1. Using Ultrasound Technology to Improve Tense/Lax Distinctions in ESL Learners Bryan Meadows, Gwanhi Yun, Diana Archangeli, Jeff Mielke, and Beth Lukes University of Arizona

2. Introduction / Background of Study (1) Current situation in the FL classroom –Little comparative attention to pronunciation –A major challenge is the necessary reliance on the student’s perception (2) Necessity for better teaching materials –L2 perception is difficult for learners –L2 production is also challenging –Current materials can be improved (3) ELL student campus survey returned positive reactions to ultrasound.

3. The English tense/lax distinction The vowel / I / The vowel /i/

4. The Situation for Korean Speakers Learning English Tongue Height and Tongue Root Advancement = most important differences between /i/ and / I / Those differences do not coincide with phonemic boundaries found in Korean = same vowel Perception (and production) of the tense/lax distinction can be difficult

5. Goals and hypothesis Goals –Develop instructional materials that will aid L2 production of tense/lax distinction in English high vowels by Korean speakers –Ascertain if the access to ultrasound technology contributes to L2 development Hypothesis –Subjects who interact with the ultrasound technology will exhibit an improvement in production over those subjects who (a) have access to ultrasound images but not to images of their own production, and (b) receive no access to ultrasound imagery at all during the treatment sessions.

6. Pilot Study

7. Subjects Current ESL students on University of Arizona campus Majority have less than one-year of experience in the United States Native Korean speakers (n=11)

8. Procedure Pre-Treatment Data Collection Treatment Sessions (3) Post-Treatment Data Collection

9. Pre- and Post-Treatment Data Collection Perception Data Collection –Audio samples of words (same speaker) –Hear sound and choose between two minimal-pair items on paper –Perception task evaluated immediately by experimenter Production Data Collection –Same item set—read words sequentially –Produce into microphone and record (audio and ultrasound) –Production task evaluated later by three native English speakers

10. Samples from Perception and Production Data Collections winwean cheekchick heathit keenkin meetmitt peekpick reaprip seatsit sheepship teentin

11. Treatment Sessions Subjects divided into 3 groups –Group One = Full access to Ultrasound Still and moving images On-line access to their own production –Group Two = Restricted access to Ultrasound Ultrasound images replaced with hand-drawn illustrations No access to their own production –Group Three = No access to Ultrasound No access to any imagery No access to self-production

12. Treatment Group Characteristics (summary) Group One Group Two Group Three English Model Sounds English Ultrasound Video English Ultrasound Images½ Ultrasound Images of Model Korean ESL Learner ½ Access to Own Production Via Ultrasound

13. Screen Shots What did the English lessons look like?

14. Group One Sample

18. Group Two Sample

21. Pilot Results Pilot experiment did not produce immediate results. A step back—discriminatory behavior –Consider statistical chance (50%) –Move to either extreme reflects the subject making a distinction Revised question: Are subjects beginning to make a high-front vowel distinction?

22. Pilot Results: Percentage Change in Discriminatory Behavior Group One Group Two Group Three Change in Discriminatory Behavior (PERCEPTION) 23%18%13% Change in Discriminatory Behavior (PRODUCTION) 3%10%5% Scores reflect a subject’s move away from chance (50%) in either direction = ‘noticing’

23. Individual Success Stories Subject 9 Production (Group 1): –64% native-like attainment pre-treatment –71% native-like attainment post-treatment –7% increase in native-like discriminatory behavior Subject 2 Production (Group 2): –61% native-like attainment pre-treatment –76% native-like attainment post-treatment –15% increase in native-like discriminatory behavior Subject 1 Perception (Group 1): –81% discrimination accuracy pre-treatment –30% discrimination accuracy post-treatment –51% change in discriminatory behavior

24. Conclusions / Implications Immediate results from Ultrasound unattainable. –Initial study which held for many variables. –Time and training were an issue. Student-Instructor interaction is likely a missing key component. Future studies being considered: –Classroom comparison –Explore further English distinctions (L / R) –Real-time palate imagery will aid future experiments –Experiment with different variables