Comparing Instructional Reinforcements in Phonetics Pedagogy

Jennifer Abel, Heather Bliss, Bryan Gick, Masaki Noguchi, Murray Schellenberg, Noriko Yamane

´╗┐This study contrasts different instructional reinforcements in the teaching of phonetics, i.e., learning tasks that supplement a classroom lecture on a phonetic contrast. 152 introductory linguistics students were split into four groups, each of which received the same lecture but a different instructional reinforcement, as follows: (1) a baseline textbook-style handout explaining the contrast, (2) classroom production practice, repeating after an instructor in unison, (3) pairwise production practice, in which students practice contrasts and give each other feedback, and (4) watching enhanced ultrasound videos illustrating the contrast [1]. Students were given a quiz evaluating their comprehension of the places of articulation and their perception of the contrast immediately after the activities and again one week later. We found that there were no large differences between the groups. While phonetics learning is argued to be improved through student engagement [2, 3, 4], interactivity [5], and pairwise practice [6], group 4 did not receive any of these but nevertheless performed as well as the other groups. We conclude that reinforcement using non-interactive enhanced ultrasound videos can be as effective as traditional classroom reinforcements at teaching phonetic contrasts.

 DOI: 10.21437/ISAPh.2016-11

Cite as: Abel, J., Bliss, H., Gick, B., Noguchi, M., Schellenberg, M., Yamane, N. (2016) Comparing Instructional Reinforcements in Phonetics Pedagogy. Proc. ISAPh 2016 International Symposium on Applied Phonetics, 52-55, DOI: 10.21437/ISAPh.2016-11.

  author={Jennifer Abel and Heather Bliss and Bryan Gick and Masaki Noguchi and Murray Schellenberg and Noriko Yamane},
  title={Comparing Instructional Reinforcements in Phonetics Pedagogy},
  booktitle={Proc. ISAPh 2016 International Symposium on Applied Phonetics},