Using Minimal Pairs to Improve Auditory Discrimination Skills: A

Pilot Study

Jerome Gonzales Carlos Rosario International Public Charter School Washington, DC

Robin Lovrien Schwarz, Consultant in Adult ESOL

What is a Minimal Pair?

A minimal pair: – Two words: One sound is different: cat/cut – The sound difference changes meaning:

pat/bat pat/pit pat/pad pate/pate pate/plate

Look at how grammar is often just a phoneme change:

talk/ talks talk/talked can/can’t we/we’veEat/ate her/hers he/he’s he’s/his

Why Teach Minimal Pairs?

1. Adult language learners brains do not hear or process sound as efficiently as children’s brains do: Adults need more explicit instruction in the sound system of the language they are learning It is harder for adults to discriminate between sounds that are similar— e.g. cop/cup or sounds in L1 that are close to sounds in L2

Why Teach Minimal Pairs?

2. Adult language learners often need to have their attention drawn to critical differences in sound that change meaning. In English, change of final sounds (-s; -t) change meaning just as initial or medial sounds do (pit/bit; pot/pat).

• Grammar changes are often just a change of a phoneme.

• Many of the usual “ESOL errors” are the result of not hearing small differences ( this/these)

Why Teach Minimal Pairs?

3. Adult learners need to have accurate input to support the function of phonological memory

Fuzzy input leads to inexact recording of words and sounds

Why Teach Minimal Pairs?

Minimal pair drills help learners increase reading accuracy

They recognize in writing what they are hearing. Their vocabulary increases

The Pilot Study:

Jerome had two classes at the same level (Level 2 in his school)

PM class was the “treatment” group:+/- 12 students – Spanish/Amharic/Arabic/Chinese/Burmese– Varied education backgrounds – Two-plus hours’ day/5 days/week instruction

Practiced MP’s in some form every day

The Study, Cont.

AM class was “control”

– +/- 20 students (24 fall, 19 winter)– Similar language mix, education

background etc. – Same instructional time– No formal minimal pair work/practice

The Study, Cont.

Hypothesis:– If students had better perception of short

vowels, they would have stronger performance on level-appropriate oral/ receptive language tasks than the control group.

– Overall spelling improvement was NOT the goal, but was examined

The Study

All students were evaluated in September:

All words to write were 1 syllable, regular CVC plus two sight words: the for

Receptive words were more complex in two tasks

The Study: Tasks

Sentence dictation (5 sentences):• The clock has black hands.• Tom’s pants are red. Etc.

Word dictation (10 words--all short vowels, blends but no digraphs [ch/sh]) – Crop, drink, plod, spend, etc.

Same/different listening task (10 pairs of CVC words)

The Study: Tasks

Sentence repetition (Up to 10 sentences, stopping at 5 if 3 or more incorrect--any error= incorrect.) – Magazines can be interesting. – The traffic was very bad today.

Interview: 5 questions (geared to information learners had practiced in Level 1)– How is the weather today?

The Study:Rating of Tasks

Dictations:– Accuracy of phonological information

• (e.g. “hans” accepted for “hands” because the /d/ is subsumed by /n/ and /s/

– Completeness of phonological information (i.e. omissions or additions of sounds or words were noted: Cut/cuts; kurop/crop; spend/spin)

– Vowel and consonant errors counted separately – Spelling accuracy counted separately (as

positive,not negative score)

The Study: Rating of Tasks

Same/different= right or wrong

Sentence repetition= right or wrong

Interview: – Whether student understood the question– Whether the answer was complete and/or

appropriate (e.g. What time is it? Is correctly answered 2:30, but not It 2:30)

Doing Minimal Pair Practice

Examples:– Phoneme manipulation:

• Teacher says: bat Student changes to bit

– Listening classification:• Teacher says a word and number; Student puts

number in appropriate box:» a i

H--t 2

T--p 1

Doing Minimal Pair Practice

Minimal pair sentences:• The bag/bug is on the table

Listen and write:– Teacher says one word, student writes the

other: T: black S: block

Dictation: limited to sounds practiced:– Tom had six big bags.

Doing Minimal Pair Practice

“Reading” a o u

NOTE: This is NOT a vocabulary exercise!! Students

should be able to manipulate phonemes regardless of whether they know the words.

L--ck

C--p

T--m

Comments on the Class Practice:

Jerome will describe how he did the practices and how the class reacted:

– ASK:• What was good?• What was hard?• MORE??

Outcomes

Noticeable changes:– Total errors in sentences:

• TG: Time 1 Average= 13 Time 2 Av= 5.9• CG: Time 1 Average= 14.8 Time 2= Av=8.5

– Total errors in words:• TG: Time 1 Av. = 9 Time 2 Av.= 3.6• CG: Time 1 Av = 8.5 Time 2 Av. = 8

Note that the “treatment” group was small--almost half of the control-- so percentages are skewed:

Outcomes:

Vowel accuracy--sentences: (errors) • TG: Time 1= Av 3 Time 2= Av 2.4 (majority

had 3 or below)• CG: Time 1= Av 3.75 Time 2 Av 2.5 (majority

had 1 error)

Vowel accuracy--words (errors)• TG: Time 1=Av 3.6 Time 2 Av= 4.5 (oops!)• CG: Time 1 Av 4.5 Time 2 Av= 4.8 (uh-oh!)

Outcomes:

Consonant accuracy– Sentences (errors)

• TG: Time 1 Av= 3 (range 1-5) Time 2 Av= 1 (range 0-2) (HUH? vowels were practiced!)

• CG: Time 1 Av=5.6 (range1-12) Time 2 Av= 1.2

(Range 0-6) (A BIG change!)– Words: (errors)

• TG: Time 1 Av =4.1(range 1-9) Time 2 Av=.8 (range 0-4)

(Again, HUH?)• CG:Time 1 Av= 2.2 (range -7) Time 2 Av= 1.6(range 0-4)

Outcomes

Other tasks:– Sentence repetition:

• TG- Small improvement: Time 1 3 0’sTime 2: Everyone got at least 1 sentence correct• CG-- No change

– Same/different• TG: slight improvement: Av 7.2--8.6 correct• CG: No change--Av 7.5--7.4 correct

– Interview questions • TG: Slight improvement- 83 % understood all T1, 100% T2;

50% answered 3 or more correctly time 1 vs. 62 % Time 2• CG: 65% understood all T1 vs. 77% Time 2; 43% answered

3 or more correct Time 1; 55% Time 2

Outcomes

Spelling– Sentences

• TG: Average did not change, but range moved:– 10-24 correct T1 vs. 16--26 correct T2 (m=18 &24)– 83% had 50% or better T1; 100% had 50% or better

T2; 54% had 75% or better

• CG: Average changed: 15.4--20.1 but range barely moved: 7-27/8-26

– T2: 3 had 26/28 (also M) – T1 50% had 50% or better; T2 84% had 50% or

better

Outcomes

Spelling– Words: Very slight change

• TG:T1 Av = 3.75 correct--83% (10/12) <

50% T2 Av = 4.2 correct--72%(8/11) <

50%• CG:

T1 Av = 3.45 100%< 50% correctT2 Av = 3.2 94%<50% correct

(18/19)

Outcomes:

Improvement was seen in contextual spelling and understanding.

Single word comprehension and spelling was not much affected.

Consonant perception improved more than vowels, even though practice was with vowels!

Comments:

SHOULD be improvement in skills over a semesterNot a complete trial with MP’sGroup not very bigStudents love it Needs to be done vigorously to get them over the “I think I know what I hear” stage

Examples:

Phonemes affecting grammar:– Ben cut_ (cuts)the hot ham for lunch. – Six men ran (run) to the last bus.

Fuzzy input/fuzzy output:– Tom’s pans/pens (pants) are read (red).– Then/Pen(Ben) cup/cot (cut) the hat (hot)

hand/gem (ham) for lunch.