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

Marking the territory: What wolves can teach us about integrated anchoring and learning of L2 pronunciation

Clip art:
Clker

There are many who report using haptic anchoring in teaching pronunciation, techniques such as clapping hands, stomping feet, tapping on the desk or pulling at rubber bands-- coordinated with stressed words or rhythm groups in speaking. Such "marking of the territory" does certainly help to reinforce the goal of the activity, but it is not "haptic-integrated," in the sense that we use it here.

In the 2003 study of the marking behavior of wolves in Poland, by Zub, Theuerkauf, Jędrzejewski, Jędrzejewska, Schmidt and Kowalczyk, an elaborate system was revealed such that each incidence of territorial marking could only be interpreted by considering three parameters simultaneously: (a) significance, (b) variability, and (c) relationship to other marking(s). In other words, the efficacy and meaning of the "mark" was dependent entirely upon its relative place in an integrated, multi-dimensional map of the territory.

In the same sense, haptic anchoring of new pronunciation only contributes effectively when it is thoroughly integrated into speaking, listening, reading or writing tasks. If it is experienced outside of meaningful discourse, narrative and task sequencing, as traditional, isolated pronunciation exercises inserted in the midst of a lesson--no matter how vividly or dramatically the haptic anchoring is executed, chances are it will not be all that different or memorable in principle than when the wolves, themselves, employ the same marking "technology" for other, more mundane functions in the Bialowieza woods . . .