​Potential benefits

Having searched high and low and I couldn’t locate much credible research evidence on the benefits of choral repetition. Here is what I found:

1.1 Pronunciation Improvement:

Engaging in choral repetition has been shown to enhance learners’ pronunciation skills in a handful of studies. A study by Trofimovich and Gatbonton (2006) demonstrated that repetition can lead to improved pronunciation accuracy – this resonates with my experience. They found that learners became more sensitive to phonological information through repeated exposure to the target words, suggesting that repetition aids in pronunciation development. Furthermore, Shao, Saito, and Tierney (2022) found that robust auditory-motor integration plays a crucial role in acquiring advanced-level L2 pronunciation proficiency, suggesting that choral repetition can significantly improve pronunciation accuracy. Another study conducted by Poejilestari (2018) investigated the effectiveness of using choral drill techniques to improve students’ English pronunciation. The research, carried out at SMK Karya Bahana Mandiri Bekasi, Indonesia, found that the practice had a significant enhancing effect on pronunciation as well as on the students’ participation and motivation.

1.2 Enhanced Phonological Memory:

​While direct research on choral repetition specifically strengthening phonological working memory is limited, several studies suggest that vocal practice and repetition can positively influence this cognitive function. For instance, a longitudinal study investigated the effects of vocal practice on phonological working memory in children. The findings indicated that engaging in vocal exercises improved the children’s ability to retain and manipulate speech sounds, suggesting a positive impact on their phonological working memory (Portnoy et al, 2010)

Morevore, choral repetition encourages students to vocalize words, facilitating their entry into the phonological loop—a component of working memory responsible for storing and rehearsing verbal information. This process aids in the retention and recall of new vocabulary. ​

Finally, an fMRI study examines the influence of verbal repetition and imitation on network configuration during second language word learning. The results indicate that repetition and imitation can enhance neural integration within language networks (through Phonological Memory), suggesting that these techniques may improve language learning efficiency and learner motivation.

1.3 Increased Learner Engagement:

Incorporating choral repetition through into lessons may elevate student participation and motivation according to handful of studies. The collective nature of the activity may foster a sense of community and encourages learners to actively engage with the material. Schnabel et al (2024) found increased engagement by involving learners in choir practice in the target language. This finding echoes similar findings by Cardoso et Li (2023) who found that singing in a language-responsive choir can encourage productive second language use and enhance listening skills. These two studies’ findings suggest that integrating language learning with choir practice not only improves pronunciation but also increases student engagement and motivation.

Caveat: choral repetition, like anything else, can be made into a fun activity, but it can also be boring (see point 2.4 below).

1.4 Development of Auditory Discrimination Skills:

Choral repetition aids in refining learners’ ability to distinguish subtle differences in sounds, which is essential for accurate pronunciation and listening comprehension. This practice enhances their overall auditory discrimination capabilities. ​The same study quoted above by Schnabel et al (2024) evidences marked improvements in their subjects in this crucial area of L2 acquisition.

1.5 Facilitation of Automaticity:

Regular practice through choral repetition can lead to automaticity in language production, allowing learners to use common phrases and structures more fluently without conscious effort. This automaticity is vital for achieving conversational fluency. ​Big caveat, however: it can also lead to automatizing errors!

2. Potential drawbacks

While choral repetition may potentially offer the above benefits, language educators should be mindful of its potential drawbacks, which I have observed in my own teaching practice and in numerous lessons observations:

2.1 Passive Participation:

Students may appear engaged during choral repetition but might not be actively participating. This passive involvement can limit individual learning outcomes.

2.2 Fossilization of error and limited Individual Corrective Feedback:

The collective nature of choral repetition makes it challenging for instructors to identify and correct individual errors. If the same error goes unheeded and untreated several times over, this is likely to lead to its fossilization (irremediable entrenchment). Hence, the practice of repeating a new lexical item containing challenging sounds, that have not yet been acquired immediately, after a teacher can have harmful consequences.

Errors are not uncommon as some of your students will not hear the sound as you

2.3 Lack of Authentic Communication:

Choral repetition focuses on mimicking language patterns rather than promoting spontaneous language use, which may not effectively prepare learners for communication under real operating conditions (e.g. in a spontaneous conversation or an oral assessment).

2.4 Potential for Boredom:

Repetitive choral activities can lead to student disengagement if not varied or contextualized, reducing their effectiveness. ​Unless gamified, choral repetition can quite boring. Activities like ‘Ghost reading’, ‘Orchestra Director’ or ‘Disappearing text’ can be a fun way to make choral repetition more fun.

2.5 Overemphasis on Accuracy:

Focusing heavily on precise repetition can create anxiety among learners, potentially hindering fluency development.​

Conclusion

Choral repetition remains a double-edged pedagogical tool.
Used imaginatively and alongside opportunities for spontaneous communication, it can sharpen pronunciation, strengthen phonological memory, and build classroom cohesion.
Used mechanically, it risks boredom, fossilised errors and a narrow focus on accuracy at the expense of fluency.
As always in language teaching, the difference lies less in the method itself than in the quality of its design and the skill of the teacher who employs it.

Introduction

When beginner and intermediate students tell us that listening in the target language feels like “a blur of sound,” they are not exaggerating. Research has long shown that one of the biggest hurdles for developing listeners is simply recognising where one word ends and the next begins. In written text, boundaries are clear: spaces mark word separation. In speech, however, the listener must rely on phonological, prosodic, and contextual cues. For second language learners, this is a minefield.

The Illusion of “No Gaps”

Native speakers perceive words effortlessly, but not because speech offers obvious gaps. In fact, continuous speech is acoustically seamless. Cutler and Butterfield (1992) demonstrated that in English, there are almost no reliable pauses between words. Learners must infer boundaries based on cues such as stress, rhythm, and coarticulation patterns.

For beginners, these cues are unfamiliar. Goh (2000) found that novice learners often described speech as “one long word,” unable to separate even familiar lexical items. This is not a vocabulary issue per se; it is a segmentation problem. Even when students “know” the word, they cannot recognise it in connected speech.

Why Beginners Struggle More

Several factors converge to make word-boundary recognition especially difficult for beginner-to-intermediate learners:

1. Coarticulation and Reduction – fluent speech erases clear markers through assimilation and weak forms (going to → gonna). (Field, 2008)
2. Different Prosodic Systems – segmentation cues differ across languages; L1 prosody often misleads learners (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012).
3. Cognitive Overload – beginners’ working memory collapses under the strain of decoding + boundary detection simultaneously.
4. Lexical Knowledge Thresholds – below ~95% coverage, learners cannot use top-down knowledge to assist segmentation (Stæhr, 2009).
5. Lack of Strategy Awareness – learners often listen passively, without techniques to catch boundaries (Graham, 2006).

What This Means for Teachers

Segmentation must be taught explicitly. Below are eight activities (from the many included in our 2019 book, Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching learners how to listen) that target boundary recognition directly, each with a pedagogical rationale grounded in research.

1. Word Count Listening (Field, 2008)

Learners hear a short sentence (4–8 words). Their task is to guess how many words they heard.

Rationale: Trains attention to prosodic cues (stress, pauses, rhythm) rather than meaning. Field (2008) notes that even when learners cannot recognise words, they can begin to “hear” boundaries as units of rhythm, building sensitivity to segmentation patterns.

2. Chunk Dictation (Micro-Dictogloss) (Field, 2008)

Learners transcribe only short bursts (3–5 words), not whole passages.

Rationale: By focusing on micro-chunks, learners sharpen their bottom-up decoding skills. Goh (2000) showed that reconstructing short phrases helps learners perceive coarticulated forms and trains the phonological loop of working memory without overwhelming it.

3. Spot the Intruder (Conti and Smith, 2019)

Learners see a transcript with an extra word not in the recording. They must detect and cross out the “intruder.”

Rationale: Forces learners to synchronise sound with text, noticing what is not there. This builds precision and discourages over-reliance on top-down guessing. It cultivates a match-mismatch awareness central to Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis.

4. Spot the Missing Word (Conti and Smith, 2019)

The transcript omits a word that is in the recording. Learners listen and fill in the blank.

Rationale: Trains learners to notice weak and unstressed words (e.g. at, of, to) that often vanish in connected speech. Research shows that learners tend to skip function words (Field, 2008). This task makes those invisible boundaries audible.

5. Break the Flow (Conti and Smith, 2019)

Learners are given transcripts where common reductions (gonna, wanna, lemme) appear. They listen and identify them in fluent speech.

Rationale: Cauldwell (2013) calls this exposing learners to the “messy” reality of authentic input. Learners realise that “known” words do not always sound like their dictionary form. This training helps them map phonological variants to mental lexicon entries and forces them to track segmentation in speech that does not align with orthographic expectations.

6. Formulaic Sequence Training (Wray, 2002)

Learners practise listening for and repeating chunks such as at the end of the, il y a, ¿qué tal?.

Rationale: Wray (2002) shows that processing formulaic sequences as units reduces cognitive load and supports segmentation. Learners “hear” a whole chunk rather than trying to cut it into individual words, which is how natives process speech fluently.

7. Write It As You Hear It (Vandergrift, 2007)

Learners write down a sentence exactly as they perceive it on first hearing, even if spelling or segmentation is wrong. Then they compare their version to the correct transcript.

Rationale: This activity externalises the learner’s perceptual errors — they see where they failed to hear a boundary (e.g. writing “Idontknow” instead of “I don’t know”). Vandergrift (2007) argues that reflecting on listening processes is as important as practice itself; here, the mismatch fosters awareness of weak points in segmentation.

8. Guess what comes next (Conti & Smith, 2019)

The teacher pauses the recording just before a likely word boundary. Learners predict the next word or phrase, then listen to confirm.

Rationale: This combines bottom-up segmentation with anticipatory processing. Learners practise recognising where one unit ends while also engaging top-down knowledge to guess what might follow. Vandergrift & Goh (2012) highlight this as a way to integrate segmentation skills with prediction, two core processes of fluent listening.

9. Using Sentence Builders Orally

Sentence builders, when used orally rather than purely visually, offer an additional route into segmentation training. Typically, teachers use them to scaffold speaking and writing, but they can be equally effective in developing listening, especially at the beginner and intermediate stages.

Why it helps:

1. Controlled, high-frequency input – Sentence builders recycle a limited set of words and structures. Hearing these in oral practice exposes learners repeatedly to the same lexical items in connected speech, helping them recognise recurring word boundaries more reliably.
2. Clear-to-blurred progression – In the early stages, teachers articulate model sentences slowly and clearly from the builder. Gradually, speed and natural reductions can be introduced, mirroring how authentic listening becomes less “coursebook-like” over time.
3. Form-meaning mapping in context – Because sentence builders generate meaningful sentences, learners don’t just hear isolated words but see how boundaries work within authentic syntax.
4. Dual coding of visual and aural channels – When sentence builders are projected while the teacher models orally, learners receive visual segmentation cues (the spaces and blocks on the builder) aligned with the aural stream.
5. From scaffold to autonomy – Oral sentence builder work eventually transitions into learners generating their own sentences at speed, but only once perception has stabilised.

Example classroom flow (beginner-safe):

1. The teacher models 5–6 sentences (one at a time, slowly) from the sentence builder while the students write their meanings on their mini whiteboards.
2. Then, the teacher rereads each sentence omitting a word each time (Spot the Missing Detail).
3. Next, the teacher starts each sentence but pauses halfway through to play Pause and Predict.
4. Now, the sentence builder is removed and a Break the Flow activity is played, forcing learners to catch boundaries without visual scaffolding.
5. Finally, a delayed dictation can be staged, consolidating perception and reinforcing segmentation.

This flow avoids pushing learners into premature choral repetition. Instead, it treats the sentence builder primarily as a listening scaffold, gradually training learners to segment and notice before any attempt at oral production.

Table 1 – Suggested Segmentation-focused activities

Activity	Targeted Skill	Why It Works (Pedagogical Rationale)
1. Word Count Listening	Sensitivity to prosodic boundaries	Forces learners to attend to rhythm, stress, and segmentation cues instead of meaning.
2. Chunk Dictation (Micro-Dictogloss)	Short-span segmentation	Focuses on short bursts, helping learners process coarticulation without overload.
3. Spot the Intruder	Sound–text synchronisation	Noticing mismatches sharpens segmentation and discourages top-down guessing.
4. Spot the Missing Word	Detecting weak/unstressed words	Trains learners to notice reduced function words that often disappear in connected speech.
5. Break the Flow	Recognition of reduced forms	Confronts learners with “messy” authentic reductions and builds tolerance for non-dictionary pronunciations.
6. Formulaic Sequence Training	Chunk-based processing	Reduces cognitive load: learners hear multi-word units rather than isolated words.
7. Write It As You Hear It	Awareness of segmentation errors	Makes learners’ misperceptions visible, supporting reflection and correction.
8. Pause and Predict	Anticipatory segmentation	Combines bottom-up boundary recognition with top-down prediction.
9. Oral Sentence Builder Work	Scaffolded segmentation in context	Provides high-frequency, visually scaffolded input before free listening; aligns visual and aural cues.

Conclusion

For beginner-to-intermediate learners, listening is not only about vocabulary or grammar. It is also about learning to hear the spaces that aren’t really there. The difficulty of word-boundary recognition lies at the intersection of phonology, prosody, and cognitive load.

If teachers systematically target this skill — through word-count listening, micro-dictogloss, intruder/missing word spotting, Break the Flow training, formulaic chunk practice, write-it-as-you-hear-it diagnostics, pause-and-predict drills, and oral sentence builder work — learners begin to perceive the rhythm and segmentation cues that natives take for granted.

As Field (2008) reminds us, listening should be taught, not tested. And for many learners, that teaching begins not with comprehension questions, but with training the ear to hear where one word ends and the next begins.

References

• Cauldwell, R. (2013). Phonology for Listening: Teaching the Stream of Speech. Birmingham: Speech in Action.
• Conti, G., & Smith, S. (2019). Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Learners How to Listen. London: Independently Published.
• Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2), 218–236.
• Field, J. (2008). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55–75.
• Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34(2), 165–182.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
• Stæhr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 577–607.
• Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40(3), 191–210.
• Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition in Action. New York: Routledge.
• Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.