As We Speak (SPLIS)

SPLIS News, Volume 2:1 (December 2004)

by User Not Found | 11/03/2011
In This Issue...
  • Leadership Updates
    • Message From the Chair
    • Letter From the Editor
    • In Memoriam: William C. Crawford
  • Articles and Information
    • Documenting Prosodic Acquisition Using the Mirroring Project
    • Choosing a Film Clip for the Mirroring Project
    • Mirroring Project Rubric: Cold Version
    • Steps to Mirroring
    • Mirroring Project Rubric Final Version
    • Using a Bar Graph to Chart Students' Improvement
    • Postscript: Using the Mirroring Project
  • Convention Updates
    • TESOL 2005: The SPLIS Interest Section
  • About This Community
    • Call for Submissions
    • About SPLIS
Leadership Updates Message From the Chair

By John Levis, e-mail: jlevis@iastate.edu.

Last year at the TESOL Annual Convention in Long Beach, a long overdue change in our interest section (IS) was proposed and approved. The Speech and Pronunciation Interest Section (SPIS) of TESOL became the Speech, Pronunciation, and Listening Interest Section. Thus we are now known by the acronym SPLIS. The only word in English that I have found with the same phonemes in the same order is explicit. I’m still not sure we should trust any acronym that has to hide behind a prefix, especially the prefix ex-, which suggests the opposite of what we want to communicate.

SPLIS, however, is now officially in our bylaws and in the official documents of TESOL. The name will probably remain until TESOL mandates that interest sections become honorary societies, at which point we may become SPLISH. The union of listening with speech and pronunciation was an obvious move, one that has long been recognized as logical. The change also reflects what we really care about in the IS, because it is not possible to teach speaking or pronunciation without addressing listening. This recognition means that we hope to see more conference presentations and sessions exploring how to best integrate these skills. All three areas are essential to oral communication. Combining the three can only strengthen the emphases that each deserves in the teaching of English. But it seems to me that in the desire to expand the focus of the IS, we have missed a golden opportunity to name the IS more creatively.

We could have called ourselves SLIPS, for example. Many teachers feel a bit squeamish about correcting student errors, and SLIPS has a much less threatening sound, hinting that the difficulties in spoken English can be fixed if the learner just pays a bit more attention and tries again. It also allows us to claim a connection to an important area of inquiry in psycholinguistics—slips of the tongue—so that student mistakes take on the clever character of spoonerisms or other tricks of the tongue.

Or we could have called our interest section PILS. This evokes a medical metaphor and raises our status to the level of expert medical personnel. After all, we diagnose difficulties, take patient histories, and prescribe treatments for perfect health in accent, listening, and speaking health. And any professional lift is always welcome, as our expert status is regularly questioned by well-intentioned outsiders. But PILS seems a bit negative. After all, we also call unpleasant and complaining people pills. Some of our colleagues in the other ISs may even begin calling us the pills. (Indeed, I would not be surprised if some of them already have called us that!)

Perhaps we could have called ourselves LISP. This has an immediate advantage of being memorable. LISP could stand for Listeners Interested in Speech and Pronunciation. But lisping is rarely seen in a positive light, and detractors could say that it really stands for Little Interest in Speech and Pronunciation. And as lisping is a problem that really deals with speech and pronunciation, we risk leaving out the listening experts again. Clearly, LISP, though memorable, is fraught with disadvantages.

Another possible acronym is LIPS, which has few of the downsides of LISP, with all of the advantages of being memorable and fitting at least two thirds of the emphases of the IS. The listening folks among us would be left out of the image, it is true, but most of us (even the listening experts) like to talk more than we like to listen.

We look forward to your joining us at San Antonio. The SPLIS program includes relatively equal numbers of sessions targeting speech, pronunciation, and listening, as well as our academic session on accent and identity and a Hot Topics session on research in pronunciation.

John
2004-2005 Chair, SPLIS

John M. Levis is an assistant professor of English in the Department of English, TESL/Applied Linguistics,at Iowa State University. He is 2004-2005 chair of SPLIS and guest editor for TESOL Quarterly. His research interests lie in the roles and uses of intonation, stress, and rhythm.


Letter From the Editor

By Paula W. Baird, e-mail: pbaird@txcc.commnet.edu.

I had an interesting conversation at a college-wide meeting last spring. I was sitting at the table with colleagues from some of the other community colleges in my area. The woman to my left and I introduced ourselves. We shared names, teaching position, and so forth. It turned out that she was currently a counselor in her system, but she had, at one point, worked as a speech and hearing specialist. I found this interesting as I frequently tutor students in pronunciation. We talked shop for a few minutes. We quickly moved to useful teaching techniques designed to assist improvement in stress and intonation. At that point, she shared an interesting anecdote with me.

She had worked for some time with a female student. This student had had great problems building appropriate stress and intonation patterns for American English. Even though she worked with the student for several months, she felt like the student had not made much progress. Her work with the student ended at the point that the student began an internship in a daycare center. The therapist did not see the student for about six months. However, the next time she saw the student, she was amazed at the student's progress. The student had lost almost all of the problematic intonation patterns that they had worked on. Her conclusion: The student's modeling of young children at the daycare center became a bridge to self-correction.

I tucked this anecdote away. When I read the first draft of "The Mirroring Project," I thought of it again. Here was a technique that replicated, for the most part, that student's experience. "The Mirroring Project" is a featured article in the current SPLIS Newsletter. Also included are the ancillary handouts. Thus, teachers interested in the trying this technique or refining a similar technique that they already use will have all the tools necessary for implementation. I hope that you find it as interesting as I did.

Paula


In Memoriam: William C. Crawford

By Beverly Fried Goetz, e-mail: englpc@earthlink.net, Past Cochair, SPLIS, English Performance Consultants.

Our field suffered a great loss with the passing away of William C. Crawford, in March 2004, of cancer. Bill was a champion of applied linguistics and the teaching of pronunciation.

I first met Bill when he came to the University of Michigan to complete his graduate studies in theoretical and applied linguistics. He focused on prosodics—especially the teaching and learning of suprasegmental features in English. He studied under notable figures in the field, such as H. Joan Morley, Kenneth L. Pike, Ian Catford, and H. Douglas Brown. At Michigan, he taught at the English Language Institute for six years where he gained great respect from his colleagues and formed friendships that lasted throughout his life. Crawford moved on to Georgetown University in 1979, where his latest position was senior instructor at the Center for Language and Education.

For more than 25 years, Crawford was an active TESOL participant, delivering dozens of presentations. He authored more than 50 academic publications in the field. He is perhaps best known for his work as pronunciation consultant for the first edition of the Longman Dictionary of American English which was the first of the modern learner dictionaries to use a modified international phonestic alphabet for phonetic representation. His most recent publication was a review of Connected Speech (by Protea and Sandra Browne) which appeared in the Speech/Pronunciation Interest Section (SPRIS) Newsletter. His recent interests were in the area of integrating pronunciation skills across diverse ESL curricula; at TESOL 2003, he hosted a panel presentation entitled “Integrating Pronunciation across the Primary, Secondary, and IEP Curricula.”

Those of us who were friends and colleagues of Bill will always remember a grand person, a creative, caring and beloved teacher, and an articulate spokesperson for our field.



Articles and Information Documenting Prosodic Acquisition Using the Mirroring Project

By Monica Monk, e-mail: mmonk@greenriver.edu, and Colleen Meyers, e-mail: meyer002@umn.edu.

Note: Jeff Lindgren (e-mail: lindg027@umn.edu) also participated in developing the project described below.

Introduction

The Mirroring Project (MP) is a flexible, modular pronunciation project for teachers who primarily work with nonnative speakers of English (NNSs). Using the MP, teachers will engage students' investment in their own progress. Students will also learn self-assessment skills. The MP integrates entertaining, student-generated materials with self- and peer review as part of pronunciation instruction. Using the MP accomplishes three goals:

  • Relieves teachers of some of the burden of providing feedback to students
  • Enlivens instruction by allowing students to take charge of their own learning
  • Provides students with video and audio evidence of progress

An additional advantage of the MP is its flexibility. Teachers can adapt the MP to varied levels, student populations, and class sizes.

Implementing the Mirroring Project Step 1: Selecting a Subject/Segment of Speech

Students view an example of a final mirroring project. They first view a segment or clip from a film or TV program. Then, they watch a video of a nonnative speaker/student mirroring the same scene.

Next, students choose their own subject (actress or actor) to mirror on the basis of feel. Linguistic features should not be the criteria for selection. Students may be given a checklist to help them choose an appropriate subject. For example, an NNS who speaks quickly may choose someone who pauses effectively. Students may also be given a set of scenes to choose from (or scenes to avoid). Once their mirroring scenes are selected, they complete the handout in which they defend their choices (See Choices Handout, also in this issue).

Step 2: Cold Version Performance and Analysis

This stage is very important. Students imitate the scenes before analyzing the speech in the scene. They may transcribe the scene or get a transcription from the Internet. Students practice their scene as much as they wish; then they are videotaped mirroring their scene. Last, they view their performance. The surprise of hearing new prosodic features in their speech for the first time often motivates students to practice with these features further. While viewing their performance, they rate themselves using the Cold Version rubric (See Cold Version Rubric, also in this issue).

The students' goal here is to detect patterns in their speech that interfere with intelligibility. Toward that end, they perform two tasks:

  • They prioritize the areas they feel interfere most with intelligibility.
  • They identify strategies that will help them. For example, they may choose to slow down or enunciate more clearly.

The following quote is a female Chinese graduate student's response to this stage:

I found focusing on some words in pronunciation was so important...Even in China, I used to speak words using the same speed and always very fast. Sometimes others asked me to repeat. Sometimes others just misunderstood me. After coming here, once I spoke quickly, others always showed an expression of lost and asked me "what are you saying?" Now I got the reason for that. I did not focus on the important information in my speaking.

Step 3: Analyzing Speech

Students are trained to describe and transcribe the speech in a video selection. When working with a film scene, students first view the scene without sound. The goal is to discuss nonverbal behavior. Then they view the scene with sound and focus on the following features of speech:

  • Tone of voice
  • Level of formality (inferring speakers' relationships)
  • Prosody (speed, pitch variation, vowel length, volume, and pausing)
  • Changes that occur in the scene, such as volume changes
  • Factors that might contribute to those changes

As an extension activity, students follow the same process at home with their own video outtake.

Below is a female Chinese graduate student's response to this activity:

I always think I am shy and used to escape the eyesight communication with others when talking. Lana used her eye communication to express all her complex feelings successfully. It was an important hint for me to use eyesight...I think it can do me good later.

Step 4: Practicing

First students learn the steps to mirroring (see Steps to Mirroring Handout, also in this issue).Then students must practice, practice, and practice. Memorization or near-memorization allows the MP to become more than just a read-aloud task. At this point, when the students are familiar with the script, teachers should emphasize two higher levels of awareness:

  • Textual interpretation: Students should understand and emulate the subject's emotions, not just language.
  • Audience awareness: If students are doing a dialogue, they should keep in mind the relationship between characters.

Once in character, students can begin to incorporate speech and character. Teachers should instill the notion of layering. Students start with a read/look up/say approach, add body language, and then memorize.

Step 5: Final Performance, Self-Assessment, and Evaluation

Students do a final videotaped performance. The final outtake is used for evaluation. Students evaluate their performance using the Final Version rubric (See Final Version Rubric). They respond to two questions:

  • Which strategies were effective?
  • What areas need further work?

Using a bar graph is one way to show class progress. It is useful for the teacher to measure the progress gained by the class as a whole. When shared with students, it also gives them a visual measure of their progress (See Using Bar Graph, also in this issue).

A female Taiwanese community college student responded to this step in the following way:

Some words, I couldn't control the feeling, so my intonation didn't do it well... Sometimes, I didn't attention on the end of symbol: "s" or "ed." Moreover, it still hard for me to distinguish the [d], [th] and [TH] [sic] in my pronunciation. I should round my mouth more.

Flexibility: Adapting the MP to Various Settings

The MP has been used successfully in the following settings:

  • International teaching assistant courses
  • Community colleges (continuing education courses for students in mid-career and academic courses)
  • Intensive English programs (beginning to advanced levels)
Student/Teacher Testimonials

Students' and teachers' responses to the MP have been very positive. Below are several examples of their responses.

  • "It help me a lot in intonation. It stimulate my interest to learn English again." Xuejun, China, Chemistry
  • "I can feel English rhythm now, not just understand it." Seung Yeun, Korea, Chemistry
  • "It was truly incredible...they improved right before our eyes!! They got the connection between pronunciation, personality, and acting..." Allison Petro, University of Rhode Island
For Further Information

Clennel, C. (1996). "Promoting the role of English prosody in a discourse-based approach to oral interaction." Prospect, 11(3), 17-28.

Pickering, L. (2001). "The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom." TESOL Quarterly, 35, 233-255.

Colleen Meyers does international teaching assistant (ITA) development through the Center for Teaching & Learning Services at the University of Minnesota. She has coauthored textbooks for ITA development as well as pronunciation teaching, including Communicate: Strategies for International Teaching Assistants andPronunciation for Success. She taught several years in Spain.

Monica Monk has been teaching ESL, English composition, and foreign language since 1993. She holds an MA in German literature and an MA in teaching ESL. She teaches at Green River Community College in Auburn, Washington.

Jeff Lindgren is an instructor in the International Teaching Assistant Program at the University of Minnesota. He has an MA in teaching ESL and taught English in China for four years.


Choosing a Film Clip for the Mirroring Project Appropriate Choices Word Stress
  • Julia Roberts inErin Brockovich, the "numbers" scene
  • Roxanne, the bar scene
Question Intonation
  • Roxanne, Steve Martin and Daryl Hannah in the hiking scene
  • Tuesdays With Morrie, Jack Lemmon and Hank Azaria, Mitch and Morrie's first meeting at Morrie's home
  • Meg Ryan in almost anything
Phrasing/Primary Stress
  • "I Have a Dream"speech, Dr. Martin Luther King
  • Independence Day, President's speech
Vowel Length
  • Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks, childhood scenes
  • I Am Sam,Sean Penn, Sam's courtroom scene
  • Spiderman, car scene in which the uncle is giving advice
  • The Matrix, scene in which Agent is interrogating the human
Tone
  • Roxanne, Steve Martin inthe bar scene
  • Robin Williams in almost anything
Enunciation/Key Word Stress
  • Martha Stewart (for key word stress, enunciation, and explanation)
  • News/news magazine broadcasters (Dr. Phil, Diane Sawyer, Peter Jennings)
Discourse Functions Persuasion
  • Presidential or vice-presidential debates (Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Dole)
  • Patch Adams, Robin Williams in the court scene
  • The Family Man, Nicolas Cage in the airport final scene
Explanation
  • Martha Stewart
  • LeVar Burton, host of Reading Rainbow
Turn-Taking
  • When Harry Met Sally, restaurant scene
  • Sister Act, Whoopie Goldberg, planning scene
Inappropriate Choices
  • Too fast: Monica or Rachel on Friends
  • Mumbling: Mel Gibson
  • Scenes with overlap: Saving Private Ryan
  • Strong dialect: Of Mice & Men
  • Cartoon: Bart Simpson (no one really talks like that!)
  • Different gender/different century: Little Women, Anne of Green Gables
  • Monotone: Terminator
Checklist for Scene Choice
  • Dialect (not too strong)
  • Accent? e.g., Jackie Chan
  • Speed
  • Turn-taking or monologue
  • Appropriate discourse function
  • Real person/real situation (not cartoon or soap)
  • Gender? (Make this choice for a reason)
  • Adequate or even exaggerated enunciation (Julia Roberts, newscasters)
  • Scene elicits a prosodic feature that the teacher wants to emphasize

Mirroring Project Rubric: Cold Version

Mirroring Project Total Points: __
Name: _______________________________________

Supports meaning

Distracts slightly from meaning

Distracts significantly from meaning

Impedes meaning

3

2

1

0

Rhythm

Word stress, sentence stress, pausing, intonation, speed were almost always accurate

Word stress, sentence stress, pausing, intonation, speed were usually accurate

Word stress, sentence stress, pausing, intonation, speed were sometimes accurate

Word stress, sentence stress, pausing, intonation, speed were rarely accurate

3

2

1

0

Voice

Volume almost always matched the original recording

Volume usually matched the original recording

Speech too quiet or too loud but didn't interfere with comprehensibility

Speech too quiet or too loud so that it interfered with overall comprehensibility

3

2

1

0

Articulation

Consonant and vowels were articulated according to course training; individual vowel and consonant sounds matched original perfectly

Some words unclear but did not interfere with overall comprehensibility; individual vowel and consonant sounds mostly matched original

Several words unclear so that overall comprehensibility was affected; many individual vowel and consonant sounds were different from the original

Lack of articulation so that speech sounded unclear close to half of the time

3

2

1

0

Nonverbal Expression

Facial expression and body language match original and flowed together with the speech

Only one form of expression (facial or body language) was present; flowed with the speech

Only one form of expression (facial or body language) was present; didn't flow with the speech

Facial expression and body language did not match original and did not flow with the speech

3

2

1

0

Presentation

Transcript was memorized; context of speech was clear

Transcript was not memorized but was effectively read with eye contact; context was clear

Transcript was not memorized and was obviously being read from a script in a way that interfered with the message; context may or may not have been clear

Transcript was not memorized and was obviously being read from a script in a way that interfered with the message; context was not clear

  1. Priority. Look over the areas you identified as being weak. What do you need to work on the most? What will you work on first?

  2. 2. Strategies. How will you improve in this area?


Steps to Mirroring

Today, you will prepare for your Mirroring Project. You will work with a partner and complete the following steps.

Preparation Step 1: Attitude

Think about the person's attitude during the scene. Does it change? If so, how? How would you describe it? (dynamic/static; angry/happy; in love/hateful, etc.)

Try to put yourself in that kind of situation. For example, imagine a time when you were really angry at someone.

Step 2: Audience

Think about the audience. Is this a formal scene or an informal scene?

Whom are you speaking to? Friends? Colleagues? Students? Poor people? Highly educated people? Your enemies?

As you practice, keep your audience in mind.

Practice Step 1: Read, Look Up, & Say

Read your script phrase by phrase. Focus on the music (stress, pausing, and intonation) of English.

Step 2: Body Language

Now, add body language to help yourself feel the character and his/her way of speaking.

Step 3: Memorize

Try to remember the key words (stressed words), which will help you remember the rest of the script.


Mirroring Project Rubric Final Version

Mirroring Project Total Points: ___
Name: _______________________________________

Supports meaning

Distracts slightly from meaning

Distracts significantly from meaning

Impedes meaning

3

2

1

0

Rhythm

Word stress, sentence stress, pausing, intonation, speed were almost always accurate

Word stress, sentence stress, pausing, intonation, speed were usually accurate

Word stress, sentence stress, pausing, intonation, speed were sometimes accurate

Word stress, sentence stress, pausing, intonation, speed were rarely accurate

3

2

1

0

Voice

Volume almost always matched the original recording

Volume usually matched the original recording

Speech too quiet or too loud but didn't interfere with comprehensibility

Speech too quiet or too loud so that it interfered with overall comprehensibility

3

2

1

0

Articulation

Consonant and vowels were articulated according to course training; individual vowel and consonant sounds matched original perfectly

Some words unclear but did not interfere with overall comprehensibility; individual vowel and consonant sounds mostly matched original

Several words unclear so that overall comprehensibility was affected; many individual vowel and consonant sounds were different from the original

Lack of articulation so that speech sounded unclear close to half of the time

3

2

1

0

Nonverbal Expression

Facial expression and body language matched original and flowed together with the speech

Only one form of expression (facial or body language) was present; flowed with the speech

Only one form of expression (facial or body language) was present; didn't flow with the speech

Facial expression and body language did not match original and did not flow with the speech

3

2

1

0

Presentation

Transcript was memorized; context of speech was clear

Transcript was not memorized but was effectively read with eye contact; context was clear

Transcript was not memorized and was obviously being read from a script in a way that interfered with the message; context may or may not have been clear

Transcript was not memorized and was obviously being read from a script in a way that interfered with the message; context was not clear

  1. Improvement. Have you made any improvement in the areas you prioritized? Which strategies helped you the most?
  2. Future Work. What area(s) do you still need to continue working on? How will you do so?

Using a Bar Graph to Chart Students' Improvement

Below is a bar graph of the progress from the first taping to the final taping for eight students. It demonstrates the type of progress that can be made using this technique in just a short period of time. When shared with students, it gives them a visual measure of their progress.

Sample Chart of Mirroring Project Improvement.


Postscript: Using the Mirroring Project

By Paula Baird, e-mail: pbaird@txcc.commnet.edu.

I decided to try a mini-version of the mirroring project in a nontraditional pronunciation class that I teach. The students in this class are state employees who are nonnative speakers of English. Class runs on three consecutive Fridays. Instead of going to work, students come to my class. They come armed with real questions about what is not working for them. They know when they have a problem that interferes with comprehension.

My goal is to give them as much information and as many tools as possible. Students must be able to continue to work on their pronunciation after our class is over. Our time is too short to take more than baby steps toward permanent improvement. The group is usually quite small; this semester I had six students. I decided to try a mini-mirroring activity. I did not have time to implement this technique fully. This semester, my students were all women, so I picked a Julia Roberts film. The students helped to choose a short section of the movie to mirror in the first class. They worked together to transcribe the section. They watched the film clip and tried to mirror the speech in the film. We worked with mirroring that section of the movie in each of the next two classes.

Results

After only three short sessions using the tape, I found the students were more open to using expanded voice range and intonation. In the clip, Julia varied her rate of speech, going faster or slower for emphasis and effect. This was much harder to model in a short period of time. Also, the class picked a segment in which Julia Roberts was sitting down. This factor made it harder to work on whole body language. Emphasis and emotion were visible only through her facial expressions, which were harder to model.

Evaluation

I thought the technique valuable even in the short run. The next time I will be more careful to preselect two or three clips that students can choose from. These will include the actors standing up for at least a portion of the tape. I will sacrifice practice time mirroring for time reviewing the videotapes. There is no substitute for the value of students’ comparing their speech and body language with the original.

Paula is coordinator of ESL and foreign languages at Tunxis Community College in Farmington, Connecticut. She primarily teaches nonnative students learning English. She has worked in both university and the community college settings. She also tutors pronunciation for medical residents who are also nonnative speakers through the Consortium for Continuing Education, which supports the academic needs of medical residents at the University of Connecticut Medical School, Farmington, Connecticut.



Convention Updates TESOL 2005: The SPLIS Interest Section

TESOL 2005 is just around the corner. The 39th Annual Convention runs from March 30 to April 2, 2005. SPLIS always has interesting program offerings at TESOL that range from discussion groups to demonstration of techniques to academic and research issues.

Join other SPLIS member at the following convention functions:

  • Program sessions relating to a range of issues dealing with the instruction of and research in speech, pronunciation, and listening
  • SPLIS booth with scheduled visits from our resident panel of experts to field questions for the experts
  • Networking reception
  • Business meeting

When the convention week gets closer, SPLIS will be looking for volunteers to help man the booth. It is a fun way to get to talk to other SPLIS member as well as other members of TESOL. You also get to sit down for a few minutes, so keep this in mind. See you in San Antonio.



About This Community Call for Submissions

Have you used a new textbook in your class? Have you read an interesting book that relates in some way to speaking, pronunciation, or listening? If so, please consider writing a review or a summary for our membership.

Are you working on an interesting paper? Have you developed a new teaching technique? Have you done research within the theory of language acquisition that relates to speech, pronunciation, or listening? Add a publication to your academic resume by submitting an article for the spring newsletter.

February 1, 2005, is the deadline for submission. The newsletter must be out and about before the annual conference at the end of March. But don't wait! Contact the SPLIS Newsletter editor now at pbaird@txcc.commnet.edu if you have something in mind.


About SPLIS Speech, Pronunciation, and Listening Interest Section (SPLIS)

TESOL's Speech, Pronunciation, and Listening Interest Section (SPLIS) provides an exchange of ideas, information and expertise on teaching techniques and research in pronunciation, speaking, and listening comprehension as well as the integration of these skills with other areas of oral/aural language use and non-verbal communication; develops awareness in the TESOL community of the importance of spoken English and its relationship to overall language development.

2004-2005 Speech, Pronunciation, and Listening Interest Section Community Leaders

Chair: John M. Levis, e-mail jlevis@iastate.edu
Chair-Elect: Laura D. Hahn, e-mail lhahn@uiuc.edu
Editor: Paula W. Baird, e-mail pwbaird@comcast.net
Past Chair: Janet M. Goodwin, e-mail goodwin@ucla.edu
Steering Committee Member: Marsha J. Chan, e-mail marsha_chan@wvmccd.cc.ca.us

Web site: http://www.soundsofenglish.org/SPLIS/

Discussion e-list: Join SPLIS-L online at http://www.tesol.org/getconnected, or visit http://lists.tesol.org/read/?forum=splis-l if already subscribed.