Mashup videos, p. 1
Mashup Videos for Teaching Pronunciation and Culture
(English translation, made before the final touch editions. Email me, kmcbrid8@slu.edu, if you have
any questions about possible later changes.)
Kara McBride, Saint Louis University
McBride, K. (2012). Vídeos mashup para enseñar pronunciación y cultura. Hispania, 95(2), 316332.
Abstract: This study analyzes workshops meant to teach spoken Spanish and culture to university
students at the beginning and intermediate level. The format of the lessons was that of mashup videos –
combinations of social media from YouTube and other internet pages – for the purpose of introducing
topics related to everyday life in the Spanish-speaking world. Most of the instructors were graduate
students (TAs). In order to analyze the impact that the workshops had, surveys, observations, interviews
and evaluations of the students were used. Most students in these required courses reported very
positively on the benefit and their enjoyment of the classes, saying that their pronunciation and listening
comprehension improved, and that they learned more about the culture of the Spanish-speaking world
at the same time that they gained a new perspective on their own culture. The instructors corroborated
these observations and indicated a greater influence of the workshops on their own teaching style after
one semester. This article describes the creation of the lessons and the results of the study.
One of the primary objectives in the teaching of foreign languages (FLs) is that students
understand and appreciate more the cultural diversity that exists in the world. It is hoped that the study
of FLs helps students to understand that a large part of their way of acting and of seeing the world is a
result of their own culture (Byram 2008). Another goal, of course, is that students are able to
communicate with native speakers. In order to achieve these goals, it is important that students listen to
speakers from a variety of different dialects speaking naturally, that is, without removing from their
speech those characteristics that make it distinct. A person’s accent is one of the most important and
notable ways of identifying the geographical origin of a person and the social group to which he or she
belongs (Lippi-Green 1997). Because of this, to know only standard Spanish is to know little about the
Hispanic world.
Mashup videos, p. 2
Spanish instructors can take advantage of the extremely interesting diversity of the social
groups within the Spanish-speaking world in order to capture the interest of their students. The nature
of second language acquisition requires that each instructor adapts his or her lessons to the particular
needs and interests of his or her students (Kumaravadivelu 2003). Because of this, it seems logical and
natural for an FL instructor to turn to the internet to find materials to use in class. The fact that new
technologies allow a great percentage of the world population to produce and distribute multimedia
materials (e.g., blogs, videos, or podcasts) means that there is an essentially limitless amount of
materials available that show the use of Spanish by members of very diverse Hispanic communities.
However, it is not always easy to find ways to successfully incorporate this type of material into
FL classes. Even if an instructor is familiar with the technology necessary and the materials that are
available, experiences of this type often do not transfer readily to pedagogical practice without previous
training (Kolaitis et al. 2006). Another important challenge is creating tasks at the right level for the
students when using speech samples that were not made specifically for language learners. This article
describes a project in which authentic materials taken from the internet were manipulated into mashup
videos – videos made by mixing digital media – and used successfully in classes that aimed to teach
culture and pronunciation and form part of new instructor training.
Culture
It is essential to include culture in the teaching of FLs (MLA 2007; ACTFL 1999), both because an
understanding of other cultures in a basic goal of education, as was mentioned earlier, and because
language is a social practice that cannot be separated from culture (Kramsch 1998). When one
understands the perspectives and values of another culture, one understands something about oneself
and one’s native culture, and as a result one’s world view changes (Byram 2008; Kramsch 1995). In order
to understand in some depth another culture, it is not enough to know only about that culture’s great
Mashup videos, p. 3
works of art and most important historical events, the so-called “Culture” with a capital “C” (Miquel &
Sans 2004). It is also necessary to understand the day-to-day life of its people, since it is possible to find
important keys to a culture in the small details of their everyday lives.
Sometimes it is precisely those details that are lost in textbooks made for FL students. Part of
the information that is commonly left out is how native speakers speak in informal situations among
their peers. This represents a tremendous amount of cultural information that students often have no
access to (Chavez 2003; Train 2003).
Pronunciation
A person’s pronunciation and intonation indicate a great deal of information about his or her
social identity and attitudes (Derwing & Munro 2009; Lope Blanch 1999). As a result, these affect how
the person is perceived by others (Derwing & Munro 2009; Munro et al. 2006). For our students to
control to some extent cultural, social and pragmatic aspects of their interactions with other speakers of
Spanish, they need to know not only something about correct pronunciation but also about some
variations in the everyday speech of native speakers of Spanish. It is not realistic to expect that every
student will achieve a native-like accent (Flege et al. 1995; Train 2003). In fact, such an expectation
could be experienced as a threat to the student’s personal identity (Leftowitz & Hedgcock 2006). Still,
students need instruction about native pronunciation in order to be able to make a decision about the
effort they may want to expend to approximate a native-like accent.
It is important and feasible to incorporate pronunciation instruction from the beginning of FL
studies (Arteaga 2000), and it has been shown that, given enough time, instruction can improve
students’ pronunciation (Elliott 1995; Lord 2005) as well as their listening comprehension (Flowerdew &
Miller 2005). Including instruction about natural speech from the beginning of the process of acquisition
may help avoid fossilization in a student’s pronunciation (Hincks 2003). Furthermore, “To expose
Mashup videos, p. 4
[students] only to highly contrived materials that adhere to the standard norm will make it difficult for
them to understand authentic texts. It also denies them access to suitable models on the basis of which
they may extract the rules that underlie vernacular speech” (Valdman 2003: 58-9).
Use and elaboration of authentic materials
Second language acquisition requires the introduction of materials that are comprehensible to
the learner (Krashen 1985), but it is also possible to create tasks that are appropriate to any level using
authentic materials.1 Instead of manipulating the materials that are used in a given task, it is possible to
adjust what the students are asked to do with the text or speech sample (Hoven 1991; Lynch, 1988). For
example, instead of expecting students to understand every word of a spoken text, this kind of activity
would guide students to pick up on information from the text in a strategic manner (McBride 2009b).
The instructor’s job is to provide for the students sufficient scaffolding: the instructor needs to establish
connections between what the learners already know and what they are attempting to learn; he or she
needs to guide the students and provide explanations as necessary; and the instructor must divide tasks
into simpler steps that the student can reasonably achieve (Blyth 1995).
However, if language is simplified in order to provide this kind of scaffolding, the input that the
students are exposed to might be so simplified as to contribute almost nothing to the students’
acquisition (Yano et al. 1994). Further, students who work only with simplified language may develop
comprehension strategies that are not adequate for comprehending authentic materials (Honeyfield
1977; McBride 2008). The alternative to simplifying language is to elaborate it. Elaboration consists of
repetitions and reformulations of the message. FL students are able to understand more with
elaborated texts than with simplified texts (Parker & Chaudron 1987; Yano et al. 1994). In the case of
auditory texts, elaboration and clear segmentation help listening comprehension more than simplifying
the vocabulary and syntax (Parker & Chaudron 1987). In the workshops that are described in this article,
Mashup videos, p. 5
mashup videos were used to provide helpful segmentation and elaboration in lessons of Spanish as a
foreign language (SFL).
Mashup videos
Mashups are the result of mixing of a variety of digital files. A mashup video can include clips
from other videos as well as images and sound files. Done well, the juxtaposition of materials can serve
as a form of elaboration on a central theme. Additionally, video editing techniques allow for the
segmentation of materials that, when done with pedagogical objectives in mind, can serve as the
scaffolding necessary that will allow a student to understand an authentic speech sample.
The reorganization of materials in a mashup can change the original message of its contents. It is
this characteristic of mashups that makes it a form of art that has become quite popular (Jackson 2009).
“Young people are embracing remix en masse, and it is increasingly integral to how they make meaning
and express ideas” (Knobel & Lankshear 2008: 23). Because of this, lessons that are produced with these
techniques may attract young learners. The visual nature of mashup videos also makes them particularly
appropriate for young students who have grown up in a world that is much more dominated by images
and videos, where “images no longer exist primarily to entertain and illustrate. Rather they are
becoming central to communication and meaning-making” (Felten 2008: 60).
The project’s context
The videos that are described in this article served as the foundation of lessons used in basic to
intermediate SFL courses (SPAN 101, 102 and 201) in a private university where almost all majors
required a minimum of three semesters of a foreign language. The interests of our population and our
previous experiences led us to take advantage of a moment of transition in our Spanish program to
introduce a special type of class focused on oral language and culture. These classes were called oral
language workshops (OLWs) and they were offered on the fourth day of instruction each week, during
Mashup videos, p. 6
the “lab day.” Given space and scheduling demands, students went every three weeks to a computer
lab, and during the other weeks of the cycle, they could choose between an oral language workshop or a
grammar workshop. In any given OLW, members from either of the two levels (SPAN 101 to 201) that
were not that week in the computer lab might attend. In each OLW, one teacher from both of these two
levels would be present.
Almost all classes of these three semesters of SFL are taught by graduate teaching assistants
(TAs). The TAs receive training through a week of orientation, weekly meetings with teachers from the
same level, monthly in-service seminars, and a limited offering of graduate courses in FL teaching
methodology. Even with these multiple sources of training, it is still considered little time to address all
of the areas that the instructors need to learn about. Part of the purpose of the present project was to
give these TAs a supervised experience using authentic materials for teaching pronunciation and culture.
The study included surveys, interviews and student evaluations in order to investigate the
following questions:
1) Did the students feel that their pronunciation, listening comprehension and understanding of
Hispanic culture improved?
2) Did the instructors feel that the students’ pronunciation, listening comprehension and
understanding of Hispanic culture improved?
3) What challenges did the instructors face in teaching these lessons?
4) Did the instructors change their way of teaching as a result of teaching these lessons?
A second study that will be described below attempted to answer the last research question:
5) Did the students’ pronunciation improve?
Mashup videos, p. 7
Selection of materials
The lessons were organized by phonetic topics in the following order: intonation; vowels;
diphthongs; written and spoken accents; the voiceless stops /p, t, k/; sounds represented by the letter
“r;” rhythm and speed; the sounds represented by the letters “b/v, d, g;” sound linking; fillers (such as
“like” (or o sea))2; a review of vowels and diphthongs; a review of the consonant sounds; sounds
represented by the letters “s, c, z;” and, at two points in the semester, review activities to prepare
students for their midterm and final oral exams.
In each lesson there were samples of authentic speech taken from the internet to serve as a
model for pronunciation and for the recognition of sounds and listening comprehension in general. The
incorporation of these authentic samples provided the opportunity to present and discuss cultural
themes. It was further considered important that each lesson had an overarching theme that unified the
phonetic aspects of the lessons. Some of these themes were public service messages, Latin American
baseball players, literacy among children, and flirting. These themes emerged according to what
appropriate materials were found to illustrate the linguistic foci.
The authentic samples that were used for the OLWs came primarily from YouTube. Other
sources of materials were some educational websites, like the site StudySpanish.com3, and the
University of Iowa’s website on phonetics, www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/.4 The juxtaposition of
authentic videos with material from educational websites can be characterized as a form of elaboration.
The review of isolated sounds before concentrating on their employment in authentic speech served as
a pre-listening task (Córdoba et al. 2005) which prepared students to understand more of the audio clip
that followed it.
Capturing videos from the internet is relatively easy. It is possible to capture videos from
YouTube using the website www.keepvid.com. To capture a visit to a website, the free program
Mashup videos, p. 8
CamStudio (www.camstudio.org) was used. This program records everything that happens on a
computer’s screen, including the sound that accompanies it. All of the materials that were used were
from free web pages. Importantly, the use of brief audiovisual clips is permitted for educational ends
(Stanford University Libraries).
The materials were selected according to the following criteria: they should not be offensive nor
deal with topics that are not appropriate for class; they should be of interest to the students; they
should not include too much unfamiliar vocabulary; and they needed to have an adequate sound
quality. During initial attempts, it was not easy to find videos that fulfilled all of these requirements, but
in the end it was feasible with a bit of practice and the clever use of keywords. For example, for the
lesson on the sounds represented by the letters “b/v, d, g,”5 the search began with the word agua
(water) because this is a high-frequency word and serves as a model for the pronunciation of the
fricative /g/: [aɣua]. One of the search results was a public service message from Mexico about water
conversation.6
The video contained extended discourse about everyday topics such as water consumption
when washing dishes, showering, and so on. That section was used for a listening comprehension
activity (see 5:56-6:23 from the video cited in Note 5). The clip lasts only 27 seconds, and before and
after it there are some seconds of a blank screen, which allowed the instructors to rewind and repeat
that section more easily. In this way, the mashup video segmented authentic speech, and the students
were not presented with too much information to process at once. The images of the refrigerator, the
shower, etc., functioned as a type of elaboration on the text and so facilitated comprehension. It would
not be possible for the students to understand everything the narrator said, and this was not asked of
them. They were only asked to recognize the numbers when the narrator lists the number of liters
consumed. In this way, authentic speech was used and the level of task difficulty was adjusted to the
Mashup videos, p. 9
students’ level. In another part of the same video (6:53-7:16) there was a section of abundant
repetition: a variety of Mexican speakers from different social groups repeated the phrase, Yo sí cuido el
agua, ¿y tú? (“I’m careful about water consumption. Are you?”) This section served as a model for a
quick pronunciation activity.
One of the characteristics of YouTube is that next to the viewed video there appear suggestions
of related videos. In this case, a number of other public service videos were suggested. Some videos
presented social issues with a good deal of humor and in a way notably different from how they would
be presented in the United States.7 This was then used as an opportunity to discuss comparisons
between cultures.
During these cultural discussions, English was allowed. Although there are good arguments for
speaking exclusively in the target language in a FL class (Warford 2010), the exclusive use of the target
language restricts the level of conversation that can be had about these cultural topics, which in turn
limits the extent to which the student can make connections between the lesson and his or her previous
knowledge (Chavez 2003). The student’s first language is an important cognitive tool. Allowing its limited
use in a FL class may facilitate the student’s processing of new information (Blyth 1995; Kern 1994).
Prohibiting its use may cause in some students the same feelings of repression and helplessness that it
causes some immigrants who are not allowed to use their mother tongue (Blyth 1995). It has also been
noted that a model of monolingualism is not an appropriate model for those who seek to attain
bilingualism (Blyth 1995; Chavez 2003; Train 2003).
Preparation of the mashup videos
The program that was used to create the video files was Windows Movie Maker, an easy-to-use
program that typically comes with Windows (see Figure 1, which will be explained further, below).
Macintosh users could use iMovie, to name just one more of many options. This type of program allows
Mashup videos, p. 10
the user to select sections of videos, to clip them, and to mix them with sound and image files. After
editing the conglomeration of files and converting it into a video file, it was uploaded to YouTube so that
in our classrooms, which had internet access, instructors had easy access to the files. In the comment
section of the uploaded file, information about all of the source files and websites was provided.
Figure 1. Segment of a mashup video’s timeline
Among the selections of video and sound, there were also static images. Figure 2 shows an
image used in the lesson about diphthongs. By pausing the mashup video on these illustrations, the
images on the screen served the same purpose as if they had been slides in a PowerPoint presentation.
After explaining the image, the instructor could continue with the video. Figure 1 shows part of the
timeline for a mashup video about the sounds represented by the letters “b/v, d, g.” There is a segment
of a video that was recorded during a visit to the explanation of the sound [ð] (one of the sounds
represented by the letter “d”) from the University of Iowa’s website. The clip ends at 5:52, followed by
four seconds of a blank screen. (This is indicated in Figure 1 with the name of that file, blanco.) Here the
instructor could pause and explain what the students would see next, which in this case was the public
service video about water (“El Día del Agua”). During this part of the lesson, the instructor would allow
the video to advance.
Mashup videos, p. 11
Figure 2. Static image used to explain diphthongs
A teacher’s guide was created for the instructors and a handout for the students. The handouts
included only the information that they would need to read during the class. The teacher’s guides were
much more extensive and included activity suggestions, many times offering ideas about how to know
which of a few directions to take the lesson in, according to the reactions, interests, knowledge and
proficiency level of the students. The structure of the guides indicated where clips began and ended and
where to pause for the static images.
Storing materials
The workshops were part of a total of 53 sections of SPAN 101, 102 and 201 in the school year
2009-2010. So that all participants could have easy access to the materials, the guides, handouts and
links to videos were stored on a website that could be accessed only by people who had received an
“invitation” via a link. This website was stored in Ning, which at the time was a free service, but the
same sort of site could be set up on a free wiki like WetPaint.com or on a Google site, to name just two
of a number of free possibilities that allow for restricted access and that allow users to attach text files.
Methods
A student survey (see Appendix A) was made available online, and the students had time to
complete it in one of their computer lab sessions. The instructors received an email inviting them to
Mashup videos, p. 12
respond to the survey for them (see Appendix B) and providing its link. The purpose of the surveys was
to measure the participants’ perception of the effectiveness of the OLW in teaching culture,
pronunciation and listening comprehension. During the recruitment process, students were also asked
to consider volunteering to participate in an interview. The same topics were covered in the interviews
as were found in the surveys.
Participants
Students
In SPAN 101 and 102, the students had to attend a minimum of five workshops during the
semester, but they had a choice as to how to divide their attendance between the OLWs and the
grammar workshops. SPAN 201 students were required to attend two OLWs per semester. Table 1
shows the number of students who answered the survey and then, in parentheses, the total number of
students enrolled in the courses. The last column indicates the number of students from the two
semesters who indicated that, at the moment of answering the survey, they had already attended at
least one OLW. As can be seen, it was not possible to administer the survey in SPAN 201 in the first
semester. In the second semester, the number of students who answered represented 78% of all
students enrolled in the courses. Logically, some of the students who answered the survey in the first
semester also answered in the second. All of the results that are presented below are from the 462
students who indicated that they had already attended at least one OLW at the time of answering the
survey.
The principal investigator interviewed five students in the first semester (fall) and five in the
second (spring). These were students who had indicated an interest in being interviewed. Given their
unusual enthusiasm in sharing their opinions about the OLWs, it is possible that their responses were
not representative.
Mashup videos, p. 13
Table 1. Number of student participants
Semester 1
Semester 2
Had already
attended (total)
SPAN 101
134 (173)
109 (134)
141
SPAN 102
126 (165)
123 (171)
241
SPAN 201
1 (155)
99 (121)
80
Instructors
During the first semester of the study, there were 12 OLW instructors. Eight of them were TAs.
The others were adjunct professors. In the spring, theew were also 12 instructors, with 7 TAs. Only two
of the instructors each semester were native Spanish speakers. The coordinator of SPAN 101 was also
the coordinator of the articulation committee, the person who created the materials for the workshops,
the principal investigator, and the author of this article. In fall, 10 instructors answered the survey and in
spring, 11. Additionally, seven of them were interviewed by a research assistant in the spring.
Results
Student data
Most students considered the classes to be of good quality and believed that they helped them
to improve their pronunciation, their listening comprehension and their understanding of Hispanic
culture. Table 2 shows a summary of the answers for the student survey. Although on the original survey
the respondents could answer with "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree," in order to simplify the
reporting of information, here the two categories of agreement and the two categories of disagreement
have been collapsed. Many of the questions also offered neutral responses such as "not applicable."
The answers were analyzed to investigate possible differences between the levels of the
students, or differences between students from the fall and the spring. There were only significant
Mashup videos, p. 14
Table 2. Student answers
Agree
Disagree
The OLWs can improve a student’s pronunciation (2)a
88.2
11.0
The OLWs were taught well (16)
88.2
10.7
The OLWs can improve students’ listening comprehension (17)
82.5
15.4
I was able to apply something I learned in the OLWs to other
classes (15)
75.6
20.9
The mixing of students from different class levels was not a
problem (6)
75.5
24.0
My pronunciation has improved (5)
68.8
27.0
My listening comprehension has improved (7)
67.5
28.5
I enjoyed the OLWs (1)
75.6
23.9
I looked at some of the original sources used to create the lessons
(20)
16.1
83.9
The cultural information was appropriate for class (8)
72.0
14.1
I learned something new about Hispanic culture (10)
71.0
28.4
I learned something new about my own culture (11)
60.0
39.4
I learned something new about my own first language (12)
50.5
48.6
Quality and usefulness
Effectiveness
Enjoyment and interest
Culture
differences on two items. An analysis of variation (ANOVA) revealed that on Item 10, there was a
significant difference between the answers of the students according to their level (p<.05). Only 62.6%
of the students from SPAN 101 reported having learned something new about Hispanic culture, while
72.7% of the students from SPAN 102 and 76.2% of the students from SPAN 201 agreed with this
statement.
Mashup videos, p. 15
The other item where a significant difference (p<.05) was found between groups was Item 8, “I
don’t think that the kinds of cultural information included in the oral language workshops should be
brought into a Spanish class.” Only 66.0% of the students from SPAN 101 approved the selection of
cultural themes (disagreed with the item). Among the students of SPAN 102, the percentage was 70.8%,
and in SPAN 201 it reached 81.2%. Table 2 includes only answers of agreement and disagreement, but it
does not include the 13.3% of all students (17.7% among students of SPAN 101) that shows the answer
"I don't know what kind of cultural information was included in the oral language workshops."
The students also answered open-ended questions about which were their favorite and least
favorite activities. Many indicated that they liked lessons that included cinema or popular music, such as
an interview with the Cuban-American singer Pitbull. Some students complained about the inclusion of
political topics, while others expressed an interest in precisely those topics.
The question about students’ reasons for attending or being absent from the workshops
revealed that students are often motivated by what they believe will affect their grade. An interest in
improving one's pronunciation and a preference for spoken (as opposed to written) language appeared
among the common responses. Also mentioned frequently were factors that had little relation to
teaching objectives, such as the weather and friends’ schedules. The interviews corroborated the results
found through other means but highlighted the fact that many students believe that it is important to
first master grammar before worrying about pronunciation.
Instructors
Table 3 is a summary of the instructors’ responses. Here again differences between the two
semesters were investigated. The only item where a significant difference was found was Item 13. Using
the value of -1 for the answer "disagree," -2 for "strongly disagree," and, likewise, 2 for “strongly agree"
and 1 for "agree," the average answer for fall was -0.20, while the average answer at the end was 0.80.
Mashup videos, p. 16
Table 3. Instructors’ responses
Agreement
Disagreement
The OLWs can improve students’ pronunciation (2)
100.0
0.0
The OLWs can improve students’ listening comprehension
(18)
85.0
15.0
The teacher’s guides were easy to follow (15)
80.9
19.0
I always understood the lessons’ objectives (16)
76.2
23.8
The mix of students from different levels was not a problem
(6)
61.9
38.1
Team teaching the lessons presented no problem (17)
47.6
52.4
The experience of teaching the OLWs taught me something
about Spanish phonology (11)
95.2
4.8
Students’ pronunciation has improved (5)
90.5
9.5
Students’ listening comprehension has improved (4)
76.2
23.8
The OLWs are a good use of class time (3)
76.2
23.8
My experience teaching the OLWs has had an impact on how
I teach other classes (13)
66.7
33.3
I enjoyed teaching the OLWs (1)
71.4
28.6
I looked at some of the original sources used to create the
lessons (20)
61.9
38.1
The cultural information was appropriate for class (7)
90.5
9.5
Our students have learned something new about Hispanic
culture (9)
90.5
9.5
The students now understand something new about their own
culture (14)
71.5
25.0
The experience of teaching the OLWs has taught me
something about Hispanic cultures (12)
66.7
33.3
There is no danger that the OLWs will cause students to have
misconceptions about Hispanic cultures (10)
66.7
33.3
Quality of the lessons
Effectiveness
Enjoyment and interest
Culture
Mashup videos, p. 17
This indicates that the tendency changed from a slight belief that the workshops had no influence on
their style of teaching in the fall to a general agreement about their mild influence in spring.
In the open-ended questions on the survey, instructors often mentioned that they found the
lessons to be very innovative and that they saw improvements in their students’ pronunciation. Among
their complaints was the difficulty of teaching something that they themselves did not know very well,
and that the sound quality was not optimal for all audio-video clips. They also expressed a preference
for active activities in the class. They tended not to like the reaction of the students to activities that
involved the repetition of specific sounds. In observations of the workshops, these were the activities
where the students appeared least expressive.
In the interviews, several instructors said that they would like to better integrate the
pronunciation and culture lessons into their regular classes. Nobody reported having technical problems
beyond the problems related to sound quality. A number of the interviewed instructors said that before
the implementation of the workshops they did not know how to teach pronunciation. They said that
they were now more aware of their own accents and that they corrected the students’ accents more
frequently. Some also reported having begun to use more samples of authentic speech in their other
classes.
The instructors reported that by providing information about proper pronunciation, many
students appeared to be more confident in speaking. Most instructors also mentioned that they found
very useful the suggestion at the beginning of each lesson to tell the students not to worry about making
mistakes and to please be respectful of others. Dialectical variation was the cultural aspect that was
most mentioned in both the student and teacher interviews.
Mashup videos, p. 18
Study 2: Rating students’ accents
In order to investigate Research Question 5, native Spanish speaker’s opinions were sought out.
We wanted to know if the OLWs or the new policy of including explicit pronunciation instruction had
caused improvements in the students’ pronunciation in the year 2009-2010 (when the OLWs began) as
compared to the students from the previous year. Since each student had gone to his or her own
combination of lessons, it could not be expected that the majority of students would show improvement
on specific features of their pronunciation. We were interested in improving the comprehensibility and
minimizing what might be irritating about our students’ accents, and so the native speaker evaluators
received only general instructions about the rating process. In fact, they were given no specific
instruction about which aspects of the students’ pronunciation they should focus on.
It was decided to rate students of SPAN 101, because those students would have been the least
influenced by instruction from other institutions. In spring of 2009 and then again in spring of 2010, the
students of Spanish 101 in their 13th week of class had made recordings of their voices reading the
poem “Versos sencillos,” as a regular part of the curriculum. Given that it was an exercise of reading out
loud, the influence of grammatical errors on evaluations was minimized. Fifteen recordings by men and
fifteen recordings by women from each year were selected randomly among those recordings that had
the best sound quality (primarily in terms of volume).
One recording was damaged during the procedure. The 59 remaining recordings were subjected
to evaluation. Evaluators were 147 Mexican University students, 40 of whom were majoring in the
teaching of foreign languages and 107 of whom were majoring in a variety of other subjects. Each
student evaluated between one and five recordings, resulting in 595 total evaluations.
On a scale of 1 (difficult) to 7 (easy), students who had received no pronunciation training (from
SPAN 101 from the year before the implementation of the OLWs, 2008-2009) received a 5.03 average on
Mashup videos, p. 19
the question “How easy is it to understand what the speaker says?” and the students from 2009-2010
(year when the workshops were in place) received a 5.14. To the question, “How pleasant is his/her
accent?” (1=irritating, 7=pleasant), those from 2008-2009 received a 4.43 and those from 2009-2010
received a 4.55. These differences, however, were not statistically significant.
Discussion and implications
The majority of the students in these required classes said that they had enjoyed the OLWs, that
their pronunciation and listening comprehension had improved, and that they had learned more about
the culture of the Spanish-speaking world in their own culture. This was possible despite some
difficulties in terms of scheduling and mixed levels within the classroom. The instructors had basically
the same impressions as the students. Integrating the workshop lessons with regular classes – as was
the suggestion of many participants and certainly would have been the workshop designer’s preference
– would likely make these lessons even more effective.
The format of the lessons, mashup videos, was therefore effective. The functions of segmenting
and elaborating that the format offers allowed students to interact with authentic speech samples while
instructors with relatively little experience guided the learners. No instructor complained about the
accessibility or functioning of the technological aspects. The only complaints from a technological point
of view had to do with quality of sound in some videos, as mentioned above. Although this was one of
the considerations in the selection of videos, its importance is even greater than was originally
understood. Any reduction in the quality of sound can prove fatal for a listening comprehension lesson.
Relatively low attendance rate to the OLWs was probably due to a lack of obvious connection
between attending the workshops and the students’ grades. Those students who said that it was first
Mashup videos, p. 20
important to master grammar before worrying about pronunciation surely had gotten this idea from the
messages, intentional or not, that they had received from their instructors and through the course
curricula. On the other hand, many instructors said that the workshops served to show everyone (both
the students and instructors themselves) that a student’s pronunciation is important. Finally, some
participants expressed the feeling that explicit instruction about pronunciation can help a student feel
more confident in speaking (see also McBride 2009a).
The results in terms of the lessons’ effectiveness in presenting cultural themes are encouraging.
These lessons appear to have taught the students not only something about other cultures but also
seemed to have given them a new perspective on their own culture. An important finding among the
results is that these lessons were more effective with more advanced students. Perhaps the beginners,
in encountering the challenging material at the primary level of the lessons, the linguistic level, had no
further mental resources that could enable them to appreciate the cultural component of the OLWs.
Alternatively, it might be that without the benefit of more time studying languages and cultures, some
students are unable to recognize culture when it is manifested in the small details of everyday life and
personal expression. The significant percentage of students in SPAN 101 who chose "I don't know what
kind of cultural information was included in the oral language workshops" as a response to Item 8
(17.7%) supports this hypothesis.
Most instructors indicated that they had changed something in their teaching style in their
regular classes due to their experience with these workshops. Part of this change was an increase in the
use of authentic speech samples. The survey results indicate that the OLWs were effective as a means of
teaching the instructors how to teach pronunciation and listening comprehension, and this change
increased after a semester of practice. The passage of time allowed them to improve their technique in
the workshops and feel more comfortable teaching them.8
Mashup videos, p. 21
The evaluation of SPAN 101 students’ pronunciation did not indicate a significant improvement.
However this should be interpreted keeping in mind that, on average, each student in the Spanish
courses received just over one hour of explicit instruction in pronunciation per semester, given that a
certain percentage of the students never went to an OLW. Clearly a substantial amount of instruction
time is necessary to result in a significant change in an L2 learner's accent (Elliott 1995; Ducate &
Lomicka 2009). The results of these surveys suggest that an increase in instruction time might produce
significant improvements.
The OLWs made both students and instructors more aware of the variety of accents in the
Spanish-speaking world. In fact the instructors commented on this as one of the aspects that was most
interesting for them. “The inability to use or recognize the social markings of linguistic variants is one of
the most significant problems of second-language learners, and one that is rarely dealt with in the
classroom, where the myth of standard language has a stronghold” (Lippi-Green 1997: 30). With these
lessons we were able to awaken an interest in an area where textbooks typically offer little instruction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was financed in part by grants from the Mellon Faculty Development and Summer Research
Award from St. Louis University. I want to thank my research assistant, Emily Horn, for her help with the
interviews and other aspects of the study. Finally I would like to thank the reviewers and editors of this
article for their very useful suggestions.
Mashup videos, p. 22
NOTES
1
In this article, the term authentic is used to refer to speech samples that were not created especially for
the teaching of foreign languages but instead were produced for native or near-native audiences.
2
Although most of these are typical topics for instruction for students of SFL (Arteaga 2000) and Spanish
phonetics (e.g., Schwegler & Kempf 2007), fillers are not. However, fillers can cause problems in
listening comprehension for students of FLs (Voss 1979); they allow the speaker who uses them to
maintain his or her turn in a conversation even when he or she needs more time to formulate what he
or she is going to say (Sacks et al. 1974); and the use of fillers in the target language can make a learner
appear more competent in that language (Siegal 1994).
3
StudySpanish.com is a website with more than 1000 pages of materials for studying and teaching SFL.
Many lessons are free; others are exclusively for the use of paying subscribers.
4
This website contains videos and graphics that show the articulation of the sounds of Spanish, German
and English.
5
http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=D_w_c6pVk9c
6
http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=pRa7vWt5Eyo
7
For example, http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=3ZcyIxzNjWg
8
The change of opinion might also have to do with the fact that five of the spring instructors had the
opportunity to study Spanish phonetics formally in a graduate course that semester.
Mashup videos, p. 23
WORKS CITED
ACTFL. (1999). "Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Executive Summary." Web. 18 Jan. 2011.
Arteaga, Deborah. L. (2000). “Articulatory Phonetics in the First-year Spanish Classroom.” Modern
Language Journal, 84(3): 339-354. Print.
Blyth, Carl. (1995). “Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use: The Foreign Language Classroom as a
Multilingual Speech Community.” In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redefining the Boundaries of Language
Study (pp. 145-183). Boston: Heinle. Print.
Byram, Michael. (2008). From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship.
Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Print.
Chavez, Monika. (2003). "The Diglossic Foreign Language Classroom: Learners' Views on L1 and L2
Functions." The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms: Contributions of the Native,
the near-Native, and the Nonnative Speaker. Ed. Blyth, Carl. Boston: Heinle. 163-208. Print.
Córdoba Cubillo, Patricia, Rossina Coto Keith, and Marlene Ramírez Salas. (2005). “La comprensión
auditiva: definición, importancia, características, procesos, materiales y actividades.”
Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 5(1). Print.
Derwing, Tracey M., and Murray J. Munro. (2009). "Comprehensibility as a Factor in Listener Interaction
Preferences: Implications for the Workplace." Canadian Modern Language Review 66.2: 181202. Print.
Ducate, Lara, and Lara Lomicka. (2009). "Podcasting: An Effective Tool for Honing Language Students’
Pronunciation?" Language Learning & Technology 13.3 (2009): 66-86 Print.
Mashup videos, p. 24
Elliott, A. Raymond. (1995). "Foreign Language Phonology: Field Independence, Attitude, and the
Success of Formal Instruction in Spanish Pronunciation." Modern Language Journal 79.4: 530-42.
Print.
Felten, Peter. (2008). "Visual Literacy." Change 40.6: 60-64. Print.
Flege, James E., Murray J. Munro, and Ian MacKay. (1995). "Factors Affecting Strength of Perceived
Foreign Accent in a Second Language." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97.5:
3125-34. Print.
Flowerdew, John, and Lindsay Miller. (2005). Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Print.
Hincks, Rebecca. (2003). "Speech Technologies for Pronunciation Feedback and Evaluation." ReCALL
15.1: 3-20. Print.
Honeyfield, J. (1977). Simplification. TESOL Quarterly, 11(4): 431-440. Print.
Hoven, Debra. (1991). "Towards a Cognitive Taxonomy of Listening Comprehension Tasks." SGAV Review
9.2: 1-14.
Jackson, Michele H. (2009). "The Mash-Up: A New Archetype for Communication." Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 14: 730–34. Print.
Kern, Richard G. (1994). "The Role of Mental Translation in Second Language Reading." Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 16: 441-61. Print.
Knobel, Michele, and Colin Lankshear. (2008). "Remix: The Art and Craft of Endless Hybridization."
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 52.1: 22-33. Print.
Mashup videos, p. 25
Kolaitis, Marianna, et al. (2006). "Training Ourselves to Train Our Students for CALL." Teacher Education
in CALL. Eds. Levy, Mike and Philip Hubbard. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 317-32. Print.
Kramsch, Claire. (1995). "The Cultural Component of Language Teaching." Language, Culture and
Curriculum 8.2: 83-92. Print.
---. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford UP. Print.
Krashen, Stephen. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. Print.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven: Yale
UP. Print.
Leftkowitz, Natalie, and John S. Hedgcock. (2006). "Sound Effects: Social Pressure and Identity
Negotiation in the Spanish Language Classroom." Applied Language Learning 16 2: 13-38. Print.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. (1997). English with an Accent. New York: Routledge. Print.
Lope Blanch, José. (1999). "Actitudes sociolingüísticas: México y España." Estudios de Lingüística 13 13:
149-54. Print.
Lord, Gillian. (2005). "(How) Can We Teach Foreign Language Pronunciation? On the Effects of a Spanish
Phonetics Course." Hispania 88.3: 557-67. Print.
Lynch, Anthony J. (1988). “Grading Foreign Language Listening Comprehension Materials: The Use of
Naturally Modified Interaction.” Diss. University of Edinburgh. Print.
McBride, Kara. (2008). "Adaptive and Maladaptive Strategy Use in Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Activities for Listening Comprehension." Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 34.1-2: 57-79.
Print.
Mashup videos, p. 26
---. (2009a). "Percepciones estudiantiles sobre las técnicas utilizadas en la enseñanza del inglés como
lengua extranjera." Universum 24. Print.
---. (2009b). "Podcasts and Second Language Learning: Promoting Listening Comprehension and
Intercultural Competence." Electronic Discourse in Language Learning and Language Teaching.
Eds. Abraham, L. B. and L. Williams. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 153-67. Print.
Miquel, Lourdes, and Neus Sans. (2004). "El componente cultural: Un ingrediente más en las clases de
lengua." redELE. Print.
MLA Ad Hoc Committee of Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New
Structures for a Changed World. Profession, 12, 234–45. Print.
Munro, Murray J., Tracey M. Derwing, and Kyoko Sato. (2006). "Salient Accents, Covert Attitudes:
Consciousness-Raising for Pre-Service Second Language Teachers." Prospect 21.1: 67-79. Print.
Parker, K., and C. Chaudron. (1987). "The Effects of Linguistic Simplification and Elaborative
Modifications on L2 Comprehension." University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 6: 107-33.
Print.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. (1974). "A Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation." Language 50: 696-765. Print.
Schwegler, Armin, and Juergen Kempff. (2007). Fonética y Fonología Españolas. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley. Print.
Siegal, Meryl Susan. (1994). “Looking East: Learning Japanese as a Second Language and the Interaction
of Race, Gender, and Social Context.” Diss. University of California, Berkeley. Print.
Stanford University Libraries. “Copyright and Fair Use.” Web. 13 Feb. 2011.
Mashup videos, p. 27
Train, Robert W. (2003). "The (Non)Native Standard Language in Foreign Language Education: A Critical
Perspective." The Sociolinguistics of Foreign Language Classrooms: Contributions of the Native,
Near-Native and Non-Native Speaker. Ed. Blyth, Carl. Boston: Heinle. 3-40. Print.
Valdman, Albert. (2003). "The Acquisition of Sociostylistic and Sociopragmatic Variation by Instructed
Second Language Learners." The Sociolinguistics of Foreign Language Classrooms: Contributions
of the Native, near-Native and Non-Native Speaker. Ed. Blyth, Carl. Boston: Heinle. 57-78. Print.
Voss, Bernd. (1979). "Hesitation Phenomena as Sources of Perceptual Errors for Non-Native Speakers."
Language and Speech 22.2: 129-44. Print.
Warford, Mark K. (2010). "¿Enseñar gramática y cultura en la lengua extranjera? Empezando en las
zonas de mayor resistencia." Hispania 93.2: 292-304. Print.
Yano, Yasukata, Michael H. Long, and Ross Steven. (1994). "The Effects of Simplified and Elaborated
Texts on Foreign Language Reading Comprehension." Language Learning 44: 189-219. Print.
Mashup videos, p. 28
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Selections from the student survey
The original survey can be found here
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dFh0NW1QcFNaY2pEZ1NsSGVFMkZueEE6MA.
Below, a selection of questions is provided.
1. I enjoyed the oral language workshops.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Not applicable. I have never attended a "taller
de habla."
2. I believe that the oral language workshop lessons can help improve Spanish 110/115/210 students'
pronunciation.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
5. My pronunciation has improved because of something I learned in the oral language workshops.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Not applicable
6. The fact that students from different levels of Spanish (110/115/210) were together in the oral
language workshops was problematic.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
7. The oral language workshops have not helped my listening comprehension skills.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Not applicable
8. I don't think that the kinds of cultural information included in the oral language workshops should be
brought into a Spanish class.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Not applicable / I don't know what kinds of
cultural information were included in the oral language workshops.
10. I have gained no insights into Hispanic culture through these oral language workshops.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Not applicable because I never attended an
oral language workshop.
11. Something in the oral language workshops gave me insight into my own culture.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Not applicable because I never attended an
oral language workshop.
12. Something in the oral language workshops gave me a new perspective on my own first language.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Not applicable because I never attended an
oral language workshop.
15. I was able to apply something I learned in an oral language workshop to things we were doing in our
Monday/Wednesday/Friday classes.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Not applicable
16. The oral language workshops were taught well.
Mashup videos, p. 29
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree / I don't know. I never attended one.
17. I believe that the oral language workshop lessons can help improve Spanish 110/115/210 students'
listening comprehension.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
Appendix B: Selections from the instructor survey
The original survey can be found here
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEI2Z01NVjRHaWJqZXhZaU93NjVyWmc6MA. A
selection of questions is provided below.
1. I enjoyed teaching the oral language workshops.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
2. I believe that the oral language workshop lessons can help improve Spanish 110/115/210 students'
pronunciation.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
3. The time spent in oral language workshops could be better used in other kinds of classroom activities
with our students.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
4. The oral language workshops are improving our students' listening comprehension.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
5. The oral language workshops are improving our students' pronunciation.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
6. The fact that students from different levels of Spanish (110/115/210) were together in the oral
language workshops was problematic.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
7. I don't think that the kinds of cultural information included in the oral language workshops should be
brought into a Spanish class.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
9. Students have not gained any insights into Hispanic culture through these oral language workshops.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
10. The oral language workshops may give students an inaccurate idea about Hispanic culture.
Mashup videos, p. 30
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
11. I myself learned things about Spanish phonology through teaching the oral language workshops.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
12. I myself learned things about Hispanic culture through teaching the oral language workshops.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
13. Teaching the oral language workshops has had an impact on how I teach my
Monday/Wednesday/Friday classes.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
14. Some aspects of the oral language workshops have given students insights into their own culture.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
15. The teacher's guides for the oral language workshops were easy to follow.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
16. The intention behind the oral language workshop lessons was not always clear to me.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
17. I found it problematic to team teach these oral language workshops.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
18. I believe that the oral language workshop lessons can help improve Spanish 110/115/210 students'
listening comprehension.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree