A few weeks ago I attended a seminar on embodied cognition (see, for example, Pouw, van Goug, & Paas, 2014, for a discussion; or Holme, 2012, for an excellent article situated in an L2 context). Professor Fred Paas began his talk by questioning whether there was such a thing as talent, and suggested that success was rather a result of practice. As an L2 practitioner, teacher educator, and researcher that really resonated with me because practice is definitely an important aspect when it comes to mastering a new language, and also because it bascially means that everyone can learn an L2. One piece of his talk I found particularly interesting, however, was when he proposed that in schools, physical activity and learning are usually kept as two separate entities, and therefore children’s learning and development are unnecessarily restricted. In my experience, many L2 teachers tend to shy away from utilizing kinaesthetic aspects in their classrooms (especially in EAP contexts); however, if you have ever had the privilege of witnessing a teacher making effective use of movements in his/her classroom, you probably noticed immediately that most students not only enjoy moving around but also learn in the process. In fact, I would argue that they learn much more effectively than in a traditional (unmoving) classroom because multiple modalities are engaged. Do you make use of movement in your classrooms? If so, it’d be delighted (and moved) to hear from you!
References: Pouw, W., van Gog, T. & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instruction manipulatives. Educational Psychological Review, 26 (1), 51-72. Holme, R. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 6-29.
0 Comments
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of skyping into one of Dr Huang’s undergraduate TESOL classes at the University of Victoria, BC, Canada. Among many excellent questions the students asked, the one I liked the best was the title of this latest blog post (I slightly paraphrased it). I appreciated this question for it allowed me to revisit my beliefs about pronunciation pedagogy. So, here we go: the most essential component of English pronunciation is, in my opinion, rhythm, and I usually teach it by having my students identify and practice thought groups and key words using a haptic technique (i.e. a systematic combination of movement and touch) called “Fight Club” (see www.actonhaptic.com for a demo video of this particular technique) to anchor English rhythm in learners’ memories and speech by engaging multiple modalities (sight, movement, touch, hearing, speaking) at the same time. Although there’s no empirical data available yet (we hope to get the results of a promising study published in a few months), based on several field tests and on the overwhelmingly positive reception and reaction to a haptic workshop we did at the International TESOL Convention in Portland last week, I am quite confident that working on rhythm haptically may not only be a pedagogical technique that is fun to use, but also an effective means to enhance learner intelligibility and possibly listening comprehension. Now over to you: What do you think is an important element of English pronunciation that ought to be taught to L2 students and how would you teach it? If you are you heading to Portland (Oregon) to attend the TESOL Convention (March 26 - 29) and would like to find out what haptic pronunciation instruction is all about, I suggest you join a couple of sessions that my colleagues and I are presenting on March 27, 2014. Essentials of Haptic-Integrated Pronunciation Instruction This workshop presents a set of haptic (movement + touch)-based instructional techniques for presenting and correcting English L2 pronunciation, applicable for high beginning language learners and above. Guided by research on kinesthetic approaches to L2 pronunciation instruction, participants will leave prepared to use the instructional techniques in their classrooms. Location: Convention Center room F152, 09:30-11:15. Presenters: William Acton, Nathan Kielstra, Brian Teaman, Karen Rauser, Michael Burri Exploring Research Supporting Haptic Pronunciation Teaching This presentation addresses research in neuroscience, psychology and related fields that have informed the techniques developed in haptic pronunciation teaching (Acton, 2013). Through an exploration of interdisciplinary studies involving memory, movement, touch, vocabulary studies, affect, and communication, systematic haptic engagement shows promise as a valuable addition to pronunciation teaching. Location: Convention Center room F152, 11:30-2:15. Presenters: William Acton, Karen Rauser, Michael Burri An interesting paper by Kurihara and Samimy (2007) provides some answers to the question posed in this latest blog posting. The purpose of the study was to examine the effects a training program offered in the United States had on the beliefs and practices of eight Japanese teachers of English (JTE). The findings show that the training program was viewed as being beneficial in terms fostering awareness of communicative teaching, building confidence in teaching practices and improving English ability. However, institutional constraints, such as the washback effect of university entrance exams, were generally seen as obstacles inhibiting the application of new knowledge gained overseas. Consequently, the JTEs perceived themselves as being mediators and agents of change positioned in their social and institutional contexts in Japan. Reflecting on these findings and on my own experience with training non-native English-speaking teachers (NNEST), I feel that teacher educators and programs could generally do a better job at training NNESTs. What aspects should training programs incorporate to meet the needs of NNESTs? Should perhaps more emphasis be placed on training NNESTs in their home countries rather than in Western contexts? What teaching techniques should training programs focus on for NNESTs to be useful and relevant? How can language proficiency be addressed effectively? How can challenging contextualized aspects, such as university entrance exams, be included in training programs? My thesis should provide some answers to these questions, but it would be interesting to hear some of your thoughts, experiences, and/or suggestions. Reference: Kurihara, Y., & Samimy, K. (2007). The impact of a U.S. teacher training program on teaching beliefs and practices: A case study of secondary school level Japanese teachers of English. JALT Journal, 29(1), 99-122. According to a recent study (Foote at al., 2013) exploring pronunciation teaching practices employed by instructors teaching in an intensive English program in Quebec, Canada, the answer is: most likely no. The findings showed that, not surprisingly, pronunciation received minimal attention in the classroom. When it was addressed, repetition and recasts were the main pedagogical tools. Remarkably, suprasegementals (e.g. rhythm, intonation) were not taught during the classes that were observed. Combining these findings with a survey-based study in which instructors indicated that they did in fact address suprasegmentals in their classrooms (Foote, Holtby, & Derwing, 2011), the authors suggest that "teachers are not focusing on pronunciation as much as they think they are" (Foote at al., 2013, p.11). Consequently, recommendations are made for teacher training to include more pronunciation-specific aspects. My question is: what else can be done to close this gap between teachers' beliefs about their practices and their actual classroom pedagogy? This is of interest to me because it is (although somewhat indirectly) related to my doctoral research. Any suggestions? References: Foote, J. A., Trofimovich, P., Collins, L., & Urzúa, F. (2013). Pronunciation teaching practices in communicative second language classes. The Language Learning Journal, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2013.784345 Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of the teaching pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1-22. Based on my experience working with language teachers, assessing spoken language often poses a number of serious challenges for L2 teachers. Should the assessment focus be on fluency or accuracy? Does poor grammar equate to poor content? Should students automatically fail a speaking task if they have intelligibility problems even though the content might be quite good? How and to what extent should pronunciation be considered in oral assessment? During my time as ISEP coordinator, in an attempt to address some of these questions, I designed criterion-based rubrics (i.e. analytic rubrics) for teachers to use in their speaking classes (see below for an example rubric). The rubrics standardized and hopefully increased the reliability and validity of assessment practices in the program; nonetheless, they didn’t account for one particular factor that I generally find difficult to control: accent familiarity. Having lived in Japan, for example, I am quite familiar with the way Japanese speak English, and research provides ample evidence that familiarity with speakers' accented speech (and with their cultural and linguistic background) does indeed influence listener/rater comprehension of spoken language (e.g. Derwing & Munro, 1997; Major, Fitzmaurice, Bunta, & Balasubramanian, 2002; Munro & Derwing, 1995). What can be done to minimize or control this particular variable? Videotaping speaking tasks to assess student performances is something I have seen teachers use. I must admit, I haven't experimented with this, but the fact that teachers can replay a recording several times seems to me an interesting, albeit somewhat time-consuming, solution. Does anybody have any other suggestions? References: Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1-16. Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 173-190. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73-97. This is a massive question, one that cannot be answered in a short blog post. A study (Gatbonton, Trofimovich, & Magid, 2005) conducted in Canada, however, provides a fascinating perspective. The study examined links between ethnic group affiliation and accent, and some of the results indicated that “[t]he more learners sound like the speakers of their target language, the less they are perceived by their peers to be loyal to their home group” (p. 504). Based on their findings, the authors suggest that second language (L2) teachers should not rush to conclusions when their learners’ pronunciation is not improving because their students’ inability might be connected to their identity and the social pressure they face outside the classroom. Frankly, until I came across this paper, I had never given much thought to social pressure being a potential obstacle to student progress. Hence, I can’t help but wonder how many L2 learners get labelled as being ineffective learners, whereas in reality there might be something else going on behind the scene that many L2 teachers are simply oblivious to. It would be interesting to read anecdotes from L2 instructors and/or researchers as to whether they have had similar experiences or have witnessed or researched students’ unwillingness to improve their pronunciation because of social pressure faced inside or outside the classroom. Anybody willing to share? Reference: Gatbonton, E. Trofimovich, P., & Magid, M. (2005). Learner's ethnic group affiliation and L2 pronunciation accuracy: A sociolinguistic investigation. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 489-511. Extensive reading seems to be receiving a lot of attention in contemporary language teaching and it’s almost impossible to join a language teaching conference without attending a session on this intriguing topic. John Macalister’s keynote at the TESOL Colloquium held at the University of Sydney last month, as well as one of Scott Thornbury’s recent blog posts on extensive reading inspired me to reflect on my days of being an ESL student in New Zealand. At some point during my ESL studies, one of my teachers suggested that I pick up a book at the local second hand bookstore if I was serious about improving my English. I somehow managed to slug through and finish Animal Farm, and shortly afterwards – perhaps impressed by my effort – my host family gave me a thicker novel for Christmas. I also began reading the local newspaper every morning. Reading in a foreign language was not an easy thing for me to do by any means. My vocabulary was extremely limited at first, and I had to train myself to ignore many of the unknown words and simply read on. Soon, however, the reading bug got a hold of me and after a few months of reading I began to feel that I was making progress, not only in regards to fluency but also vocabulary and general comprehension. Yet, at the same time, I realized that I needed to retain some of the low-frequency words I encountered, and so I began to keep an old fashion word list and I started reading with a dictionary. It’s interesting to note that Scott discusses the use of similar strategies. Anyhow, based on my own experience, I believe that L2 learners should underline unknown words while they’re reading and only consult their dictionaries once they’ve read several pages or even an entire chapter; otherwise, reading is tedious and boring and the whole process becomes counterproductive if they open up their dictionary every time they come across a new word. If students are taught this explicitly, generally, they are able to read without being interrupted and they usually obtain a sense of achievement in a relatively short period of time. To return to the title of this blog post, yes, I believe in extensive reading as long as the reader is equipped with some of the strategies mentioned above. Is extensive reading the magic potion that will enable us to learn languages in the blink of an eye? Certainly not, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. People ask me this question occasionally, and therefore I thought this topic would lend itself well for a short blog post. Last year, I taught a TESOL diploma course on pronunciation instruction and at the beginning of the semester I asked my student teachers this exact question. They posted their views to a Moodle course site for everyone to read, and it turned out that some thought it was useful, while others were unsure or saw little value in using it. In regards to more experienced teachers, in an academic English preparatory program I coordinated in Canada, some of the instructors saw little merit in using the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) in their speaking classes. In fact, some admitted that they didn’t really know the IPA well enough to use or teach it to their students. I find this rather unsettling because if teachers don’t know the IPA, it’s probably safe to assume that they have, at best, a limited understanding of how vowels and consonants are produced. Anyhow, I think the IPA should be part of every L2 teacher's tool kit, no matter in what context s/he teaches. Knowing the symbols and, consequently, understanding the places and manners of articulation are powerful tools that L2 teachers can utilize to explain and show students how to produce sounds while pointing to phonetic symbols and drawing their learners' attention away from the spelling difficulties of the English language. Most teachers don't need to be experts in phonetics, but I'm really not sure how a language teacher, who lacks a basic understanding of the IPA, can address a student’s difficulties with pronouncing vowels and consonants.
Last weekend, I attended the 2013 TESOL Research Network Colloquium at the University of Sydney. It was an excellent event with several stimulating presentations, including Anne Burns' afternoon keynote. The timing of her talk – researching teacher cognition (TC) – was perfect as my doctoral research examines second language teacher cognition (e.g. thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, attitudes) about pronunciation pedagogy. One aspect of her talk was particularly intriguing: the impact that context has on TC and practice. Below are some of the points she made:
- Context is fundamental to understanding the relationship between TC and practice - There is no simple cause and effect relationship between TC and practice - Incompatible relationships do not necessarily reflect flawed practice - TC may often appear to be incompatible with practice because of social, instructional and/or institutional factors exerting powerful influence on teachers These four bullets highlight the fact that TC is a challenging (and somewhat messy) but very important area to be researching. Cognition is not easily accessible, and to make matters even more complicated, because of the context in which one teaches, cognition data obtained by a researcher might not be an accurate reflection of a teacher’s true knowledge, thoughts, beliefs, perception and attitudes about practice. At the end of the plenary talk I couldn’t help but wonder whether and to what extent TC changes if a teacher moves to a different teaching context. As a matter of fact, this would be an interesting study (although its feasibility might be rather problematic): investigating TC in relation to employment change(s). Any takers? |
Author
I am a Senior Lecturer in TESOL at the University of Wollongong in Australia. This blog is a reflection of my journey as a researcher, L2 teacher educator, and language teacher. Archives
June 2021
|