially in oral output practice.


Anxiety management or avoidance. Would, of course, appreciate your thoughts and best practice 0n this . . as soon as possible!


Citation: Zhang X, Lei Y, Yin H, Li P and Li H (2018) Slow Is Also Fast: Feedback Delay Affects Anxiety and Outcome Evaluation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12:20. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00020

Object fusion in (pronunciation) teaching for better uptake and recall!

Your students sometimes can't remember what you so ingeniously tried to teach them? New study by D’Angelo, Noly-Gandon, Kacollja, Barense, and Ryan at the Rotman Research Institute in Ontario, Breaking down unitization: Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?” (reported by Neurosciencenews.com) suggests an "ingenious" template for helping at least some things "click and stick" better. What you need for starters:

• 2 objects (real or imagined) (to be fused together)
• an action linking or involving them, which fuses them
• a potentially tangible, desirable consequence of that fusion

Clker.com

The example from the research of the "fusing" protocol was to visualize sticking an umbrella in the key hole of your front door to remind yourself to take your umbrella so you won't get soaking wet on the way to work tomorrow. Subjects who used that protocol, rather than just motion or action/consequence, were better at recalling the future task. Full disclosure here: the subjects were adults, age 61 to 88. Being near dead center in the middle of that distribution, myself, it certainly caught my attention! I have been using that strategy for the last two weeks or so with amazing results . . . or at least memories!

So, how might that work in pronunciation teaching? Here's an example

Consonant: th - (voiceless)
Objects: upper teeth, lower teeth, tongue
Fusion: tongue tip positioned between teeth as air blows out (action)
Consequence - better pronunciation of the th sound

Haptic pronunciation adds to the con-fusion

Vowel (low, central 'a'), done haptically (gesture + touch)
Objects: hands touch at waist level, as vowel is articulated, with jaw and tongue lowered in mouth, with strong, focused awareness of vocal resonance in the larynx and bones of the face.
Fusion: tongue and hand movement, sound, vocal resonance and touch
Consequence: better pronunciation of the 'a' sound

Key concept: It is not much of a stretch to say that our sense of touch is really our "fusion" sense, in that it serves as a nexus-agent for the others  (Fredembach, et al, 2009; Legarde and Kelso 2006). Much like the created image of the umbrella in the key hole evokes a memorable "embodied" event, probably even engaged with our tactile processing center(s), the haptic pedagogical movement pattern (PMP) should work in similar manner, either in actual physical practice or visualized.

One very effective technique, in fact, is to have learners visualize the PMP (gesture+sound+touch) without activating the voice. (Actually, when you visualize a PMP it is virtually impossible to NOT experience it, centered in your larynx or voice box.)

If this is all difficult for you to visualize or remember, try first imagining yourself whacking your forehead with your iPhone and shouting "Eureka!"

Citation:
Baycrest Center for Geriatric Care (2017, August 11). Imagining an Action-Consequence Relationship Can Boost Memory. NeuroscienceNew. Retrieved August 11, 2017 from http://neurosciencenews.com/Imagining an Action-Consequence Relationship Can Boost Memory/

Killing Pronunciation 2: "Over and under-learning"

You may have seen a report on this research on "overlearning" recently, Overlearning hyperstabilizes a skill by rapidly making neurochemical processing inhibitory-dominant, by Shibata, Sasaki, Bang, Walsh, Machizawa, Tamaki, Chang and Watanabe of Brown University. (There is a pretty readable summary on Medicalexpress.com.) According to the abstract: "Overlearning in humans abruptly changes neurochemical processing, to hyperstabilize and protect trained perceptual learning from subsequent new learning."

Wow. Some useful terms there for you: Neurochemical processing . . . hyperstabilize  . . . inhibitory-dominant . . . 

Clker.com

Basically, researchers examined the effect of overlearning of a visual mapping procedure on retention in one of three conditions: (a) another new learning procedure was introduced immediately, (b) a time period was inserted (3 hours) before the next procedure, or (c) the first procedure was carried out with overlearning (operationalized as going over the correct set of moves yet again, again), followed by a second new procedure.

In essence, both (b) and (c) resulted in better recall later. In other words, you can protect new learning by putting some space between that and the next piece of training--especially if the two procedures have some potential overlap of some kind, or . . . by hammering it in, so to speak.

Shibata et al. suggest that the findings probably apply to a wide range of learning contexts, while conceding that the focus on visual modality also limits applicability. More research needed, of course. But what might that imply for pronunciation teaching? A few things:

• Some kinds of drill may work as well as we know they do. (Especially if it is anchored with gesture-plus-touch!)
• Research has long established that just "pointing out" or simple recasting (repeating back the correct pronunciation without further comment) rarely are effective. 
• As was reported in the previous blogpost, the role of visual stimuli and distraction in moderating integration of other modalities, can be problematic, at best. That is to say the applicability of this "visual" study to embodied pronunciation may be marginal. 
• The concept of "spacing" various procedures in pronunciation training does make. The behaviorists had that one figured out 60 or 70 years ago. (In fact, this possible additional empirical validation of overlearning must put a bit of a smile on the face of any "hyper-senior" researchers of the period still with us.)
• Good trainers in virtually all physical disciplines know and practice this idea. Again, as developed in several previous blogposts, the idea of partitioning off leaning has always been central to hypnosis, allowing the unconscious mind a role in the party. How you do that can vary enormously, simple waiting time being one. 

Two possible takeaways here: (a) However you accomplish it, pronunciation learning, being the highly modality-integrated process that it is, requires or should be followed by uncompromised attention, processing space around it of some kind and "full-body" armor. (b) If not an integral part of your method, don't be surprised if little sticks or is "uptaken"!

If you have enough time, you can learn two tasks without interference by leaving a few hours between the two trainings

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-overlearning.html#jCp

*With apologies, of course, to Bill O'Reilly for the use of his "killing" meme, as in his recent books on well known figures of the past, e.g., Killing Jesus, Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy. At least a couple of future posts will use the same "killer" title hook.

Source:
Nature Neuroscience (2017)doi:10.1038/nn.4490

To cement training quickly, overlearning should help, but beware it might interfere with similar learning it that follow immediately.

Without overlearning, don't try to learn something similar in rapid succession because there is a risk that the second bout of learning will undermine the first.

If you have enough time, you can learn two tasks without interference by leaving a few hours between the two trainings.

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-overlearning.html#jCp

To cement training quickly, overlearning should help, but beware it might interfere with similar learning it that follow immediately.

Without overlearning, don't try to learn something similar in rapid succession because there is a risk that the second bout of learning will undermine the first.

If you have enough time, you can learn two tasks without interference by leaving a few hours between the two trainings.

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-overlearning.html#jCp

To cement training quickly, overlearning should help, but beware it might interfere with similar learning it that follow immediately.

Without overlearning, don't try to learn something similar in rapid succession because there is a risk that the second bout of learning will undermine the first.

If you have enough time, you can learn two tasks without interference by leaving a few hours between the two trainings.

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-overlearning.html#jCp

Overlearning hyper-stabilizes a skill by rapidly making neurochemical processing inhibitory-dominant, Nature Neuroscience, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nn.4490

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-overlearning.html#jCp

Overlearning hyper-stabilizes a skill by rapidly making neurochemical processing inhibitory-dominant, Nature Neuroscience, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nn.4490

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-overlearning.html#jCp

To cement training quickly, overlearning should help, but beware it might interfere with similar learning it that follow immediately.

Without overlearning, don't try to learn something similar in rapid succession because there is a risk that the second bout of learning will undermine the first.

If you have enough time, you can learn two tasks without interference by leaving a few hours between the two trainings.

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-overlearning.html#jCp

To cement training quickly, overlearning should help, but beware it might interfere with similar learning it that follow immediately.

Without overlearning, don't try to learn something similar in rapid succession because there is a risk that the second bout of learning will undermine the first.

If you have enough time, you can learn two tasks without interference by leaving a few hours between the two trainings.

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-overlearning.html#jCp

Killing pronunciation improvement: better heard (and felt) but not seen!

Clker.com

Fascinating study, Visual Distractors Disrupt Audiovisual Integration Regardless of Stimulus Complexity, by Gibney, et al. Department of Neuroscience, Oberlin College.

Tigger warning: This is a thick, technical read, but the conclusions of the study have potentially important implications for pronunciation teaching, especially attempts to enhance uptake of new and corrected sounds or patterns that rely on effective integration of sounds, images, movement and vocal resonance. 

In essence, what the research examined was, as the title suggests, how distractions in the visual field affected subjects attention and ability to learn and recall audio-visual stimuli (images on a computer screen accompanied by sounds). What was striking (again as evident in the title) was that no matter how complex the task of associating the targeted sound with the visual image or object in focus, with even the slightest distraction created on the screen, e.g., a object briefly appearing in a corner, the subject's ability to integrate and recall the complex target later . . .was compromised.

The implications for pronunciation teaching?  Not surprisingly, attention is critical in integrating sensory information. We know that, of course. What is more interesting is the idea that any visual distraction whatsoever that occurs when sound, movement and visual imagery (such as the orthography or phonetic representation of a word or phrase) are being "integrated" may seriously  undermine the process. In other words, visual attention and eye tracking during the process may have dramatic impact. That is a "variable" that can, in principle, be managed in the classroom, although most do not consider visual distraction to be potentially that disruptive of pronunciation instruction. But it certainly can be.

We discovered early on that in haptic pronunciation work, where not only sound, visual imagery, movement and vocal resonance are involved--but touch as well, visual distraction can seriously derail the process. This research suggests, for example, that the same effect during general pronunciation work as well, especially oral work, may be a significant impediment in some contexts. 

The sterile, featureless language laboratory booth of old may have had more going for it than we thought! In early haptic work we experimented with controlling eye tracking. Perhaps it is time we revisited that idea. It certainly deserves our undivided attention.

Original research article: Front. Integr. Neurosci., 20 January 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2017.00001

Why pronunciation should be taught "separately" (and the 15 second rule)!

Clker.com

The pendulum is swinging back, my friends. A central concern among pronunciation teachers is that what is "taught" in class, in whatever form, is so often not integrated well (or at all) into spontaneous speaking. One reason for that, I am convinced, is the general reluctance to correct spontaneous speech today.

This one is for all of you who teach a successful, stand-alone pronunciation course in the face of current theory that seems argue that pronunciation should generally be integrated in instruction, any skill concentration--not taught in isolation.

When a pronunciation problem just "pops up" in class, what do you do? Correction of pronunciation is again an important focus of research in the field. In fact, it is coming to be seen as more and more central to effective instruction. (From a haptic perspective, as developed in this blog and elsewhere, correction, especially during spontaneous speaking activities, is key to successful pronunciation work.) The other option, I suppose, is still that instruction is done so well early on that few errors in spontaneous speech occur . . . That was the dream of some early structuralist and behavioral approaches. They just forgot to factor in sufficient boredom and fear.

In-class instruction and practice is not sufficient in many contexts. Ongoing, effective feedback is essential. Research, however, has consistently revealed a strong reluctance on the part of instructors to correct learner pronunciation in any instructional context, in part a legacy of communicative language teaching and the current de-emphasis on pronunciation teaching in general (Baker, 2014; Saito, 2016).

Some of the most recent research on spontaneous correction of pronunciation in the classroom (See my blogpost focusing on delaMorandiere, 2016) has begun to point to two key features of effective correction (a) a link back to earlier instruction is "remembered." and (b) that link is used by the instructor in various ways, including a quick reference to the concept or explanation or reminder (or a question to the learner). In other words, correction works best when it is anchored back to an earlier consciously constructed schema, not just by a simple prompt, such as repeating the "correct" pronunciation.

So what does that mean in the classroom? Effective, corrective feedback on pronunciation generally depends upon good "prior knowledge" of the correct form that can be reactivated or reinforced . . . That does not suggest that rhythm, intonation and stress should not be attended to in other areas of language instruction; they should, if only to reinforce learning of meaning, structure and vocabulary. But to CORRECT some aspect of any of those, something other than or in addition to simply "repeat after me" has to be employed. In the case of adults, that should generally refer back to well-conceived explanation and focused practice, both controlled and meaning-based.

Now that can, for example, be accomplished by teaching one chapter of a student pronunciation text occasionally as part of a speaking or conversation course, but the experience of more and more intensive English programs, particularly, is that a designated pronunciation class that is used as a point of reference for all other instructors in the program to refer back to in in-class correction is far and away the best approach. In that context as well, research has identified the types of classroom interaction where such intervention by both instructor and other students is most appropriate (small group discussions, prepared oral readings, impromptu speeches, etc.)

To be in a position to intervene, interrupting the flow of conversation, generally requires an expectation that important errors will be addressed continually in an atmosphere of confidence and trust--and even collegial fun and support. Spontaneous error correction in pronunciation should be received with genuine appreciation and "uptake". The conditions for that to happen consistently are not that complicated but require for some a rethinking of the form of pronunciation instruction and its place in (virtually) every class. I think most would agree, however, that it is often exceedingly challenging to temporarily switch on and off that "safe" classroom mode or milieu in any setting other than one focused only on pronunciation. (Pronunciation classes are generally rated as the most useful and enjoyable by students.)

What research is suggesting is that effective "spontaneous" correction is very important to helping learners integrate changed forms--and that it is actually not all that spontaneous, in the sense that it relies on rapid recall of not just previously taught forms, structures, phonemes and specific words, but a concise, explicit understanding of the issue as well. That level of clarity can require more than just a brief note or simply drawing attention to a feature of pronunciation in class: a previously completed,  designated pronunciation class session or something analogous, such as complete modules, either online or f2f. 

That is a fundamental principle of most public speaking systems and, from our perspective, the Lessac method, upon which much of my work is based: explanation and practice must be carefully partitioned off from performance, so that errors in performance can be efficiently recognized at least post hoc (after the fact) and effectively recast by the learner in real time. For many pronunciation issues--and especially integration of change into spontaneous speaking-- that is best facilitated by a team approach as well, where the instructor briefly refers the learner back to not just the correct sound but also its structure and rationale (SSR), and the learner momentarily "holds that thought" and physically experiences what it feels like to produce words or phrases to be used more appropriately the next time they occur.

It is not necessary to do all three SRR components every time, of course, but the intervention used must in some sense reconnect to the in-class instructional experience in toto. Just repeating a word or phrase might accomplish that on some occasions, but the research suggests that more cognitive involvement accompanying a verbal recast is essential. I could not agree more, only adding that more somatic (body-based) engagement is essential as well.

The best option, I think, despite its limitations, is still something like the "traditional" pronunciation class taught by a well-trained and experienced instructor, where correction of all kinds, done right, is seen as immensely valuable and productive--and relatively speaking, stress-free!

Haptic work attempts to create the experience of that classroom by linking earlier training in systematic gesture to the pronunciation of the word or expression, which could also have been done in a separate class or class meeting or online, independently. The key is that it be conceptually partitioned off, by itself, without demanding thorough content and context integration, and also not requiring a  "seasoned" instructor to do the presentation, instruction and practice. (More later on the importance of such seemingly counter-intuitive conceptual partitioning to subsequent recall and utilization. In the meantime, consult your local neuroscientist or hypnotist!)

Try the 15-second rule: During spontaneous speaking and interaction with students, only pause to correct what can be effectively reconnected to previous (brilliant) instruction--which may include a bit of SSR--and practiced three times in 15 seconds. That will get you a better sense of how well your initial teaching of pronunciation "bits" is going, too.

However you approach correction and facilitating integration of pronunciation change, it should at the very least be more than just "spontaneous."

Back to the future of pronunciation teaching (and the "Goldfish" standard for attention management)

You apparently have a bit more than 8 seconds to read this post. So you may want to just scroll down to the conclusion and start there . . .

Clip art: 

Capturing and holding attention, if only for a few seconds, is the key to effective change in pronunciation work, especially for "mechanical" adjustments--and most other things in life. In earlier blog posts, the "gold standard" or is sine qua non of haptic pronunciation work has been seen to be about 3 seconds. In other words, for a learner to adequately experience the totality of a new sound or word, physically, auditorily, visually and conceptually--connecting things together, before moving on to practice or at least noticing or any chance at "uptake"-- takes complete, undivided attention for at least that long or longer.

Even that is often an unrealistic requirement with all the other potential distractions in the classroom or visual field. Research on the effectiveness of recasting learner utterances by instructors, for example, (Loewen and Philip, 2006) suggests that most of the time that strategy is relatively ineffective. One critical variable is always the quality or intentionality of learner attention, both in term of what the function the instructor is attempting to carry out and general learner receptivity.

Clker.com

Recall that Microsoft claims that our collective attention span, in part due to the impact of technology, has now dropped to about 8 seconds, just below that of the goldfish. (The UK Telegraph report is much more entertaining than that from the techies.

A new study by Moher, Anderson and Song of Brown University, summarized by Science Daily.com, adds a fascinating piece to the puzzle and may suggest how to begin to maintain attention better in class. What they discovered in an experimental study was that their subjects were, in effect, better able to "block" obvious distractions than they were more subtle ones. Backgrounded images in the visual field had more effect on subsequent action than did foregrounded, more striking elements which appeared to be easier for the brain to manage or ignore. They seem to have "discovered" one possible path into the mind by subliminal stimuli, evading first line conceptual or perceptual defences.

What is the obvious "subtle, unobtrusive, yet potent" application to pronunciation teaching? If you don't have "full body, mind and visual field" attention, there is no telling what is interfering with anchoring of sound change in the brain and subsequent total or partial recall.

Early on in EHIEP (Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation) work I experimented extensively with controlling eye movement, in part to maintain concentration and attention, based primarily on the research underlying the therapeutic model of "Observed experiential integration" (See citation below) developed by  Bradshaw and Cook (2011). The effect was dramatic in working with individuals but applying those techniques to the classroom proved at least impractical. In part because the haptic pedagogical system was just developing, I backed off from eye patterning techniques in pronunciation work in 2009.

Based on Moher et al's research, however, it is perhaps time to again give directed eye movement management a "second look" in our work, going back to what I believe is the (haptic) future of pronunciation instruction, especially in virtual, computer-mediated applications.

Will report back on an in progress exploratory study with one learner using some eye movement management later this summer. Not surprisingly I am already "seeing" some promising results, attending to features of the teaching session that I would normally not have noticed!

Full citations:

Brown University. "Surprise: Subtle distractors may divert action more than overt ones." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 July 2015, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716123831.htm. (Jeff Moher, Brian A. Anderson , Joo-Hyun Song. Dissociable Effects of Salience on Attention and Goal-Directed Action. Current Biology, 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.029)

Bradshaw, R. A., Cook, A., McDonald, M. J. (2011). Observed experiential integration (OEI): Discovery and development of a new set of trauma therapy techniques. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 21(2), 104-171.

Loewen, S., and Philip, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.

P(fff)FT! Bubble Up Theory! Improve your accent by not thinking about (it)?

ClipArt:
Clker.com

According to Passive Frame Theory, (or as I like to call it: Bubble Up Theory) the answer to the question "What was I thinking?" is probably: "I wasn't!"--literally. (Spoiler alert: Some slightly "fishy" metaphors follow.)

Occasionally you stumble onto an idea or model that seems just a great fit for some aspect of your work but, unfortunately, doesn't have quite enough empirical or popular support . . . yet. "Passive Frame Theory," proposed by Morsella of San Francisco State University, attempts a very different characterization of how everyday consciousness works.

For example, as you read this any reaction you have to this post such as "This is really goofy!" is just a brief, near random, unconsciously generated image bubbling up from someplace "in there" that is not much related to what we might have earlier referred to as conscious, logical thinking. About all your consciousness is really capable of, apparently, is something like navigating you into Starbucks safely and deciding on a tall or grande.

There are two recent reviews of that model, one by Science Daily and another more "colourful," readable and entertaining version by the Daily Mail. (Full citation of the original research report below.) Do a quick read of the latter! Citing the Science Daily version:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

That would certainly help explain a lot the conversation I hear around the office every day--but more importantly, it may also suggest why changing pronunciation can be so challenging--and how to do it more effectively. Without spending too much time thinking about "Passive Frame Theory" (which would be counter to the theory anyway), what "tools" would it provide us in pronunciation teaching Very simply put, it would argue that asking learners to "self-monitor" their speech to avoid pronunciation problems is not only futile; it is counterproductive. (That basic position has been around for decades, of course.) That is not what our fleeting consciousness is for after all. But how do you set up your brain's subconscious circuitry with models to be bubbled up from effectively?

As many "older" models had recommended, especially those in public speaking methodology, rapid improvement must be based on serious previous, focused practice on the specific problematic sounds or processes for the learner--prior to going "live" in conversation. Production "issues" (physical actions and the sounds they create) will then be recognized when one is uttered and the response "from below has bubbled up." In other words, we should allow--in fact encourage--recognition to be noted but only in passing, and then left to be integrated and "re-bubbled" as necessary, trusting the "team" in the bubble factory downstairs to handle it--or perhaps practiced later explicitly in isolation.

The term we in haptic pronunciation teaching use for that is "post hoc monitoring", just acknowledging or quickly noting bubbled up messaging--based on targeted earlier preparation. And we are also, understandably, on board with the idea that consciousness can at least manage " . . .  goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system . . ." which is the essence of Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation approach (EHIEP) methodology.

And what is the roll of classroom explanation and explicit correction in that model? At least to persuade students with insight and rationales for practice (and drill) and provide them with some opportunities to do so in class or as homework.

Bottom line: physical, experienced practice counts.

An interesting, potentially useful model and metaphor. Certainly worth thinking about!

Full citation:
Morsella, E., Godwin, C., Jantz, T., Krieger, S., Gazzaley, A. (2015). Homing in on consciousness in the nervous system: An action-based synthesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2015; 1 DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X15000643

Prosody practice, pragmatics and attending skills training

At the upcoming, Annual BCTEAL conference in Vancouver next month, Angelina VanDyke and I will be doing a new workshop, one based on an excellent presentation that she did last year, entitled: Pragmatic Attending Skills Training for Oral Skills Classes

Here's the program summary: 

Clip art: Clker.com

"Being able to better facilitate development of pragmatic competencies with ELLs is a priority of most programs.  This workshop gives participants experience in combining attending skills training with prosodic pronunciation teaching techniques to enhance use of conversational strategies and responses appropriate to a variety of socio-cultural contexts."

And this excerpt from the proposal:

"This workshop uses a combination of attending skills training (Ivey, 1965; Acton & Cope, 1999) and select procedures derived from prosodic pronunciation teaching to create a framework that facilitates systematic attention to pragmatic strategies and appropriateness, with learners of a wide range of general communicative competence. [It] begins with a general overview of the use of pragmatics applied to conversational interaction teaching, followed by training modules in attending and haptic pronunciation teaching techniques."

The key to the integration of prosody and pragmatics in this case, as we have seen in research in haptics in general, is systematic use of movement and touch to "embody" prosody and expressiveness. Instruction and "uptake" of the pragmatic dimension of the interchanges take place in short dyadic conversations that provides context and opportunity for on-the-spot informal conversational analysis and anchoring of key expressions and speaker intention.

(Pragmatically speaking!), even if you are new to haptic pronunciation teaching, this one should be more than worth attending! (Check out this previous post on an attending skills workshop done at BCTEAL in 2012.) 

Signs of spontaneous change in pronunciation teaching: more than just "weist darauf hin" . . .

Photo credit: Sunburst media.com

Marsha Chan has a "handy" system (including demonstration video) for using the hands to support English pronunciation teaching. Have used aspects of it and similar techniques for decades. Still do, in fact. Adam Brown describes somewhat similar techniques in teaching phonetics.

Chan's repertoire of hand gestures used for both initial teaching and providing feedback is, in many ways, emblematic of behaviourist approaches to language teaching: the instructor signals to the learner, points out what to correct. The idea is that the learner then takes note or "uptakes" the correction and goes ahead to integrate that new form into spontaneous speaking or at least spontaneous listening.

Had a German English teaching colleague a couple of decades ago who fervently believed that to "weist darauf hin" (point out) was his only pedagogical responsibility when it came to assisting students with pronunciation change. It was their problem from there on . . . He, too,  had a neat gesture system. It was, indeed, only a "gesture," however.

We "hapticians" (haptic pronunciation teaching enthusiasts) who work with EHIEP (Essential haptic-integrated English Pronunciation) or the haptic video system, AHEPS (Acton Haptic English Pronunciation System) have been focusing for some time now on spontaneous correction of pronunciation in class. The basic concept is that (a) students have been earlier introduced to not just a sign that lets them know what they may need to work on, but rather (b) how to figure out the source of the problem, themselves, and (c) what to do once they do.

For example, say a student uses the wrong vowel in a word. The interaction may go something like this:

A. Instructor: What is the number of the vowel in that word? (Morley, 1992)
B. Learner: (Considers for a second and then takes her best guess: "Ah . . . vowel #4)
C. Instructor either confirms or provides the correct vowel number.
Students had earlier been introduced to the vowel system and a set of haptic techniques for anchoring the sound (with gesture and touch). 
D. Learner and instructor then practice the word briefly 3 or 4 times together with a (haptic) pedagogical movement pattern, i.e., "Do that word with me!" (We do not use the dictum: Repeat after me.)
E. Learner writes down the problematic word/phrase immediately and then later
F. She puts it on her current practice word list that is systematically practiced for about 2 weeks, 3x each week.

If you are new to haptic pronunciation teaching, now might be a good time to "sign on!" A good place to start would be at the Haptic Pronunciation Teaching Workshop on Saturday, March 28th, 9:30 a.m., at the TESOL Convention in Toronto!

From warm up to wacky: Experiential learning and expressiveness in pronunciation teaching

This is a follow up to last week's post on a new haptic pronunciation teaching workshop we are doing this month at the BCTEAL Regional Island conference focusing on expressiveness. A recent study by Rangel, et al. looked at the interaction between instructor expressiveness and learner experiential learning style preference. (Hat tip to Mike Burri.) What they found, in effect, was that expressive delivery in training works well, or at least better, when the trainee is more amenable to experiential learning. 

Clip art:
Clker.com

What all of us in pronunciation work know is that you must engage learners expressively--or you lose them. Furthermore, getting beyond the basics is futile without something of that experiential "abandon" and receptivity. This is the conundrum: pushing learners beyond their comfort zone so that they can both understand and communicate expressiveness can be lethal. (It is the "Achilles Heel" of many loveable but wacky practitioners!) 

For that "expressive" instructional style to work requires a complementary openness to a less explicitly cognitive and more intuitive response from students. Here is how experiential learning style  is defined (excerpt from Rangel, Chung, Harris, Carpenter, Chiaburu and Moore, 2015. See full citation below.) 

 ". . . a form of processing that is intuitive, automatic and associated primarily with affect and emotional responses (Novak & Hoffman, 2009; Pacini & Epstein, 1999). 

 . . . the experiential learner typically demonstrates low(er) levels of cognitive engagement in the traditional learning process, and instead requires external, affective cues to effectively activate the experiential system and, thus, information processing. Such cues can be provided by one’s instructor when he or she employs expressive, stimulating delivery techniques." 

Does that sound like your typical (traditional?) pronunciation class or lesson? The problem, of course, is setting up the classroom experience so that effective experiential learning can happen, so that even the less naturally experientially-oriented learner can still join the party. 

Haptic pronunciation training is, by definition, highly experiential (as unpacked in any number of previous posts) and (should be) very stimulating, but why is requiring "uptake of" expressiveness, which requires more experientially-directed learners, especially at the conversational discourse-level absolutely essential? 

The Rangel et al. study points toward the answer: It allows more direct, albeit perhaps temporary, unfiltered access to the intentions and emotions being communicated by the speaker. Meta-communicative analysis can follow, of course, but the research would suggest that reverse is almost surely not the case. 

So how do you do that? How do you create an environment where experiential, expressive learning is not only tolerated but embraced by students, especially those in highly visual-cognitive career tracks? (Recall the great Nike commercial: Just do it!) 

One image that certainly comes to mind for me is that of a poetry instructor I had as an undergrad. She gradually enabled/required an extraordinary level of expressiveness in reading poems, where we all seemed to be completely at ease, uninhibited and "in" the experience. 

 If you have thoughts on that or references to published methods that do that quickly and well . . . please express them!

And stay tuned. We'll be trying out a new expressiveness-orientation model in the workshop at the conference. 

Full citation:

Bertha Rangel, Wonjoon Chung, T. Brad Harris, Nichelle C. Carpenter, Dan S. Chiaburu and Jenna L. Moore (2015 ) Rules of engagement: the joint influence of trainer expressiveness and trainee experiential learning style on engagement and training transfer. International Journal of Training and Development 19:1 ISSN 1360-3736, doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12045

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.

(Hapic) Teachable moments in pronunciation teaching

One of the FAQs on the new Acton Haptic website is worth considering for a moment:
------------------------------------------------------------
Q: OK, what is really different about AH-EPS from other methods?
Simple: Haptic-based, in-class pronunciation change and teaching strategies (what we actually say to each other in trying to help) for instructors and students! AH-EPS focuses first on how to communicate better with learners face to face about their pronunciation. Using gesture+touch in any class, at any time, in such personal but professional conversation, is very effective at providing good models, assisting with correction and promoting integration of change into spontaneous speaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------

One FAQ in pronunciation teaching research in general today is: How can we help learners better integrate new or changed sounds into their spontaneous speaking? 

There is actually a better question: How can we (as instructors) better integrate attention to new or changed sounds into our own spontaneous interaction and speaking in the classroom? 

Credit: Presentermedia.com

There are numerous studies of classroom discourse focusing on grammar and vocabulary correction, feedback and modelling, but none that I am aware of on spontaneous interventions on pronunciation by instructors in the classroom, in real time. (Research on formative, spontaneous interaction is, of course, the focus of research in many disciplines, such as counselling psychology.) 

If you do do spontaneous pronunciation feedback and correction in your "regular" classroom work, record some of it and report back. Perhaps we should make that the basic qualification for anybody wanting to join IAHICPR. (Check out the note on the website on how to!)

Pay attention to pronunciation!

As reported in earlier posts, no matter how terrific our attempt at pronunciation teaching is, if a learner isn't paying attention or is distracted, chances are not much uptake will happen--especially when haptic anchoring is involved. No surprise there. A new study by Lavie and colleagues of UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, focusing on "inattentional blindness" entitled,"How Memory Load Leaves Us 'Blind' to New Visual Information," just reported at Science Daily, sheds new "light" on exactly how visual attention serves learning.

In essence, when subjects were required to momentarily attend to an event or object in the visual field and remember it, their ability to respond to new events or distractions occurring immediately afterward was curtailed significantly. (The basic stuff of hypnosis, stage magicians and texting while driving, of course!)

What is of particular interest here is that, whereas the visual image that one is attempting to focus on can strongly exclude other competing distractions, that effect works precisely the other way around in haptic-integrated pronunciation instruction. It helps explain the potential effectiveness of pedagogical movement patterns of EHIEP and AH-EPS:

• Carefully designed gestures across the visual field 
• Performed while saying a word, sound or phrase 
• With highly resonate voice, and
• Terminating in some kind of touch on a stressed vowel, what we term "haptic anchoring." 

It also explains why insightful and potentially priceless comments from instructors coming in too close proximity to vivid and striking pronunciation-related "visual events" . . . may not stick or get "uptaken!" 

See what we mean? 

"Aha! change uptake!" versus the "practice" of haptic pronunciation teaching

For a while I had a special label for research reports that managed to confirm what any teacher with a modicum of common sense had figured out already, the "Well . . . duh!" category. There are any number of studies that demonstrate that practice, in addition to in-class work, is essential--in many different fields. In this field there are only a few. I cited one earlier, a 2010 study by Yoshida of Purdue University: those students who practiced pronunciation outside of class did better, significantly so.

Clip art: 

Clker

With only a few exceptions, and for the most part with good reason, classroom-based research focuses on in-class or in-lab treatment, not what happens beyond those contexts. In part that is because, contemporary methodology often implicitly must assume that nothing is going to happen outside of class of theoretical interest, whether the context is EFL or elsewhere. 

Decades ago, when ESL was still the conceptual center of pedagogy, you could tell students to go out there and practice, letting yourself off the hook. No longer. We talked about bringing the world into the classroom. For many, the "world" of language learning is now limited to the classroom--and maybe with random assistance of "my technology."

Pronunciation instructors who assume that just in class instruction, without any formal follow up, either face to face or as monitored homework, is sufficient may get lucky occasionally. There are, indeed, those rare, highly receptive students and memorable "Aha! change uptake," teachable moments when a lesson is life- or interlanguage pronunciation- altering, when explanation and insight and contextualized practice and uptake all collide! If you recall one, however, please describe it in a comment to this post! (Generous reward offered!) 

For Essential haptic-integrated English pronunciation model (EHIEP), and its haptic video offspring, Acton Haptic-integrated English pronunciation system (AH-EPS), practice is the sine qua non of pronunciation change. Haptic anchoring (gesture, plus vocal resonance positioned in the visual field consistently), sets up the process well but requires follow up, either in integrated focus on form by the instructor and peers, or practice outside of class, preferably with a technology assist. 

Haptic engagement, by its very nature is exploratory and at least temporarily very somatically attention grabbing (emotionally gripping.) But it is not sufficient. (That is, in part, why gesture work, in general, feels so good but rarely, by itself, sticks, to use a good haptic metaphor.) 

Next post will back up a bit and look at research underlying the relationship between haptic anchoring and subsequent noticing and practice. Keep in touch.