English B Hl Written Assignment Rationale Pronunciation

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of training in /r/–/l/ perceptual identification on /r/–/l/ production by adult Japanese speakers. Subjects were recorded producing English words that contrast /r/ and /l/ before and after participating in an extended period of /r/–/l/ identification training using a high-variability presentation format. All subjects showed significant perceptual learning as a result of the training program, and this perceptual learning generalized to novel items spoken by new talkers. Improvement in the Japanese trainees’ /r/–/l/ spoken utterances as a consequence of perceptual training was evaluated using two separate tests with native English listeners. First, a direct comparison of the pretest and post-test tokens showed significant improvement in the perceived rating of /r/ and /l/ productions as a consequence of perceptual learning. Second, the post-test productions were more accurately identified by English listeners than the pretest productions in a two-alternative minimal-pair identification procedure. These results indicate that the knowledge gained during perceptual learning of /r/ and /l/ transferred to the production domain, and thus provides novel information regarding the relationship between speech perception and production.

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between speech perception and speech production has been a long-standing issue in speech science and experimental phonetics. Some researchers have proposed a direct link between perception and production. For example, motor theorists (e.g., Liberman et al., 1967; Liberman and Mattingly, 1985; Liberman and Mattingly, 1989) claim that listeners perceive speech in terms of their own articulatory gestures that would produce the perceived sound. A central tenet of motor theory is that there is a specialized phonetic module that represents speech units in terms of articulatory gestures, and that this module mediates both speech perception and production. Thus, motor theory supposes a single, shared representation for speech perception and production. Other theorists have viewed the two processes of speech communication as much more autonomous. For example, proponents of acoustic-auditory theories of speech perception (e.g., Stevens and Blumstein, 1981; Diehl and Kluender, 1989) have argued that the processes of speech perception operate on the acoustic medium independently of the articulatory gestures that produced it. In other words, this approach takes the acoustic signal as the object of speech perception, and makes no explicit claims about the perception–production relationship. However, this approach does presuppose that speech perception and production are indirectly linked via common acoustically defined targets and auditory feedback mechanisms that operate during speech production. A third theoretical position, the direct-realist approach to speech perception (e.g., Fowler, 1986; Best, 1995), proposes that the listener directly perceives the articulatory gestures of the speaker in terms of the structure they impart to the acoustic medium. According to this view which is also known as event perception, the objects (events) of speech perception are the articulatory gestures, and speakers aim to achieve gesturally defined targets during speech production. Thus, the direct-realist approach proposes that speech perception and production are inextricably linked by virtue of their common communicative goal. In contrast to motor theory, however, the direct-realist approach does not propose a specialized phonetic module that mediates the direct perception–production link. Rather, direct-realism proposes that the direct speech perception–production link, which helps to ensure speaker–hearer parity, is a specific case of generally integrated event perception and action systems.

Also of long-standing interest is the acquisition of novel phonetic categories by non-native speakers. Previous research has shown that foreign accents persist even for highly proficient speakers of a non-native language (e.g., Tahta et al., 1981; Flege and Hillenbrand, 1987), and that non-native speakers have extreme difficulty with both the perception and production of certain non-native phonetic contrasts (e.g., Flege, 1988; Goto, 1971). Second-language learners thus present cases where certain aspects of speaker–hearer parity break down; that is, where there is a mismatch between the phonetic system of the language-user and of the target language community. For this reason an investigation of speech perception and production by these subjects, and of the changes that occur as a result of second-language training, can provide a behavioral window into the mental representation that underlies the perception–production link.

To this end, the present study builds on earlier research from our laboratories that has established an effective procedure for training Japanese listeners to identify the English /r/–/l/ contrast, which is neutralized in Japanese (Logan et al., 1991; Lively et al., 1993, 1994). We wanted to know how the acquisition of a non-native perceptual contrast would affect control over production of that contrast. Thus, by directly examining the effect of perceptual learning on speech production, this project attempted to provide novel information regarding the relationship between speech perception and production in general. To accomplish this, we examined the effectiveness of perceptual identification training procedures for the acquisition of a non-native phonetic contrast in both perception and production. Any transfer of learning in perception to the production domain would provide important new evidence for a direct perception–production link. Furthermore, this outcome would suggest that perceptual identification training can facilitate the acquisition of production categories for second-language learners, as well as for other “special populations.”

Previous studies that have investigated the relationship between perception and production of non-native phonetic contrasts, have generally focused on the subjects’ performance in perception and production at a single point in time. For example, studies by Goto (1971) and by Sheldon and Strange (1982) showed that some Japanese subjects were able to produce identifiable /r/ and /l/ tokens even though they were unable to reliably identify native English /r/ and /l/ tokens. This finding led these researchers to conclude that production can precede perception in the acquisition of a non-native contrast. Similarly, in a study of /r/, /l/, and /w/ productions by a large number of Japanese speakers with varying degrees of exposure to English, Yamada et al. (1994) found that for some of the subjects, production abilities exceeded perception abilities, but not vice versa. Although these studies are informative about the relationship between perception and production in adult second-language learners, they do not provide quantitative information about how the changes in one domain (i.e., perception) affect performance in the other domain (i.e., production). Whereas the information provided by the studies discussed above is correlational, the major goal of the present study was to investigate the possibility of a functional perception–production link to the extent that success in perceptual learning leads directly to an improvement in speech production by adult second-language learners.

Two recent studies provide some indication that transfer of perceptual learning to speech production can occur. For example, Rochet (1995) reported that after perceptual identification training with a synthetic French /bu/–/pu/ continuum, Mandarin speakers displayed more French-like voice onset time (VOT) perceptual categorization. Furthermore, production data from the Mandarin subjects showed a change in VOT durations in the direction of native French VOT durations. In several recent studies with children who have articulation disorders, Jamieson and Rvachew (Jamieson and Rvachew, 1992; Rvachew, 1994; Jamieson and Rvachew, 1994) found that speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning in children who exhibit both perception and production deficits. For instance, Rvachew (1994) found that subjects who received perception training in conjunction with traditional speech production therapy showed greater improvement in /ʃ/ production than control subjects who did not receive perception training. This result indicated that perception training can enhance the effectiveness of speech production therapy for phonologically delayed children. In the present study, we examined this perception–production link further by investigating the effects of perceptual learning on production of the /r/–/l/ contrast by adult native speakers of Japanese in the absence of any explicit production training, and across a wide range of phonetic contexts.

The general design of the present study had four phases: a pretest phase, a perceptual training phase, a post-test phase, and a production assessment phase. During the pretest phase, both perception and production data were collected from a group of adult Japanese speakers. In the perceptual training phase, the subjects were trained to identify English /r/ and /l/ minimal pairs using the high-variability training technique developed in earlier work (see Logan et al., 1991; Lively et al., 1993, 1994; Yamada, 1993 for details regarding the principal motivation behind this procedure). In the post-test phase, both perception and production data were once again collected from the Japanese listeners. Finally, during the production assessment phase, the pre- and post-test utterances were evaluated by a group of native American English speakers. Thus, in this study, we investigated the effect of perceptual learning on subsequent performance in both perception and production.

I. PERCEPTUAL LEARNING

A. Method

1. Subjects

The subjects were 11 adult, native speakers of Japanese (5 females and 6 males), ranging in age from 19 to 22 years. None had lived abroad or had any special training in English conversation. However, as is typical in Japan, all of the subjects had studied English since junior high school (from about age 12). The subjects were recruited from Doshisha University, Kyoto prefecture, Japan. A comparable group of 12 Japanese speakers (6 females and 6 males) served as control subjects. These control subjects were also drawn from the same population as the experimental subjects. None of the subjects reported any history of a speech or hearing impairment at the time of testing. A hearing screening performed at 15 dB hearing level (HL) for the frequencies 250–8000 Hz showed all subjects to have normal bilateral acuity. All subjects were paid for their participation.

2. Procedure

The perceptual training program followed the high-variability procedures first developed by Logan et al. (1991), and later extended by Yamada (1993). This procedure consisted of a pretest phase, a training phase, and post-test phase. The pretest phase consisted of a minimal pair identification task with naturally produced English /r/–/l/ minimal word pairs produced by a native speaker of general American English. The perceptual learning phase involved 45 sessions (over a period of 3–4 weeks) of perceptual identification with feedback. The training stimuli consisted of a large number of naturally spoken /r/–/l/ minimal word pairs produced by five native speakers of general American English. Finally, the post-test phase included a perceptual identification post-test (identical to the pretest), and two tests of generalization. The tests of perceptual generalization consisted of a minimal word pair identification task with novel words spoken by a new speaker (test of generalization 1), and with novel words produced by one of the speakers used in creating the training stimuli (test of generalization 2). Control subjects performed the pretest, post-test, and two tests of generalization; however, these subjects did not go through the perceptual identification training program. For the control group, the time lag between the pretest and post-test phase was equal to the time it took for the trained subjects to participate in the entire 45-session training program (i.e., 3–4 weeks).

All perception training and testing was carried out at ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan. For all four perception tests (pretest, post-test, two tests of generalization) the same two-alternative forced choice minimal word pair identification procedure was used. Subjects were tested individually in a sound-treated room where they sat in a cubicle equipped with headphones (STAX-SR-Lambda Signature) and a NeXT workstation. Each trial began with a 500-ms presentation on the computer monitor of the standard English orthographies for an /r/–/l/ minimal pair. One member of the minimal pair appeared in the lower left corner of the screen; the other appeared in the lower right corner. The spoken test word was then presented at a comfortable listening level through the subjects’ headphones. Subjects had 10 s to respond by pressing “1” to identify the spoken word as the orthographic word on the left of the screen, or “2” for the word on the right of the screen. For half the trials, a response of “1” corresponded to an /r/ identification label and a response of “2” corresponded to an /l/ identification label; for the other half of the trials, the order of identification labels was reversed. During the training trials, feedback was given in the form of a chime signaling a correct response and a buzzer signaling an incorrect response. After the buzzer for an incorrect response, the test word was repeated. As an additional motivation, each correct response received a 1 yen (approximately 1 cent) reward over and above the regular subject payment. There was no feedback in the pretest, post-test, or tests of generalization.

3. Stimuli

A large digital database of spoken words for the perception tests was originally recorded and compiled in the Speech Research Laboratory at Indiana University (see Logan et al., 1991 for additional details). All stimuli were recorded in an IAC sound-attenuated booth. The utterances were low-pass filtered at 4.8 kHz and digitized at 10 kHz using a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter. The waveform files were then equated for rms amplitude using software developed in the Speech Research Laboratory. The files were then digitally transferred to ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories where they were upsampled to 22.05 kHz and rescaled to 16-bit resolution for presentation on the NeXT workstations.

The pretest and post-test stimuli were the same words as those used by Strange and Dittmann (1984). This set of stimuli consisted of 16 minimal pairs that contrasted /r/ and /l/ in four phonetic environments: initial singleton, initial cluster, intervocalic, and final cluster. There were also four minimal pairs that contrasted other English phonemes. These stimuli were recorded by a male speaker of general American English. The training stimuli consisted of 68 minimal pairs that contrasted /r/ and /l/ in five phonetic environments: 12 initial singleton pairs, 25 initial cluster pairs, 5 intervocalic pairs, 15 final singleton pairs, and 11 final cluster pairs. These stimuli were recorded by 5 speakers of general American English (3 males and 2 females). The stimuli for the first test of generalization consisted of an additional 96 words with /r/ or /l/ in five phonetic environments spoken by a new talker (i.e., new words by a new talker). The stimuli for the second test of generalization consisted of an additional 99 /r/–/l/ words (5 environments) spoken by one of the talkers in the training set (i.e., new words by an old talker).

B. Results of Perceptual Learning

Figure 1 shows the results of perceptual identification training for the experimental (left panel) and the control (right panel) groups. This figure displays the percentage of correct identifications for all four of the perceptual tests: the pretest, post-test, and the two tests of generalization. As shown in the left panel, the experimental (trained) group of subjects showed an improvement in their identification scores from pretest (65% correct identification) to post-test (81% correct identification), and this increase in performance was maintained for the two tests of generalization (83% and 80% correct identification for gen1 and gen2, respectively). Thus, on average, the trained subjects showed substantial gains in /r/–/l/ identification accuracy (16 percentage points). Nevertheless, it is important to note that this post-test level of identification accuracy is still substantially poorer than the near-perfect identification accuracy achieved by native English speakers.

FIG. 1

Percent correct perceptual identification performance for trained (left panel) and control (right panel) subjects at pretest, post-test, and the two tests of generalization. The error bars represent one standard error from the mean.

A two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group (trained, control) and test (pre, post, gen1, gen2) as factors showed a significant main effect of group [F(1,84) = 52.258, p < 0.0001], and a significant group × test interaction [F(3,84) = 5.136, p = 0.0026]. Post hoc pairwise comparisons (Fisher’s PLSD) showed no difference between the trained and control groups’ pretest accuracies. However, the trained group performed significantly better than the control group (p < 0.001) on the post-test, as well as on both generalization tests. Furthermore, there was a significant improvement for the trained group from pretest to post-test (p = 0.0074), pretest to gen1 (p = 0.0037), and pretest to gen2 (p = 0.0141). There was no difference between the post-test and either of the tests of generalization scores for the trained group, and no difference between the scores on all four tests for the control group.

In order to gain some insight into the perceptual reorganization that resulted from the perceptual learning task, we examined the pre- and post-test identification accuracies for the /r/ and /l/ stimuli separately for the trained subjects (see Fig. 2). A three-factor repeated measures ANOVA was performed with test (pre or post) as the repeated measure, and phoneme (/r/ or /l/) and environment (four levels) as within-groups factors.

FIG. 2

Distribution of the Japanese trainees’ identification responses at pretest and at post-test by phonetic environment. The upper panel shows the /r/ stimuli; the lower panel shows the /l/ stimuli. The environments are: i = initial, ic = initial...

This analysis revealed three main findings. First, the main effect of test was highly significant [F(1,80) = 40.369, p < 0.0001], due to the overall improvement in identification accuracy from pretest to post-test. Second, the main effect of phoneme was also significant [F(1,80) = 4.215, p = 0.043], with /r/ being generally more accurately identified than /l/. Finally, there was a significant interaction between test and phoneme [F(1,80) = 5.644, p = 0.012]: /l/ tokens showed more overall improvement from pretest to post-test than /r/ tokens. This change from an asymmetrical distribution of /r/–/l/ identification accuracy at pretest to a more symmetrical distribution at post-test suggests that, after training, subjects show signs of developing perceptual categories that correspond more closely to the target English /r/ and /l/ categories.

There was also a main effect of phonetic environment [F(3,80) = 4.603, p < 0.005], indicating that the accuracy for the various phonetic environments increased from initial cluster position to medial to initial singleton to final. This dependency on phonetic context replicates earlier findings reported by Gillette (1980) and Mochizuki (1981), as well as Sheldon and Strange (1982). The interaction between phoneme and environment was significant [F(3,80) = 4.647, p < 0.005], due to the high identification accuracy of /l/ in initial cluster position relative to /r/ in that environment. Finally, the three-way interaction (test × phoneme × environment) [F(3,80) = 7.272, p < 0.0002] was also significant indicating that the perceptual learning of /r/ and /l/ was highly context-dependent.

In summary, these perceptual learning data provide a further replication of the findings of our earlier studies that used the high-variability perceptual training procedure to modify the acquisition of the English /r/–/l/ contrast by adult Japanese speakers (Logan et al., 1991; Lively et al., 1993; Lively et al., 1994; Yamada, 1993). Having demonstrated significant perceptual learning for these Japanese adults, we now turn to the main concern of this study, that is, an assessment of the effects of perceptual learning on the production of English /r/–/l/ minimal word pairs by these subjects. Our goal here was to assess the extent to which the phonetic knowledge acquired during perceptual learning transferred to the production domain.

II. EFFECTS OF PERCEPTUAL LEARNING ON SPEECH PRODUCTION

A. Japanese /r/–/l/ productions

1. Procedure

During the pretest and post-test phases, audio recordings were made of the Japanese subjects producing English words that contrast /r/ and /l/. The pre- and post-test recordings were made directly before and after the perception pretest and post-test, respectively. The speech production task used a repetition procedure in which the subject read a set of English /r/–/l/ minimal pairs from a list of randomly ordered words. The subjects were provided with both visual and auditory prompts. The visual prompts consisted of a list of words written in standard English orthography. The auditory prompts consisted of a digital recording of the words spoken by a male speaker of general American English. This speaker was not one of the speakers that produced the stimuli for the perceptual identification tasks. The purpose of the auditory prompt was to provide the speakers with a model of how to pronounce the entire word aside from the target /r/ or /l/ segments. Because Japanese subjects have great difficulty with the /r/–/l/ perceptual contrast, we assumed that the subjects would not simply imitate the auditory model without relying on the printed word to inform them whether the word was the /r/ or /l/ member of the minimal pair. In this way, this task was not simply a direct imitation task, but rather was a repetition task that was mediated by linguistic intention. The printed prompts provided the subjects with the abstract linguistic-phonetic information they needed to guide their productions of the /r/ and /l/ phonemes, and the auditory prompts helped ensure that the rest of the words remained relatively stable across subjects. Since the main concern of this study was the change in /r/ and /l/ production due to perceptual identification training, this task was deemed appropriate for a pre- and post-test measure of production ability. Nevertheless, it is important to note that this production task was not a measure of spontaneous speech production. It remains for future research to determine the relationship between pre- and post-test performance on our repetition task and on more naturalistic measures of production ability.

The recordings were made in an anechoic chamber at ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories. The recordings were digitized at a sampling rate of 22.05 kHz with 16-bit resolution through DAT (Sony PCM-2500 or 2600) and a DAT interface, DAT-Link+ (Townshend Computer Tools., Inc.). The speech files were stored on the hard disk of a Sun Sparc workstation and were then digitally transferred to the Speech Research Laboratory at Indiana University where they were rescaled to 12-bit resolution for later presentation to native speakers of English using a PDP-11 laboratory computer.

2. Stimuli

The stimuli obtained from the pretest and post-test recordings consisted of 55 English words containing /r/ and /l/, giving a total of 110 words. These stimuli for the production tests included /r/–/l/ minimal pairs with the target phoneme in seven phonetic environments. The breakdown of the word-pairs by phonetic environment was as follows: 10 with initial singletons, 10 with initial clusters, 10 with medial singletons, 10 with final singletons, 10 with final clusters, 2 with medial clusters, and 3 with initial triple clusters (e.g., “splint-sprint”). Of these minimal pairs, half in each of the first five environments listed above came from the set of minimal pairs that were included in the earlier perceptual training stimuli, the other half were “new,” that is, they were not used in any of the perception tests. None of the perceptual stimulus sets included minimal pairs with /r/ and /l/ in the last two environments listed above: these were all “new” word pairs for our subjects.

B. American English listeners’ preference judgments

To assess the transfer of the Japanese trainees’ perceptual learning to production, a group of native speakers of American English performed a paired comparison task using each Japanese trainee’s pretest and post-test productions. The purpose of this procedure was to assess whether native speakers of American English could reliably discriminate between the trainees’ pre- and post-test productions. If the perceptual learning procedure is effective in producing changes in control over speech production, then the native English listeners should display a consistent preference for the post-test tokens over the pretest tokens. This paired-comparison method of judging the trainees’ improvement in production was selected as an initial test because it was expected to be sensitive to small differences in articulation. Our rationale was that if the Japanese trainees’ post-test productions were indeed reliably preferred over the pretest productions, then we would have a reason to submit the pre- and post-test productions to additional tests of perceptual analysis. The initial paired-comparison task provides information about the degree and direction of change between the pretest and post-test tokens. The subsequent minimal pair identification task provides information about a change in speech intelligibility specifically related to improved /r/ and /l/ articulation.

1. Procedure

Each trial began with a visual presentation of the target word in standard English orthography centered on a CRT monitor. The listeners then heard a single Japanese trainee’s pretest and post-test productions of this word over headphones. The two versions of the target word were separated by 500 ms of silence. The listeners then had to decide which version of the target word was “better,” that is, which version was “a clearer and more intelligible pronunciation of the word shown on the screen.” The judges responded on a seven-button response box which was labeled using a seven-point scale where “1” indicated that the first version was “much better” than the second version, “4” indicated no noticeable difference between the two versions, and “7” indicated that the second version was much better than the first. Each pair of utterances was presented twice: once with the pretest version first and the post-test version second, and once in the reverse order. There were 110 pre-post pairs in each of the two presentation orders, plus 10 practice trials at the start of the session, for a total of 230 trials per session. The initial practice trials were excluded from the final data analysis. Each listener judged the full set of pre- and post-test productions from a single Japanese speaker. Ten listeners were assigned to each of the 23 Japanese speakers. Because there were 11 Japanese trained subjects and 12 Japanese control subjects, a total of 230 native English speakers participated as subjects. No American listener judged more than one Japanese subjects’ productions. In the final data analysis, the responses were recorded so that a response of “5” or higher always corresponded to a preference for the post-test version, and a response of “3” or lower always corresponded to a preference for the pretest version. This recoding simply takes into account the counterbalanced order of stimulus presentation.

2. Subjects

The American English listeners were all students at Indiana University. None reported any history of speech or hearing impairment at the time of testing, and all were monolingual native speakers of general American English. All received one hour of course credit for their participation.

3. Results

In the analysis of the data from the paired-comparison task, we examined the distribution of subjects’ responses across the seven response categories for both the trained subjects (Fig. 3, left panel) and the control subjects (Fig. 3, right panel). The data shown in Fig. 3 are represented as proportions of the total number of responses from all listeners for each of the two groups of Japanese subjects.

FIG. 3

Distribution of preference ratings across all seven response categories by the American English listeners for the Japanese trained (left panel) and control (right panel) subjects’ pre- and post-test productions. A response of “1”...

As shown in Fig. 3, the distribution of ratings for the trained subjects’ tokens (left panel) was skewed in favor of higher ratings, indicating a preference for the post-test tokens over the pretest tokens. In contrast, the native English speakers’ ratings of the control subjects’ tokens (right panel) were normally distributed across the seven response categories, indicating no systematic preference for either the pretest or the post-test tokens. The native English speakers’ preference for the trained subjects’ post-test productions over their pretest productions was confirmed by a highly significant chi square statistic, using the distribution of ratings for the control subjects’ productions as the expected distribution [chi square = 1639.4, p(6) < 0.001]. This analysis was performed across all 24 200 trials for the trained subjects (220 trials × 11 trainees × 10 American listeners). Additionally, the Pearson coefficient of skewness for the trained subjects was negative (−0.527), indicating a greater median than mean; whereas for the control subjects, the mean and median were very close (Pearson coefficient of skewness = 0.090). Finally, the frequency of “post = pre” responses (response category 4) was lower for the trained subjects than for the control subjects [t(21) = −7.297, p < 0.0001], also indicating the increased discriminability of the trained subjects’ pre- and post-test productions relative to those of the control subjects.

Taken together, these analyses of the preference data for the tokens produced by the trained and control Japanese subjects demonstrate reliable transfer of learning from perception to production for the trained subjects. Native speakers of English were able to reliably detect an improvement from the pretest to the post-test productions for the trained subjects; whereas, no reliable difference was observed for the tokens produced by the control subjects. Given that native speakers can discriminate the trained subjects’ pre- and post-test tokens, our next step was to assess the extent to which the improvement in these utterances was due to improved /r/ and /l/ articulation; that is, whether American English listeners can identify the post-test productions more accurately than the pretest productions in a minimal pair identification task.

C. American English listeners’ identification data

1. Procedure

The procedure for the minimal pair identification task was closely modeled after the task that the Japanese trainees performed during perceptual testing and training. In each experimental session, English listeners identified the full set of pre- and post-test productions from a single Japanese trainee. Each trial began with the two members of an English /r/–/l/ minimal pair appearing in standard English orthography on a CRT monitor in front of the subjects. One member of the minimal pair produced by a Japanese trainee was then presented over headphones. The listeners identified the word by pushing the left button on a two-button response box to select the word on the left of the CRT monitor, or the right button for the word on the right. Within a single experimental session, the complete set of pre- and post-test production tokens from a single Japanese trainee was presented in random order with each word presented twice, once with the correct response as a left button and once with the correct response as a right button. This arrangement resulted in a total of 440 experimental trials plus 10 practice trials at the beginning of the session, for a total of 450 trials. The productions of each of the 11 Japanese trainees and each of the 12 Japanese control subjects was identified in this manner by an independent panel of 10 English listeners, for a total of 230 listeners (10 different listeners for each of the 23 Japanese subjects). No American listener judged more than one Japanese subjects’ productions.

2. Subjects

The English listeners were recruited from the university community in Bloomington, Indiana. None reported any history of speech or hearing impairment at the time of testing, and all were monolingual speakers of general American English. All were paid for their participation.

3. Results

Figure 4 shows percent correct identification of tokens from the trained (left panel) and control (right panel) Japanese subjects’ productions as judged by the English listeners. Each panel shows the pretest level of performance along with the identification accuracy of the Japanese productions at the post-test phase for the “old” words (words that were included in the perceptual training stimulus set) and for the “new” words (novel words that the Japanese subjects had not been exposed to in any of the perceptual identification tests). The data shown here are averaged across the five phonetic environments that were included in the perceptual training stimulus set. The remaining two phonetic environments that were included in the production pre- and post-test set (medial clusters and initial triple clusters) were omitted from this “old” versus “new” analysis because there were no “old” stimuli for these two environments.

FIG. 4

Percent correct performance for trained (left panel) and control (right panel) subjects’ productions as judged by American English listeners in the minimal pair identification task. The open bar represents the full set of pretest tokens, the slashed...

As shown in Fig. 4, utterances from the trained subjects displayed significant improvement in identification from pretest to post-test. Moreover, this improvement was consistent across both the “old” and the “new” items. A one-factor repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant effect of test [F(2,20) = 8.857, p = 0.0018]. Paired t tests established a significant difference between pretest and “old” post-test items [t(10) = −3.321, p = 0.0077], between pretest and “new” post-test items [t(10) = −2.809, p = 0.0185], but no difference between “old” post-test and “new” post-test items [t(10) = 1.705, p = 0.1189]. In contrast, for the control subjects there was no difference in identification across pretest, “new” post-test or “old” post-test items. These data demonstrate that the identifiability of the Japanese trainees’ productions in a two-alternative forced-choice task improved as a result of the perceptual training program, and that this improvement generalized to both “old” and “new” tokens.

Table I gives the identification accuracy scores averaged across all 11 trained subjects at pretest and at post-test broken down by phonetic environment and by phoneme (/r/ or /l/). A three-factor repeated measures ANOVA was performed with test (pre or post) as the repeated measure, and phoneme and phonetic environment as the within-groups factors. In this analysis, we found a highly significant main effect of the repeated measure factor (i.e., test) [F(1,140) = 21.850, p < 0.001] indicating a strong overall improvement in performance from pre- to post-test. There was also a highly significant main effect of phoneme [F(1,140) = 19.951, p < 0.001], due to the generally higher identification accuracy of the /r/ tokens relative to the /l/ tokens at both pre- and post-test. There was no main effect of phonetic environment. There were also no significant interactions between test and either phoneme or environment, indicating that the degree of improvement in speech production was consistent across these factors. Thus, the results show that the Japanese trainees’ post-test productions were more accurately identified by native English listeners than their pretest productions. Additionally, these minimal-pair identification data indicate that, at both pretest and post-test, the /r/ tokens were more accurately identified than the /l/ tokens.

TABLE I

Pretest and post-test identification accuracies by environment for the Japanese trainee productions as judged by American English listeners.

The results of the two production evaluation tests (the paired comparison and the minimal pair identification task) clearly demonstrate significant improvements in the Japanese trainees’ productions of /r/ and /l/ as a result of perceptual learning. The English listeners consistently judged the post-test utterances to be “better” tokens than the pre-test tokens, and they were more accurate in identifying the post-test tokens in an /r/–/l/ minimal-pair identification task. Furthermore, this improvement in production was robust in that it occurred across a variety of phonetic environments and it even generalized to novel words, i.e., words that the trainees had not been exposed to at all during perceptual learning. In contrast, the control subjects’ productions showed no evidence of any change or improvement across any of these conditions. Having established that the perception training was effective in facilitating improvements in speech production, we now turn to an examination of the relationship between perception and production for individual subjects.

III. RELATION BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION

Figure 5 displays the amount of learning observed in perception and production for each of the 11 Japanese trainees. This figure shows a “perception–production space” where the x axis represents each trainee’s accuracy in perceptual identification of /r/ and /l/ minimal pairs, and the y axis represents accuracy in the identification of each trainee’s productions by American English listeners. Thus, each trainee’s performance is represented by a vector whose starting point corresponds to the trainee’s pretest performance, and whose ending point corresponds to the trainee’s post-test performance within this space. The group mean performance is indicated by the bold arrow, and the diagonal is the hypothesized vector that would indicate a perfect correlation between perception and production. The individual subjects’ scores are given in Table II.

FIG. 5

Vector plot of individual Japanese subjects’ perceptual identification accuracy (x axis) and production identification accuracy (y axis) from pretest to post-test. Each individual subject’s performance is indicated by a numbered vector....

TABLE II

Individual Japanese trainee perception and production accuracy scores at pretest and at post-test. These data are averaged across /r/ and /l/, as well as across all phonetic environments.

In perception, even though each subject showed some improvement from pretest to post-test, there was considerable individual variation across subjects in pretest accuracy, in post-test accuracy, as well as in the percentage change from pretest to post-test (see Table II). For instance, for the two subjects who performed well in the perception pretest (subjects 2 and 4), the training program was effective in enhancing their abilities to identify English /r/ and /l/ such that at post-test they approached native levels of performance. In contrast, for the poorest performer in the perception pretest (subject 7), the training program was only moderately effective. It is as if the two high performers used the training sessions to “fine-tune” an already well-defined preexisting two-way perceptual contrast. In contrast, even after 45 sessions of minimal-pair identification training, the poorest performer showed almost no evidence of learning to split a single perceptual category into two new categories. A striking individual difference that emerges from this perceptual identification data can be seen in the comparison between subjects 9 and 10. These two subjects performed at comparable levels at pretest; however, at post-test a difference of more than 20 percentage points was observed.

This wide range of individual performance is consistent with previous findings reported in other cross-language studies of /r/–/l/ perception (e.g., Goto, 1971; Mochizuki, 1981; MacKain et al., 1981; Sheldon and Strange, 1982; Yamada et al., 1994), nevertheless, is it still unclear what specific factors determine individual performance. Here we simply note the strong positive rank-order correlation (Spearman rho = 0.730, p = 0.021) between pretest level of performance and relative perceptual improvement, where relative perceptual improvement is defined as post-test accuracy minus pretest accuracy divided by 100 minus pretest accuracy. This is a measure of improvement as a proportion of the “room for improvement.” This correlation indicates that pretest level of performance is a fairly good predictor of the effectiveness of the perceptual training program for individual subjects; however, as demonstrated by subjects 9 and 10, there are other factors at work here too.

We also observed considerable variation across individual subjects’ production performance at pretest and post-test (Fig. 5 and Table II). Subjects 2 and 4 produced highly intelligible /r/’s and /l/’s at pretest, and therefore had very little room for any improvement to be observed in production. Several of the other subjects’ pretest productions were identified at a level around 60% accuracy; however, there were also large differences in the degree of production improvement across these subjects. For example, the pretest productions of subjects 3 and 9 were identified at comparable levels of accuracy; however, subject 9’s post-test productions were identified far more accurately than those of subject 3.

The results from the present investigation allowed us to extend these findings on individual variation in perception and production by looking at the relationship between changes in one domain (speech perception) and changes in the other domain (speech production). It is clear from the data shown in Fig. 5 and Table II that at the post-test phase, perception performance generally exceeded production performance. This is not surprising since the trainees had extensive training in speech perception, whereas there was no explicit training in speech production. Any improvement observed in speech production was a result of transfer of knowledge gained in perceptual learning to the production domain. By comparing the degrees of improvement in perception and production across the individual trainees, we can obtain additional insight into the underlying basis for the learning in the two domains. In this analysis, we examined the rank-order correlation between improvement in perception and production across all subjects to test the hypothesis that subjects who show the most perceptual learning also show the most improvement in production. However, as shown in the figure, there is no such correlation (Spearman rho = 0.202, p = 0.522). In other words, it is not the case that improvement in perception and production proceeded in parallel within individual subjects. Rather, it appears that, although perceptual learning generally transferred to improved production of this non-native contrast, as indicated by the positive slope of the mean vector, the two processes proceeded at different rates within individual subjects.

A more detailed examination of specific subjects’ data revealed two kinds of situations that led to the lack of correlation between degrees of learning in perception and production that we observed in the present data. The first is illustrated by a comparison of subjects 9 and 10. These two subjects performed at a similar low level of performance in the perception pretest; however, at post-test, subject 10 performed considerably better than subject 9. However, in production, subject 9 showed a larger change than subject 10. A possible explanation for this discrepancy between learning in perception and production is that subject 9 continued to focus on perceptual cues that are not relevant for /r/–/l/ identification throughout the perceptual training program. However, in the production post-test, this subject was able to implement cues that were effective for improved /r/–/l/ identification in a two-alternative forced-choice identification task with native English listeners. For example, this subject may have focused on durational cues rather than spectral cues, and these attributes were sufficient to signal an /r/–/l/ contrast in production but were ineffective for the perceptual identification of /r/ and /l/ by native English speakers. In other words, for this subject, an apparent improvement in production was, in fact, a result of inappropriate, yet consistent, perception and production.

A second situation that could lead to a lack of correlation between learning in perception and production is illustrated by a comparison of subjects 6 and 3. These subjects show that production improvement can vary across individuals, even when initial performance and the degree of learning in perception are comparable. These two subjects performed at similar levels at the pretest phase in both perception and production. They also showed similar degrees of improvement in perceptual accuracy. Nevertheless, subject 6’s post-test productions were identified more accurately by English listeners than subject 3’s post-test productions. In other words, although subjects 3 and 6 showed comparable gain in perception, the transfer of perceptual learning to production was more effective for subject 6 than it was for subject 3 within the time frame of the present study. It is conceivable that, given more time to acquire the motor skills required for accurate /r/ and /l/ articulation, subject 3 would begin to show production improvement that is comparable to that of subject 6.

In summary, our investigation into the relationship between learning in perception and changes in production within individual subjects showed three main results. First, we found considerable variation across subjects in initial performance in both perception and production. Second, we observed a link between perception and production to the extent that perceptual learning generally transferred to improved production. This is seen by the positive slope of the mean vector in Fig. 5. Finally, we found little correlation between degrees of learning in perception and production after training in perception, due to the wide range of individual variation in learning strategies. This is seen by the deviation of the mean vector from the diagonal in Fig. 5. Taken together these findings support the hypothesis that learning in perception and production are closely linked, since perceptual learning generally transferred to improvement in production. However, learning in the perceptual domain is not a necessary or sufficient condition for learning in the production domain: the processes of learning in the two domains appear to be distinct within individual subjects.

IV. GENERAL DISCUSSION

The main goal of this study was to investigate the effects of perceptual learning on the production of non-native phonetic contrasts, and in so doing, to provide new data concerning the relationship between speech perception and production. First, we replicated earlier findings regarding the effectiveness of the high-variability perceptual training program for the acquisition of the English /r/–/l/ perceptual contrast by Japanese adults. Then, we showed that the knowledge gained about the non-native contrast from perceptual learning transferred to production of English /r/–/l/ words by the Japanese trainees. This improvement in production using a high-variability training procedure in perception was revealed by the results of two separate, but complementary, perceptual evaluation procedures using American English listeners as judges. The initial direct-comparison test demonstrated that the words produced by the Japanese trainees improved, in a general sense, from pretraining to post-training. The second two-alternative forced-choice identification test then showed, in a more specific sense, that the improvement in production resulted in better /r/–/l/ minimal pair intelligibility. This result was obtained for seven of the eleven individual subjects. Of the remaining subjects, the lack of improvement in production was due to a ceiling effect (subjects 2 and 4), or to consistently poor performance in perception (subject 7). Only one subject showed substantial improvement in perception, but consistently poor production (subject 5). Finally, a close examination of the degrees of improvement in perception and production within the individual Japanese trainees showed that, although initial performance in perception and production are well correlated, there is substantial individual variation in the degrees of learning in the two domains.

Having observed transfer of perceptual learning to aspects of speech production, we can now speculate as to the mechanisms that are responsible for this transfer, and what this tells us about the relationship between speech perception and production. A first possible account, along the lines of auditory-acoustic theories of speech perception (e.g., Stevens and Blumstein, 1981; Diehl and Kluender, 1989), would suppose that the learning in production involves a mechanism by which articulatory commands are tuned to internal acoustic representations. By this view, perceptual learning leads to more accurate internal acoustic representations of the target speech sounds, and these improved representations function as acoustic templates that play an important role in monitoring the articulatory output. Thus, the learning in production occurs during production per se, that is, there is no change in the articulatory commands until they are actually activated during articulation. An alternative possibility, along the lines of the motor theory (e.g., Liberman et al., 1967; Liberman and Mattingly, 1985; Liberman and Mattingly, 1989) would suppose that it is the articulatory commands that are modified during perceptual training. Under this view, the changes that result from perceptual training constitute permanent changes in the internal representation that is common to both perception and production. Thus, according to this view, learning results in changes in a single, domain-independent, phonetic representation, and as such, accounts for the apparent transfer of learning in perception to improvement in production. A direct-realist approach (e.g., Fowler, 1986; Best, 1995) would posit that during the perceptually oriented training, the trainees become perceptually attuned to the invariant gestural features of English /r/ and /l/. The subsequent transfer of this perceptual learning to production occurs as a result of the post-test productions being guided by the now more accurate, gesturally defined /r/ and /l/ phonetic categories. According to this account, the /r/ and /l/ phonetic categories were modified on the basis of input from the auditory mode, but the effects of their modification are observed in both the perceptual and the production domains due to their integrated communicative function.

The present data do not provide conclusive evidence to support any one of these theoretical accounts regarding the underlying mechanisms that facilitate the transfer of perceptual learning to speech production. However, the finding that the transfer of perceptual learning to improvement in production occurred in the absence of any explicit instruction in /r/–/l/ production leads us to believe that there is a unified, common mental representation that underlies both speech perception and speech production. This claim is consistent with both the motor theory and direct-realist approach, which suppose that units of speech perception and production are integrally defined in terms of articulatory gestures, and therefore that changes in the one domain have concomitant changes in the other. This view is not inconsistent with the notion that the modified acoustic-perceptual representations function as “output monitors” during speech production. However, the fact that most subjects showed some improvement immediately after the perceptually oriented training program seems to provide evidence against the idea that the changes in production occurred only during production per se. Nevertheless, due to the lack of correlation between the degrees of learning in the two domains, it appears that the specific motor commands necessary for improved /r/–/l/ production may be acquired at different rates for different subjects. This suggests that modification of an underlying perceptuomotor, phonetic representation is not sufficient on its own to result in corresponding modifications in speech production.

From an applied point of view, this study provides very encouraging new data regarding the acquisition of non-native speech contrasts in laboratory settings. Our findings show very clearly that the high-variability perceptual training procedure is robust: it is not only effective in training Japanese adults to perceive the English /r/–/l/ contrast, as we have shown in several previous studies, but this training program is also effective in improving the pronunciation of these non-native speech sounds without any explicit training or feedback in speech production. This result is consistent with the recent findings of Rochet (1995) who reported that a change in VOT categorization was accompanied by a change in VOT production for Mandarin speakers exposed to a synthetic French VOT continuum. Additionally, the present results are compatible with the recent findings on phonologically delayed children reported by Jamieson and Rvachew (Jamieson and Rvachew, 1992; Rvachew, 1994; Jamieson and Rvachew, 1994), which showed clear benefits of perception training in conjunction with traditional speech production therapy for that population.

The research by Jamieson and Rvachew as well as the present study focused on cases where the observed pretraining phoneme inventory is reduced relative to the non-native target inventory, and where difficulties in both perception and production are known to occur. Similarly, the research by Rochet focused on a case where the trainees’ native categories differed phonetically from the target categories in both perception and production. This situation, where there is a clear match between perception and production characteristics, is likely to be the case where transfer of perceptual learning to speech production will be observed. Recent models, such as Best’s “Perceptual Assimilation Model” (PAM) (Best et al., 1988; Best, 1994; Best, 1995) and Flege’s “Speech Learning Model” (SLM) (Flege, 1987, 1992, 1995), provide theoretical frameworks within which we can consider further which non-native contrasts are likely to show transfer of perceptual learning to production and which ones will not.

Both of these models propose that non-native phoneme perception abilities can be explained, at least in part, by reference to the native phonetic space. For example, in the case of the perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese speakers, the observed difficulties can be explained in these models by the fact that Japanese has no such contrast in its native inventory. The most similar native Japanese phoneme is /ſ/, which is described as an alveolar flap or stop depending on the phonetic context. Thus, with respect to the native Japanese phoneme inventory, English /r/ and /l/ are equally categorizable as this Japanese phoneme, and the contrast is therefore not supported by the native system in either perception or production. Whereas Best’s PAM model makes predictions about the initial difficulty that a given non-native contrast proposes to listeners from a given native language background, Flege’s SLM also makes several specific predictions about the persistence of foreign-accented production of a non-native contrast. SLM predicts that as long as native categories subsume non-native categories, accurate perception and production of the target categories will be blocked. Thus, in SLM, it is assumed that improvement in speech production as a consequence of perceptual learning is due to a reorganization of the auditory-acoustic phonetic space which is the underlying system used for both speech perception and production. Thus, SLM would predict that, with respect to adult second-language learning, changes in perception will transfer to changes in production, and these changes will proceed in parallel. Although PAM is not a model of speech learning, it would make similar predictions regarding the transfer of perceptual learning to speech production. PAM would predict that as the listener becomes more “attuned” to the gestural constellation that characterizes a non-native phoneme, he/she should learn to produce the required gestures for the target phonetic segment.

Although both models account for the main findings of the present study showing transfer of perceptual learning to speech production, neither model includes a mechanism to account for the observed lack of correlation between degrees of learning in the two domains. This reflects the main focus of these models on the relationship between the pretraining and the target phonetic categories. However, the present data indicate that more comprehensive models of second-language phonetic acquisition will need to address some of the specific characteristics of the relationship between learning in perception and production, as well as their variability across individual subjects.

In conclusion, we would like to emphasize that our goal in this research was to develop new techniques for the modification of the structure of the trainee’s phonetic system, and in so doing, to investigate the nature of the relationship between learning in speech perception and production. In developing the perceptual training program, rather than explicitly focusing the trainee’s attention on the detailed physical attributes of the perception and production of the target contrast, our approach has been to present the trainee with many exemplars of the target categories so that he or she can learn to integrate the exemplars into a linguistically meaningful phonetic space. The present study replicated earlier studies that showed the effectiveness of this “high-variability” approach to the acquisition of a non-native perceptual contrast. More importantly, however, this study has now extended these results by demonstrating that the changes produced by this approach to non-native phoneme acquisition occur at a level beyond the perceptual domain, that is, the modification of phonetic perception and the knowledge gained from this domain transferred to promote changes in speech production and motor control of these phonetic contrasts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Luis Hernandez and Takahiro Adachi for technical support, and to Fernando Vanegas for subject running. We also thank Bernard Rochet, Catherine Best, and Winifred Strange for many helpful comments and suggestions. This work was supported by NIDCD Training Grant No. DC-00012 and by NIDCD Research Grant No. DC-00111 to Indiana University.

Contributor Information

Ann R. Bradlow, Speech Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-1301.

David B. Pisoni, Speech Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-1301.

Reiko Akahane-Yamada, ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, 2-2 Hikaridai, Seika-cho Soraku-gun, Kyoto, 619-02 Japan.

Yoh’ichi Tohkura, ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, 2-2 Hikaridai, Seika-cho Soraku-gun, Kyoto, 619-02 Japan.

References

  • Best CT, McRoberts GW, Sithole NM. Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1988;14:345–360.[PubMed]
  • Best CT. Learning to perceive the sound pattern of English. In: Rovee-Collier C, Lipsitt L, editors. Advances in Infancy Research. SR-114. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1994. pp. 31–80. Also in Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research.
  • Best CT. A direct-realist view of cross-language speech perception. In: Strange W, editor. Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Speech Research. Timonium, MD: York; 1995. pp. 171–206.
  • Diehl RL, Kluender KR. On the objects of speech perception. Ecol. Psychol. 1989;1:1–45.
  • Flege JE. The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. J. Phonetics. 1987;15:47–65.
  • Flege JE. The production and perception of foreign language speech sounds. In: Winitz H, editor. Human Communication and its Disorders: A Review. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1988. pp. 224–401.
  • Flege JE. Speech learning in a second language. In: Ferguson C, Menn L, Stoel-Gammon C, editors. Phonological Development: Models, Research, and Implications. Timonium, MD: York; 1992. pp. 565–604.
  • Flege JE. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In: Strange W, editor. Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York; 1995. pp. 233–272.
  • Flege JE, Hillenbrand J. Limits on phonetic accuracy in foreign language speech production. In: Ioup G, Weinberger S, editors. Interlanguage Phonology: The Acquisition of a Second Language Sound System. Cambridge: Newbury House; 1987. pp. 176–201.
  • Fowler CA. An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. J. Phonetics. 1986;14:3–28.
  • Gillette S. Contextual variation in the perception of L and R by Japanese and Korean speakers. Minn. Papers Ling. Philos. Lang. 1980;6:59–72.
  • Goto H. Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds ‘l’ and ‘r’ Neuropsychologia. 1971;9:317–323.[PubMed]
  • Jamieson DG, Rvachew S. Remediating speech production errors with sound identification training. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. Audiol. 1992;16:201–210.
  • Jamieson DG, Rvachew S. Perception, production and training of new consonant contrasts in children with articulation disorders. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing; Yokohama: Acoustical Society of Japan; 1994. pp. 199–1202.
  • Liberman AM, Cooper FS, Shankweiler DP, Studdert-Kennedy M. Perception of the speech code. Psychol. Rev. 1967;74:431–461.[PubMed]
  • Liberman AM, Mattingly IG. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition. 1985;21:1–36.[PubMed]
  • Liberman AM, Mattingly IG. A specialization for speech perception. Science. 1989;245:489–494.[PubMed]
  • Lively SE, Logan JD, Pisoni DB. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ ad /l/: II. the role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1993;94:1242–1255.[PMC free article][PubMed]
  • Lively SE, Pisoni DB, Yamada RA, Tohkura Y, Yamada T. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: III. Long-term retention of new phonetic categories. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994;96:2076–2087.[PMC free article][PubMed]
  • Logan JD, Lively SE, Pisoni DB. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1991;89:874–886.[PMC free article][PubMed]
  • MacKain KS, Best CT, Strange W. Categorical perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals. Appl. Psycholinguistics. 1981;2:369–390.
  • Mochizuki M. The identification of /r/ and /l/ in natural and synthesized speech. J. Phonetics. 1981;9:283–303.
  • Rochet BL. Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In: Strange W, editor. Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York; 1995. pp. 379–410.
  • Rvachew S. Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning. J. Speech Hearing Res. 1994;37:347–357.[PubMed]
  • Sheldon A, Strange W. The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Appl. Psycholinguistics. 1982;3:243–261.
  • Stevens KN, Blumstein SE. The search for invariant acoustic correlates of phonetic features. In: Eimas PD, Miller JL, editors. Perspectives on the Study of Speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1981. pp. 1–38.
  • Strange W, Dittmann S. Effects of discrimination training on the perception of /r/–/l/ by Japanese adults learning English. Percept. Psychophys. 1984;36:131–145.[PubMed]
  • Tahta S, Wood M, Loewenthal K. Foreign accents: Factors relating to transfer of accent from the first language to a second language. Lang. Speech. 1981;24:265–272.
  • Yamada RA. Effects of extended training on /r/ and /l/ identification by native speakers of Japanese. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1993;93:2391(A).
  • Yamada RA, Strange W, Magnuson JS, Pruitt JS, Clarke WD., III The intelligibility of Japanese speakers’ productions of American English /r/, /l/, and /w/, as evaluated by native speakers of American English. Proceedings of the International Conference of Spoken Language Processing; Yokohama: Acoustical Society of Japan; 1994. pp. 2023–2026.

Unformatted text preview: IB Language and Literature HL 1 MONMOUTH COUNTY VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 4000 Kozloski Road Freehold, NJ 07728 IB LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE HL 1 & 2 School: Grade: Credits: Subject Area: Prepared by: Date: Biotechnology High School Eleventh and Twelfth 5 per year (10 total) English Norm Dannen, William Hercek, Diana Laczny, Michelle Lampinen May 2012 Internal Use Only (Sign and date) Reviewed by CFG Coordinator __________________ Date _____________________________ Course Philosophy IB Language and Literature HL 2 Course Philosophy IB English HL is a two-year course in language and literature that will assist students in developing their own opinions while fostering an appreciation for those of others. The study of language arts encourages students to broaden their views of the world and experience perspectives that change, expand, and validate their own beliefs. Ultimately, the goal is to encourage students to become lifelong learners while fostering critical thought, ethical behavior, and deductive reasoning. A primary aim of the course is to encourage students to question the meaning of a variety of texts. Although the skills such as critical reading, writing, and thinking in IB English HL are taught through a linguistic and literary context, it is crucial that students understand that they are not limited to the field of language and literary study. Our aim is to nurture an analytical background that can be transferred to all courses of study, biotechnology in particular. Students will be able to apply the ability to interpret literature to the thorough process involved in interpreting scientific data. The study of modern communications media is an integral part of the literary and communication experience. IB Language and Literature HL 3 Course Description and Materials The IB English HL program is a two­year intensive course in language and literature that focuses on independent critical analysis of literary and non­literary texts. Through the detailed study of classic and contemporary pieces of world literature, as well as a wide variety of mass media forms, students will refine their critical reading, writing, media creation, and thinking skills while cultivating a global perspective. Students will learn to provide interpretative commentary on literature and media in both oral and written form. The course will emphasize the comprehensive examination of genre, style, historical/cultural context, and technique, while providing a solid foundation in grammar, vocabulary, and research skills. Grade 11: Texts Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Penguin Classics, 2002. Print. Baldwin, James. The Fire Next Time. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1964. Print. Burnette, Dawn. Daily Grammar Practice (Student Workbook Grade 11). Peachtree City: Georgia: DGP Publishing, 2003. Camus, Albert. The Stranger. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print. Esquivel, Laura. Like Water for Chocolate. New York: Anchor, 1995. Print. Foster, Thomas. How to Read Literature Like a Professor. New York: Harper Perrenial, 2003. Print. Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. New York: Signet, 1963. Print. McLuhan, Marshall. The Medium is the Massage. New York: Ginkgo Press, 2005. Print. Plath, Sylvia and Ted Hughes. Collected Poems. New York: Buccaneer Books, 1998. Print. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. New York: Washington Square Press, 1992. Print. Shostak, Jerome. Vocabulary Workshop: Level G. New York: William H. Sadlier, Inc., 2005. Vonnegut, Kurt. A Man Without a Country. New York: Random House, Inc., 2007. Print. IB Language and Literature HL 4 Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse-Five. New York: Dell Publishing, 1969. Print. Supplemental Films Hamlet One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest Pride and Prejudice Reduced Shakespeare Company’s Complete Works of William Shakespeare: Abridged Slaughterhouse-Five Grade 12: Texts Berendt, John. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. New York: Vintage International, 1999. Print. Burnette, Dawn. Daily Grammar Practice (Student Workbook Grade 12). Peachtree City, Georgia: DGP Publishing, 2003. Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. New York: Vintage International, 1993. Print. Eggers, Dave. Zeitoun. New York: Vintage International, 2010. Foster, Thomas. How to Read Literature Like a Professor. New York: Harper Perrenial, 2003. Print. Garcia Marquez, Gabriel. Chronicle of a Death Foretold. New York: Vintage International, 2003. Print. Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis (A Norton Critical Edition). New York: W.W. Norton, 1996. Print. McLuhan, Marshall. The Medium is the Massage. New York: Ginkgo Press, 2005. Print. Orwell, George. 1984. New York: New American Library, 1961. Print. Shostak, Jerome. Vocabulary Workshop: Level H. New York: William H. Sadlier, Inc., 2005. Supplemental Films Amelie Animal Farm Brave New World The Day the Earth Stood Still A Doll’s House Equilibrium The Importance of Being Ernest It’s a Wonderful Life The Martian Chronicles IB Language and Literature HL 5 A Passage to India The Usual Suspects 1984 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Monty Python and the Holy Grail In Cold Blood Fahrenheit 451 The Princess Bride The Color Purple Frankenstein (1933, 1993) Spaceballs The Time Machine War of the Worlds The Twilight Zone Series Alfred Hitchcock Presents Series Shutter Island 3:10 to Yuma Psycho Vertigo Suspicion Rebecca The Birds Shadow of a Doubt Strangers on a Train The Godfather Moonstruck Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Due to the nature of the course, media texts will change frequently and rapidly. Additional books and films may be added to explicate the content of the course. IB Language and Literature HL 6 Course Goals The goals of this course are to: 1. Introduce students to a range of texts from different periods, styles, and genres 2. Develop in students the ability to engage in close, detailed analysis of individual texts and make relevant connections 3. Develop the students’ powers of expression, both in oral and written communication 4. Encourage students to recognize the importance of the contexts in which texts are written and received 5. Encourage, through the study of texts, an appreciation of the different perspectives of people from other cultures, and how these perspectives construct meaning 6. Encourage students to appreciate the formal, stylistic, and aesthetic qualities of texts 7. Promote in students an enjoyment of, a lifelong interest in, language and learning 8. Develop in students an understanding of how language, culture, and context determine the ways in which meaning is constructed in texts 9. Encourage students to think critically about the different interactions between text, audience, and purpose 10. Develop in students the ability to use the computer confidently as a tool for writing, researching and presenting. 11. Develop in students the ability to demonstrate mastery of the rules of Standard English and MLA format by editing the written text of self and others. 12. Develop in students the ability to evaluate one another’s performance and offer constructive criticism. IB Language and Literature HL 7 Content Standards Assessed by this Course Standard Reading: Literature Strand A. Key Ideas and Details Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the RL.11­12.A1 text leaves matters uncertain. (Units 1, 3) Determine two or more themes or central ideas of a text and analyze their development over the course of the text, including how they interact and build on one another to RL.11­12.A2 produce a complex account; provide an objective summary of the text. (Units 1, 3) Analyze the impact of the author’s choices regarding how to develop and relate elements of a story or drama (e.g., where a story is set, how the actionis ordered, how RL.11­12.A3 the characters are introduced and developed). (Units 1, 3) Strand B. Craft and Structure Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in the text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including words with multiple meanings or language that is RL.11­12.B4 particularly fresh, engaging, or beautiful. (Include Shakespeare as well as other authors.) (Units 1, 3, 5) Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a text (e.g., the choice of where to begin or end a story, the choice to provide a comedic or RL.11­12.B5 tragic resolution) contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic impact. (Units 1, 3) Analyze a case in which grasping a point of view requires distinguishing what is directly stated in a text from what is really meant (e.g., satire, sarcasm, irony, or RL.11­12.B6 understatement). (Units 1, 3) Strand C. Integration of Knowledge and Ideas Analyze multiple interpretations of a story, drama, or poem (e.g., recorded or live production of a play or recorded novel or poetry), evaluating how each version RL.11­12.C7 interprets the source text. (Include at least one play by Shakespeare and one play by an American dramatist.) (Units 1, 3) Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth­, nineteenth­ and early­twentieth­century foundational works of American literature, including how two or more texts from the RL.11­12.C9 same period treat similar themes or topics. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Strand D. Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity By the end of grade 11, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, in the grades 11–CCR text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as RL.11­12.D10 needed at the high end of the range (Units 1, 3, 5) RL.11­12.D10 By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, at the high end of the grades 11–CCR text complexity band independently and IB Language and Literature HL 8 proficiently. (Units 1, 3, 5) Standard Reading: Informational Text Strand A. Key Ideas and Details Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the RI.11­12.A1 text leaves matters uncertain. (Units 2, 3, 4) Determine two or more central ideas of a text and analyze their development over the course of the text, including how they interact and build on one another to provide a RI.11­12A.2 complex analysis; provide an objective summary of the text. (Units 2, 3, 4) Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence of events and explain how specific individuals, ideas, or events interact and develop over the course of the text. (Units 2, RI.11­12.A3 3, 4) Strand B. Craft and Structure Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze how an author uses and RI.11­12.B4 refines the meaning of a key term or terms over the course of a text (e.g., how Madison defines faction in Federalist No. 10). (Units 2, 4, 5) Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of the structure an author uses in his or her exposition or argument, including whether the structure makes points clear, RI.11­12.B5 convincing, and engaging. (Units 2, 4) Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text in which the rhetoric is particularly effective, analyzing how style and content contribute to the power, RI.11­12.B6 persuasiveness or beauty of the text. (Units 2, 4) Strand C. Integration of Knowledge and Ideas Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively) as well as in words in order to address a question RI.11­12.C7 or solve a problem. (Units 2, 4) Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court RI.11­12.C8 majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses). (Units 2, 4) Analyze seventeenth­, eighteenth­, and nineteenth­century foundational U.S. documents of historical and literary significance (including The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln’s RI.11­12.C9 Second Inaugural Address) for their themes, purposes, and rhetorical features. (Units 2, 4) Strand D. Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity By the end of grade 11, read and comprehend literary nonfiction in the grades 11–CCR text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the RI.11­12.D10 range. (Units 2, 4) IB Language and Literature HL 9 RI.11­12.D10 By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literary nonfiction at the high end of the grades 11–CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently. (Units 2, 4) Standard Writing Strand A. Text Types and Purposes Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using W.11­12.A1 valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization W.11­12.A1a that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. (Units 2, 4) Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner W.11­12.A1b that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases. (Units 2, 4) Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, W.11­12.A1c between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms W.11­12.A1d and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument W.11­12.A1e presented. (Units, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, W.11­12.A2 and analysis of content. (Units 2, 4) Introduce a topic; organize complex ideas, concepts, and information so that each new element builds on that which precedes it to create a unified whole; include formatting W.11­12.A2a (e.g., headings), graphics (e.g., figures, tables), and multimedia when useful to aiding comprehension. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Develop the topic thoroughly by selecting the most significant and relevant facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples W.11­12.A2b appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Use appropriate and varied transitions and syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships among complex ideas and concepts. W.11­12.A2c (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Use precise language, domain­specific vocabulary, and techniques such as metaphor, W.11­12.A2d simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms W.11­12.A2e and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the information or explanation presented (e.g., articulating implications or the significance W.11­12.A2f of the topic). (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) W.11­12.A3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well­chosen details, and well­structured event sequences. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, IB Language and Literature HL 10 W.11­12.A3a W.11­12.A3b W.11­12.A3c W.11­12.A3d W.11­12.A3e 5) Engage and orient the reader by setting out a problem, situation, or observation and its significance, establishing one or multiple point(s) of view, and introducing a narrator and/or characters; create a smooth progression of experiences or events. (Units 1, 3, 5) Use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, pacing, description, reflection, and multiple plot lines, to develop experiences, events, and/or characters. (Unit 1, 2, 3, 5) Use a variety of techniques to sequence events so that they build on one another to create a coherent whole and build toward a particular tone and outcome (e.g., a sense of mystery, suspense, growth, or resolution). (Units 1, 3, 5) Use precise words and phrases, telling details, and sensory language to convey a vivid picture of the experiences, events, setting, and/or characters. (Units 1, 3, 5) Provide a conclusion that follows from and reflects on what is experienced, observed, or resolved over the course of the narrative. (Units 1, 3, 5) Strand B. Production and Distribution of Writing Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. (Grade­specific expectations for writing W.11­12.B4 types are defined in standards 1–3 above.) (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific W.11­12.B5 purpose and audience. (Unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or W.11­12.B6 information. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Strand C. Research to Build and Present Knowledge Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self­generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry W.11­12.C7 when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, EE) Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the strengths and limitations of each source in terms of the task, purpose, and audience; integrate information into the text selectively W.11­12.C8 to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and overreliance on any one source and following a standard format for citation. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, EE) Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and W.11­12.C9 research. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, EE) Apply grades 11–12 Reading standards to literature (e.g., “Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth­, nineteenth­ and early­twentieth­century foundational works of American W.11­12.C9a literature, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes or topics”). (Units 1, 3, EE) Apply grades 11–12 Reading standards to literary nonfiction (e.g., “Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning [e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court Case majority W.11­12.C9b opinions and dissents] and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy [e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses]”). (Units 2, 4, EE) IB Language and Literature HL 11 Strand D. Range of Writing Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of tasks, purposes. W.11­12.D10 (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, EE) Standard Speaking and Listening Strand A. Comprehension and Collaboration Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one­on­one, in groups, and teacher­led) with diverse partners on grades 11–12 topics, texts, and SL.11­12.A1 issues, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material under study; explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other SL.11­12.A1a research on the topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, well­reasoned exchange of ideas. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Work with peers to promote civil, democratic discussions and decision­making, set SL.11­12.A1b clear goals and deadlines, and establish individual roles as needed. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Propel conversations by posing and responding to questions that probe reasoning and evidence; ensure a hearing for a full range of positions on a topic or issue; clarify, SL.11­12.A1c verify, or challenge ideas and conclusions; and promote divergent and creative perspectives. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Respond thoughtfully to diverse perspectives; synthesize comments, claims, and evidence made on all sides of an issue; resolve contradictions when possible; and determine what additional information or research is required to deepen the SL.11­12.A1d investigation or complete the task. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) in order to make informed decisions and solve SL.11­12.A2 problems, evaluating the credibility and accuracy of each source and noting any discrepancies among the data. (Units 2, 4) Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric, assessing the stance, premises, links among ideas, word choice, points of emphasis, SL.11­12.A3 and tone used. (Units 2, 4) Strand B. Presentation of Knowledge of Ideas Present information, findings, and supporting evidence, conveying a clear and distinct perspective, such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning, alternative or opposing perspectives are addressed, and the organization, development, substance, and style are SL.11­12.B4 appropriate to purpose, audience, and a range of formal and informal tasks. (Units 2, 4) Make strategic use of digital media (e.g., textual, graphical, audio, visual, and interactive elements) in presentations to enhance understanding of findings, reasoning, SL.11­12.B5 and evidence and to add interest. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) SL.11­12.B6 Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating a command of formal IB Language and Literature HL 12 English when indicated or appropriate. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Standard Language Strand A. Conventions of Standard English Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage L.11­12.A1 when writing or speaking. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Apply the understanding that usage is a matter of convention, can change over time, L.11­12.A1a and is sometimes contested. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Resolve issues of complex or contested usage, consulting references (e.g., Merriam­ Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, Garner’s Modern American Usage) as L.11­12.A1b needed. (Units 5, 6) Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, L.11­12.A2 punctuation, and spelling when writing. (Units 5, 6) Observe hyphenation conventions. (Units 5, 6) L.11­12.A2a Spell correctly. (Units 5, 6) L.11­12.A2b Strand B. Knowledge of Language Apply knowledge of language to understand how language functions in different contexts, to make effective choices for meaning or style, and to comprehend more L.11­12.B3 fully when reading or listening. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Vary syntax for effect, consulting references (e.g., Tufte’s Artful Sentences) for guidance as needed; apply an understanding of syntax to the study of complex texts L.11­12.B3a when reading. (Units 1, 3, 5, 6) Strand C. Vocabulary Acquisition and Use Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple­meaning words and phrases based on grades 11–12 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of L.11­12.C4 strategies. (Unit 5) Use context (e.g., the overall meaning of a sentence, paragraph, or text; a word’s position or function in a sentence) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. (Units L.11­12.C4a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Identify and correctly use patterns of word changes that indicate different meanings or L.11­12.C4b parts of speech (e.g., conceive, conception, conceivable). (Unit 5) Consult general and specialized reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, thesauruses), both print and digital, to find the pronunciation of a word or determine or L.11­12.C4c clarify its precise meaning, its part of speech, its etymology, or its standard usage. (Unit 5) Verify the preliminary determination of the meaning of a word or phrase (e.g., by L.11­12.C4d checking the inferred meaning in context or in a dictionary). (Unit 5) Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in L.11­12.C5 word meanings. (Units 1, 3, 5, 6) Interpret figures of speech (e.g., hyperbole, paradox) in context and analyze their role L.11­12.C5a in the text. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) IB Language and Literature HL 13 L.11­12.C5b L.11­12.C6 Analyze nuances in the meaning of words with similar denotations. (Unit 5) Acquire and use accurately general academic and domain­specific words and phrases, sufficient for reading, writing, speaking, and listening at the college and career readiness level; demonstrate independence in gathering vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to comprehension or expression. (Unit 1, 3, 5) IB Language and Literature HL 14 21st Century Career & Life Skills Standard 9.1 21st­Century Life & Career Skills: All students will demonstrate the creative, critical thinking, collaboration, and problem­solving skills needed to function successfully as both global citizens and workers in diverse ethnic and organizational cultures. Strand A. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving 9.1.12.A.1 Apply critical thinking and problem­solving strategies during structured learning experiences. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) 9.1.12.A.2 Participate in online strategy and planning sessions for course­based, school­based, or outside projects. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Strand B. Creativity and Innovation 9.1.12.B.1 Present resources and data in a format that effectively communicates the meaning of the data and its implications for solving problems, using multiple perspectives. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) Strand C. Collaboration, Teamwork, and Leadership 9.1.12.C.4 Demonstrate leadership and collaborative skills when participating in online learning communities and structured learning experiences. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) 9.1.12.C.5 Assume a leadership position by guiding the thinking of peers in a direction that leads to successful completion of a challenging task or project. (Units 2, 4) Strand D. Cross­Cultural Understanding and Interpersonal Communication 9.1.12.D.1 Interpret spoken and written communication within the appropriate cultural context. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) 9.1.12.D.2 Determine the immediate and long­term effects of cross­cultural misconceptions or misunderstandings resulting from past or current international issues or events. (Units 3, 4) 9.1.12.D.3 Explain why the ability to communicate in another language in an appropriate cultural context is a valuable 21st­century skill. Strand E. Communication and Media Fluency 9.1.12.E.1 Create messages for different purposes and audiences with sensitivity to cultural, gender, and age diversity, using various digital media outlets. (Units 2, 4) IB Language and Literature HL 15 9.1.12.E.4 Predict the impact of emerging media technologies on international business and globalization. (Units 2, 4) Compare laws governing the unethical use of media in different countries. (Units 2, 4) 9.1.12.E.5 Strand F. Accountability, Productivity, and Ethics 9.1.12.F.1 Explain the impact of current and emerging technological advances on the demand for increased and new types of accountability and productivity in the global workplace. 9.1.12.F.2 Demonstrate a positive work ethic in various settings, including the classroom and during structured learning experiences. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) 9.1.12.F.3 Defend the need for intellectual property rights, workers’ rights, and workplace safety regulations in the United States and abroad. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) 9.1.12.F.5 Formulate an opinion regarding a current workplace or societal/ethical issue based on research. 9.1.12.F.6 Relate scientific advances (e.g., advances in medicine) to the creation of new ethical dilemmas. 9.3 Career Awareness, Exploration, and Preparation: All students will apply knowledge about and engage in the process of career awareness, exploration, and Standard preparation in order to navigate the globally competitive work environment of the information age. Strand C. Career Preparation 9.3.12.C.2 Characterize education and skills needed to achieve career goals, and take steps to prepare for postsecondary options, including making course selections, preparing for and taking assessments, and participating in extra­curricular activities. 9.3.12.C.21 Determine the extent to which an individual’s online behavior (e.g., social networking, photo exchanges, video postings) may impact opportunities for employment, job retention, or job advancement. (Units 1, 2, 3, 4) 9.3.12.C.22 Compare and contrast New Jersey school district policies with employer policies related to individual behavior and responsibilities (e.g., absenteeism and tardiness, plagiarism, harassment). IB Language and Literature HL 16 Units of Study Unit Title Unit 1 – Literature – critical study Theme Survival; bildungsroman Topical Outline Literary Text(s) Life of Pi, Yann Martel The consequences of war Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut Role of women in society; the frivolity of society Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen Search for identity; madness and the natural order Hamlet, William Shakespeare Being and nothingness The Stranger, Albert Camus Language Text(s) TED talk on perspective, Raghavaa How to Read Literature Like a Professor Photography of James Nachtwey A Modest Proposal, Johnathan Swift Various YouTube videos as available An Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Malthus How to Read Literature Like a Professor The Daily Show The Colbert Report Caricatures How to Read Literature Like a Professor Excerpts, The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer YouTube channel- The Lizzie Bennet Diaries Various film adaptations of Hamlet The Reduced Shakespeare Various YouTube videos as available How to Read Literature Like a Professor The Philosophical Nature of Existentialism, Brown Excerpts; Being and Nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre IB Language and Literature HL 17 Various YouTube videos as available How to Read Literature Like a Professor Social justice; search for One Flew Over the The Fire Next Time, identity Cuckoo’s Nest, Ken James Baldwin Kesey “The Prime Rib of America,” Lady Gaga “I Have a Dream,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Various TED talks One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest film Jail Journal; Ken Kesey Kesey sketches Twitter Various YouTube videos as available How to Read Literature Like a Professor Unit Essential • How could the text be read and interpreted differently by two Questions different readers? • If the text had been written in a different time or place or language or for a different audience, how and why might it differ? • How and why is a social group represented in a particular way? • How does the text conform to, or deviate from, the conventions of a particular genre, and for what purpose? • How has the text borrowed from other texts, and with what effects? Objectives Knowledge/Understanding • Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a range of texts • Demonstrate an understanding of the use of language, structure, technique and style • Demonstrate a critical understanding of the various ways in which the reader constructs meaning and of how context influences this constructed meaning • Demonstrate an understanding of how different perspectives influence the reading of a text Application/Analysis • Demonstrate an ability to choose a text type appropriate to the purpose required • Demonstrate an ability to use terminology relevant to the various text types studied • Demonstrate an ability to analyze the effects of language, IB Language and Literature HL 18 Activities structure, technique and style on the reader • Demonstrate an awareness of the ways in which the production and reception of texts contribute to their meanings • Demonstrate an ability to substantiate and justify ideas with relevant examples Synthesis/Evaluation • Demonstrate an ability to compare and contrast the formal elements, content and context of texts • Discuss the different ways in which language and image may be used in a range of texts • Demonstrate an ability to evaluate conflicting viewpoints within and about a text • Produce a critical response evaluating some aspects of text, context and meaning Presentation/Language Skills • Demonstrate an ability to express ideas clearly and with fluency in both written and oral communication • Demonstrate an ability to use the oral and written forms of the language, in a range of styles, registers and situations • Demonstrate an ability to discuss and analyze texts in a focused and logical manner • Demonstrate an ability to write a balanced, comparative analysis Life of Pi Biographical/cultural background Comprehension quiz Online discussion Class discussion Bring in media that relates to themes in the novel Relate personal experiences and present to class Poster- illustrate scene from the novel Shipwreck diary assignment (multimedia) Slaughterhouse-Five Historical/biographical background Vocabulary list Create poster depicting what ties all humans together Online discussion Class discussion Create linear timeline from nonlinear plot Draw a Tralfamadorian based on the description in the novel Analytical literature quiz IB written task 2 (analytical question from IB course guide) Pride and Prejudice View YouTube documentary on Jane Austen’s life IB Language and Literature HL 19 Analyze caricatures Discuss archetypes Create caricatures of modern-day archetypes Plan wedding consistent with historical context of novel Online discussion Class discussion Speed-dating discussion Analyze graphic novel version of Pride and Prejudice Analyze film adaptations of Pride and Prejudice Analyze satires (The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, etc.) Watch The Lizzie Bennet Diaries and discuss the adaptation to a new media Hamlet Refresher in iambic pentameter Lesson in prose vs. verse Vocabulary list Review drama terms Study guide questions Act out play in class “to be or not to be” recitation activities Draw Hamlet as Ophelia describes him (knees knocking, etc.) Political/historical background on Denmark Analyze film adaptations of Hamlet Watch The Reduced Shakespeare Puppet show (play within a play) Close readings – soliloquies Modern translations Shakespearean O exercise Comprehension quizzes Write soliloquies in Shakespeare’s style One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest Biographical/cultural background (counterculture) Sketch poem (analyze sketch; write poem from perspective of subject of the sketch) Vocabulary lists Online discussions Class discussions Analyze film adaptation; discuss the impact of the changes in point of view Create graphs to depict shift in power throughout the novel Create metaphor poster The Stranger Vocabulary lists IB Language and Literature HL 20 Formative Assessment Summative Assessment Expected Timeframe Unit Title Study guides YouTube video Class discussion Existential lexicon Write alternate endings Vocabulary lists Comprehension quizzes Study guides Online discussion/analysis Class discussion/analysis Multimedia projects Formal written/oral analyses IB Assessments • Individual Oral Commentary (IOC) • Written Task 1 or 2 • Exam Paper 1 • Extended Essay Midterm exam Final exam One semester (semester one, junior year) Unit 2 – Language and mass communication Topical Outline Theme Use and abuse of rhetoric • Pathos • Ethos • Logos Understanding purpose and audience (text types) • Exposition • Argumentation • Description • Narration • Technical/scientific writing Distinguishing fact from fiction • Recognizing bias Responding to media • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Resources Plato – Republic Socrates – Socratic dialogue Aristotle – rhetorical modes McLuhan – Understanding Media Newspapers Magazines Blogs Tweets Images Poetry Speeches Song lyrics Instruction manuals Infographics Recipes Process writing Propaganda Censorship Campaign rhetoric Advertising Countering an argument IB Language and Literature HL 21 • • • Reaction Analysis Production Unit Essential Questions Objectives • Debate • Hashtags • Having a voice • Design elements • How do the forms of communication within the media influence the medium through which they are delivered? • What is the potential for educational, political, or ideological influence of the media? • How does mass media use language and image to inform, persuade, or entertain? • How do text, audience, and purpose interact to create meaning? Knowledge/Understanding • Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a range of texts • Demonstrate an understanding of the use of language, structure, technique and style • Demonstrate a critical understanding of the various ways in which the reader constructs meaning and of how context influences this constructed meaning • Demonstrate an understanding of how different perspectives influence the reading of a text Application/Analysis • Demonstrate an ability to choose a text type appropriate to the purpose required • Demonstrate an ability to use terminology relevant to the various text types studied • Demonstrate an ability to analyze the effects of language, structure, technique and style on the reader • Demonstrate an awareness of the ways in which the production and reception of texts contribute to their meanings • Demonstrate an ability to substantiate and justify ideas with relevant examples Synthesis/Evaluation • Demonstrate an ability to compare and contrast the formal elements, content and context of texts • Discuss the different ways in which language and image may be used in a range of texts • Demonstrate an ability to evaluate conflicting viewpoints within and about a text • Produce a critical response evaluating some aspects of text, context and meaning Presentation/Language Skills • Demonstrate an ability to express ideas clearly and with fluency in both written and oral communication • Demonstrate an ability to use the oral and written forms of IB Language and Literature HL 22 Activities Formative Assessment Summative Assessment Expected the language, in a range of styles, registers and situations • Demonstrate an ability to discuss and analyze texts in a focused and logical manner • Demonstrate an ability to write a balanced, comparative analysis Introduce and review media terms View and discuss various types of media Review rhetorical theory • Rhetorical triangle (ethos, pathos, logos) • Rhetorical modes (description, argumentation, explanation, narration) • Hot/cool media Create various forms of media • MMS messages • Typefaces • Social media • Blogs • Satire • Threads • Parody • Instructional posters • How-to presentations • Etc. *Further activities TBD as we progress through the new IB requirements. Speech writing Debate Class discussion Creation of various text types • Instructional posters • Persuasive writing (rhetoric) Written analyses Social media responses • Tweet • Blog • Facebook • Udemy • YouTube IB Assessments • Further Oral Activity (FOA) (aka Language Study) • Written Task 1 or 2 • Exam Paper 1 • Extended Essay Midterm exam Final exam One semester (semester two, junior year) IB Language and Literature HL 23 Timeframe Unit Title Unit 3 – Literature – texts and contexts Theme Innocence vs. Guilt; machismo; magical realism Topical Outline Literary Text(s) Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Garcia Marquez Dystopian literature; politics of language; conformity vs. individuality 1984, Orwell Fear and racism; role of media in perception of natural disaster/news event/cultural differences; Nature vs. man Struggle to be an American Zeitoun, Dave Eggers (Free choice at teacher’s discretion) Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, John Berendt Unit Essential Language Text(s) OJ Simpson trial The Casey Anthony trial In Cold Blood (film) The Usual Suspects (film) Amélie (film) Professional wrestling Equilibrium (film) Shutter Island (film) Online newspapers (examples of euphemism, political propaganda) Political cartoons Zeitoun foundation website Televised News/media coverage of hurricane Katrina, commentary Print newspaper articles about hurricane Katrina and the aftermath Interviews with either Dave Eggers or Zeitoun Youtube video on Abdulrahman Zeitoun Blogs created by Katrina survivors Interview with John Berendt Film: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Texts related to Southern Gothic and magical realism You tube: interview with John Berendt Newspaper article related to incident of murder Savannah Georgia website • How could the text be read and interpreted differently by two IB Language and Literature HL 24 Questions Objectives different readers? • If the text had been written in a different time or place or language or for a different audience, how and why might it differ? • How and why is a social group represented in a particular way? • How does the text conform to, or deviate from, the conventions of a particular genre, and for what purpose? • How has the text borrowed from other texts, and with what effects? Knowledge/Understanding • Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a range of texts • Demonstrate an understanding of the use of language, structure, technique and style • Demonstrate a critical understanding of the various ways in which the reader constructs meaning and of how context influences this constructed meaning • Demonstrate an understanding of how different perspectives influence the reading of a text Application/Analysis • Demonstrate an ability to choose a text type appropriate to the purpose required • Demonstrate an ability to use terminology relevant to the various text types studied • Demonstrate an ability to analyze the effects of language, structure, technique and style on the reader • Demonstrate an awareness of the ways in which the production and reception of texts contribute to their meanings • Demonstrate an ability to substantiate and justify ideas with relevant examples Synthesis/Evaluation • Demonstrate an ability to compare and contrast the formal elements, content and context of texts • Discuss the different ways in which language and image may be used in a range of texts • Demonstrate an ability to evaluate conflicting viewpoints within and about a text • Produce a critical response evaluating some aspects of text, context and meaning Presentation/Language Skills • Demonstrate an ability to express ideas clearly and with fluency in both written and oral communication • Demonstrate an ability to use the oral and written forms of the language, in a range of styles, registers and situations • Demonstrate an ability to discuss and analyze texts in a focused and logical manner IB Language and Literature HL 25 Activities • Demonstrate an ability to write a balanced, comparative analysis Chronicle of a Death Foretold Online discussions Create a timeline based on a specific type of imagery Class/group discussions View and discuss films with similar themes or thematic elements Answer questions about film techniques 1984 Online discussions Class/group discussions Create a propaganda poster Creative writing View and discuss films with similar themes or thematic elements Discuss governmental control and propaganda in the media today Zeitoun Online discussions Class/group discussions View and discuss Youtube videos, interviews, archived news and media coverage Complete Zeitoun webquest Research New Orleans before, during, after the hurricane Create a map of Zeitoun’s New Orleans Write a letter petitioning Zeitoun’s release from prison. Research government response to Katrina. Compare and contrast flooding in New Jersey (evacuees vs. those who chose to stay) with Katrina Create a persuasive video advocating the release of Zeitoun Create a blog with multiple perspectives Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Online discussions Class/group discussions View and discuss films with similar themes or thematic elements Answer questions about film techniques Research the history of Savannah, Georgia Create a map of significant locations of plot Create a blog/newsletter tracing the events of the murder Formative Assessment Chronicle of a Death Foretold Comprehension quiz Analytical literature quiz Online discussions Design a multimedia scrapbook or a memory box for a character in IB Language and Literature HL 26 the novel Imagery timeline 1984 Comprehension quizzes Analytical literature quizzes Online discussions Write a creative piece expanding on an object from Charrington’s junk shop Zeitoun Comprehension quizzes Analytical literature quizzes Online discussions Blog Persuasive video to lawyer or government Letter to prison officials Summative Assessment Expected Timeframe Unit Title Topical Outline Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Comprehension quizzes Analytical literature quizzes Online discussions Blog Brochure for Walking Midnight Tour of Savannah Newspaper article IB Assessments • Written Task 1 or 2 • Exam Paper 1 • Exam Paper 2 • Extended Essay One semester (semester one, senior year) Unit 4 – Language in cultural context Analyze how audience and purpose affect the structure and content of texts. o use of persuasive language in political speeches o the features of SMS messages and texting o postcolonial re-readings of texts Analyze the impact of language changes o the impact of electronic communication on meaning – texting, tweeting, facebook, statuses o the influence of government policy o the emergence of new vocabulary from the language of groups (ex. young people) IB Language and Literature HL 27 o the disappearance of vocabulary and of languages themselves (resource = Appendices in 1984 – Newspeak) Demonstrate an awareness of how language and meaning are shaped by culture and context o the ways in which jargon and professional language are used o the ways in which language affirms identity o the status given to standard and non-standard forms of the language o the status of minority languages in multilingual societies Suggested topics: Gender (inequality, constructions of masculinity and femininity) Sexuality (its construction through language) Language and communities (nation/region, subcultures) Language and the individual (multilingualism/bilingualism, language profile/identity) Language and power (linguistic imperialism, propaganda) History and evolution of the language (disappearing and revival languages, Creoles) Translation (what is added and what is lost) Language and knowledge (science and technology, argot, jargon) Language and social relations (social and professional status, race) Language and belief (religious discourse, mythology) Language and taboo (swearing, political correctness) Text types will include: Advertisement Appeal Biography Blog Brochure/leaflet Cartoon Chart Database Diagram Diary Editorial IB Language and Literature HL 28 Electronic texts Encyclopedia entry Essay Film/television Guide book Interview Letter (formal) Letter (informal) Magazine article Manifesto Memoir News report Opinion column Parody Pastiche Photographs Radio broadcast Report Screenplay Set of instructions Song lyric Speech Textbook Travel writing **Specific texts will fluctuate with current events, media, and technology. The literary texts 1984, Zeitoun, and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and Chronicle of a Death Foretold will also be referenced with various topics. Short story “Desiree’s Baby” 2012 Presidential Campaign Speeches 2012 Presidential Campaign Debate Social Media websites Advertising Campaign (newspaper ads, web ads: GoogleAds, Facebook, etc.) Ted TV (video, blogs, texts) Visual Texts (ads, images, diagrams, websites) Interview with Zeitoun Zeitoun Foundation website (compare and contrast with news articles, media, the book, interviews) IB Language and Literature HL 29 Unit Essential Questions Objectives • Youtube videos Media about the political situation in Egypt How does language shape both individual and group identity? • How do audience and purpose affect the structure and content of texts? • How are language and meaning shaped by culture and context? • How do text, audience, and purpose interact to create meaning? Knowledge/Understanding • Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a range of texts • Demonstrate an understanding of the use of language, structure, technique and style • Demonstrate a critical understanding of the various ways in which the reader constructs meaning and of how context influences this constructed meaning • Demonstrate an understanding of how different perspectives influence the reading of a text Application/Analysis • Demonstrate an ability to choose a text type appropriate to the purpose required • Demonstrate an ability to use terminology relevant to the various text types studied • Demonstrate an ability to analyze the effects of language, structure, technique and style on the reader • Demonstrate an awareness of the ways in which the production and reception of texts contribute to their meanings • Demonstrate an ability to substantiate and justify ideas with relevant examples Synthesis/Evaluation • Demonstrate an ability to compare and contrast the formal elements, content and context of texts • Discuss the different ways in which language and image may be used in a range of texts • Demonstrate an ability to evaluate conflicting viewpoints within and about a text • Produce a critical response evaluating some aspects of text, context and meaning Presentation/Language Skills • Demonstrate an ability to express ideas clearly and with fluency in both written and oral communication • Demonstrate an ability to use the oral and written forms of the language, in a range of styles, registers and situations • Demonstrate an ability to discuss and analyze texts in a IB Language and Literature HL 30 Activities Formative Assessment Summative Assessment Expected Timeframe Unit Title Topical Outline Unit Essential focused and logical manner • Demonstrate an ability to write a balanced, comparative analysis Analyze an ad campaign or series of ads through class discussion View youtube videos and analyze in class discussion. View examples of propaganda from political or military conflicts – discuss in terms of the effect of language on power Apply discussion and analysis by creating a piece of propaganda or a print/online ad. Write a commentary on an image and its elements considering culture. Analyze the cover of a piece of literature in a class discussion or in a brief write-up. Analyze tone and structure in newspaper headlines. Creation of a media text utilizing images, accompanied by a written rationale explaining choices Visual presentation of a passage from a literary text Creation of a comic strip version of a literary text or a media text Creation of a parody using song lyrics or newsletter format, incorporating images, headlines, different fonts Creation of “highlights video” to demonstrate hooking of viewer/reading and audience bias Creation of a film trailer based on a literary text IB Assessments • Further Oral Activity (FOA) • Written Task 1 or 2 • Exam Paper 1 • Extended Essay One semester (spread throughout the year, senior year) Unit 5 – Vocabulary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. • Vocabulary words in context Word analogies Sentence completion Synonyms Antonyms Homonyms Homographs Roots, prefixes and suffixes Why is it important to understand the meaning of unknown IB Language and Literature HL 31 Questions Objectives Activities Formative Assessment Summative and multiple meaning words and phrases? • How does the use of vocabulary, especially words with multiple meanings, impact the way the audience interprets a text? • How does the knowledge of vocabulary enhance the reading, writing, and speaking experience for the audience? • How can knowledge of vocabulary in context increase the understanding of figures of speech? •Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning words and phrases based on grades 11–12 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies •Use context (e.g., the overall meaning of a sentence, paragraph, or text; a word’s position or function in a sentence) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase. •Consult general and specialized reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, thesauruses), both print and digital, to find the pronunciation of a word or determine or clarify its precise meaning, its part of speech, its etymology, or its standard usage. • Identify and correctly use patterns of word changes that indicate different meanings or parts of speech (e.g., conceive, conception, conceivable). • Verify the preliminary determination of the meaning of a word • Interpret figures of speech (e.g., hyperbole, paradox) in context and analyze their role in the text. • Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings. • Analyze nuances in the meaning of words with similar denotations. •Acquire and use accurately general academic and domainspecific words and phrases, sufficient for reading, writing, speaking, and listening at the college and career readiness level; demonstrate independence in gathering vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to comprehension or expression. Teacher-led instruction (practicing pronunciation, becoming familiar with definitions, synonyms, antonyms, sample sentences, mnemonic devices) Inclusion of vocabulary in writing and speaking Vocabulary games like Taboo, Pictionary, Memory • Vocabulary stories • Weekly unit homework • Review unit homework • Review games • Unit quizzes IB Language and Literature HL 32 Assessment Expected Timeframe Unit Title Topical Outline Unit Essential • Mastery tests • Midterm exam • Final exam Ongoing (junior and senior years) Unit 6 – Grammar 1. Parts of speech a. Nouns b. Verbs (helping/action/linking) c. Adjectives d. Adverbs e. Prepositions f. Articles g. Gerunds h. Participles i. Infinitives j. Conjunctions (coordinating/subordinating/correlative) k. Pronouns (relative/personal/demonstrative/interrogative) 2. Sentence parts a. Subject b. Verb c. Object (direct/indirect/prepositional) d. Phrases (prepositional/participial/infinitive) 3. Clauses a. Independent b. Dependent (noun/adjective/adverb) 4. Sentence types a. Simple b. Compound c. Complex d. Compound-complex 5. Mechanics (proofreading for capitalization and punctuation) a. Commas b. Semi-colon c. Period d. Question mark e. Colon f. Quotation mark g. Italics h. Capitalization 6. Sentence diagramming • Why is it important to understand the fundamental rules of IB Language and Literature HL 33 Questions Objectives Activities Formative Assessment Summative Assessment Expected Timeframe English grammar? • How does the use of Standard English improve communication in a variety of subject areas for a variety of audiences? • How does the audience determine the mode of discourse in writing and speaking? • Why is it important to understand the variable nature of English grammar for English Language Learners (ELL)? • Identify and correctly use parts of speech • Identify and correctly use sentence parts • Identify clauses and sentence types • Use a variety of clauses and sentence types in their own writing • Proofread a sentence for punctuation, grammar, and usage • Apply all of the above skills to diagram sentences • Daily Grammar Practice (DGP) completion and review (30 weeks’ worth) • SAT prep activities/problems • Additional grammar review exercises • Shakespearean DGP • Perdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) exercises • Grammar minilessons based on common weaknesses in writing • HSPA review activities • Ongoing feedback on student writing throughout the year • DGP homework review • Class discussion/Q&A • All-star DGP competitions • DGP tests • DGP quizzes • Midterm exam • Final exam • SAT writing section Ongoing (junior and senior years) IB Language and Literature HL 34 MCVSD Grade 9-12 Assessment Procedure All academies assess students in a consistent fashion with the emphasis on their ability to demonstrate proficiency of the Core Curriculum Content Standards. Any variations in grading policies will be the result of the inherent differences in the subject matter of individual disciplines. Late work The Career Academy faculties believe that all work should be handed in on time Late work has the potential to affect the overall grade in all classes if work is significantly late or not submitted. Minor assessments Credit (teacher-graded)—on time & done well Zero or partial credit (teacher discretion based on time sensitive nature of assignment)—late but done Zero—not handed in at all Grade minimums (in grade books) Retesting Major assessments Deduction of approximately 8-10% per calendar day. Note: Extenuating circumstances will be considered upon appeal to the building administrator. If work is not submitted, a grade of zero will be assigned Note: If necessary to demonstrate course proficiency, the student will still be required to submit an acceptable product. Grades will be recorded in the grade book as earned. Retesting to change the grade will not be allowed. Note: Extenuating circumstances will be considered upon appeal to the building administrator. IB Language and Literature HL 35 Class Participation Homework Extra credit Routine class participation may count 0-10% of a marking period grade. Applicability and assessment method will be determined within individual disciplines and will be included in grading policy, as needed. NOTE: The assessment method for class participation (preferably a rubric format) needs to ensure that proficiency is assessed. Homework for the purpose of preparation, practice, and/or review may count up to 10%. Note: Out of class work for the purpose of demonstrating proficiency will be categorized and given weights within disciplines and will be included in grading policy, as needed. Across the district, extra credit must be content related and should not significantly affect (0-2%) the overall grade. Monmouth County Vocational School District Guidelines for Assessment The instructors cited above have determined that the MCVSD course proficiencies and NJ State Standards for this course offering are best measured by the types of assessments detailed below: Types of Assessment Writing Tests/Projects/Presentations Quizzes Homework/Class work Approximate Weighting of Assessment Categories 35% 35% 20% 10 % Provide a sample formula or example demonstrating how a typical marking period grade will be computed. .35 x 90 (Writing) + .35 x 96 (Tests/Projects/Presentations) + .20 x 88 (Quizzes) + .10 x 100 (Homework/Class work) 31.5 33.6 17.6 10 Total 92.7 (marking period grade) Describe procedure employed in dealing with late work, incomplete work and opportunities for extra credit (if any). • • • Long-term assignments will have a deduction of 8% per calendar day. Overnight assignments may be given some credit at the teacher’s discretion. Work not submitted will receive a zero. IB Language and Literature HL 36 • Extra credit must be content related and not significantly affect (0-2%) the overall grade. IB Language and Literature HL 37 ...

0 Thoughts to “English B Hl Written Assignment Rationale Pronunciation

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *