Initiating a Conversation with Learners to Correct Name Pronunciation¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 2 studies (2 review), q2 · 0 of 2 report an effect size

Description¶

The instructor initiates a private, low-stakes conversation with the learner to hear their name pronounced correctly, practice it, and invite correction. The instructor frames the difficulty as their own limitation rather than the learner's burden, avoids expressing frustration or amusement, and treats correct pronunciation as an ongoing responsibility rather than a one-time fix.

Design Implications¶

Names are core to identity; repeated mispronunciation signals exclusion and depresses belonging, which in turn undermines engagement and persistence [~M]. Correcting pronunciation early functions as a small but concrete belonging intervention: it communicates that the learner is seen and valued, supporting the self-efficacy and classroom trust that predict persistence Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [+M]. The strategy is less about phonetics than about signaling respect — the conversation itself, done well, carries most of the relational benefit.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A private or semi-private setting (not in front of peers) for the correction conversation
• A good-faith attempt: the instructor asks each learner how their name is pronounced and practices it aloud
• Explicit framing that the difficulty is the instructor's, not the learner's ("I want to get this right; please correct me anytime")
• A mechanism for follow-up (phonetic spelling in the roster, notes, a recorded pronunciation) so the correction sticks

Constraints¶

• Some languages contain phonemes the instructor cannot reliably produce; a visible, sustained good-faith effort matters more than perfect accuracy, and demanding perfection can shift the burden back onto the learner [~M]
• Public correction can embarrass the learner; initiating the conversation in front of the class reverses the intended effect [-M]
• Treating it as a one-time exchange without follow-through — continuing to mispronounce after the conversation — damages trust more than never asking [-M]
• Learners may have adopted an anglicized pronunciation by preference; the instructor must ask which form the learner actually uses rather than assuming the "original" is preferred [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Start-of-term name interviews or one-to-one check-ins before or after class
• Name tents or phonetic respellings on rosters and LMS profile fields (e.g., Canvas "pronunciation" fields, NameCoach integration)
• Group introductions where each learner says their own name while the instructor records phonetic notes, followed by private practice
• Peer-to-peer variants: class discussion norms that establish name-learning as a shared classroom responsibility

Target Learners¶

• All learners, but especially multilingual learners, international students, and students from groups whose names are routinely anglicized in institutional settings [~M]
• Learners whose sense of belonging is fragile; small identity-affirming signals carry disproportionate weight for them Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [+M]
• First-generation and minoritized students for whom the classroom may already signal cultural distance

Target Learning Goals¶

• Affective and community-building goals: establishing trust, respect, and psychological safety
• Social-emotional learning: modeling humility, repair, and respectful cross-cultural communication
• Prerequisite conditions for participation: learners who feel named and known contribute more readily to active learning formats

Instructions¶

1. Before the term, review the roster and flag names you are unsure how to pronounce; do not guess aloud in class.
2. At first contact, ask the learner to say their name and repeat it back; use active listening — attend to stress and syllables rather than approximating from spelling.
3. Practice aloud and ask for correction; if you struggle, name it as your limitation ("That's my ear, not your name").
4. Record a phonetic version (roster note, name tent, or tool) so the correction persists across sessions.
5. Invite ongoing correction and respond to it without defensiveness or embarrassment — treat each correction as routine, not an event.
6. Follow up privately if you notice yourself reverting; never ask the learner to accept a shortened or anglicized name for your convenience.

Related Strategies¶

• Active listening — the conversational stance that makes the correction exchange respectful rather than performative
• Check-ins — name conversations fit naturally into recurring one-to-one check-in routines

Related Elements¶

• Coaching — the instructor's own pronunciation practice is coached by the learner, inverting the usual direction
• Articulation — the learner articulates the correct pronunciation; the instructor articulates their intent and limitation

Examples¶

• NameCoach (https://www.name-coach.com) — learners record their own name pronunciation; instructors and peers listen before class, removing the need for the learner to repeatedly correct others.
• Kohli & Solórzano's teacher-education practice — teacher educators model asking students "how do you say your name?" and treating mispronunciation as an institutional problem to repair, not a student inconvenience.
• First-day name tents with phonetic respelling — a common practice in discussion-based seminars; the instructor updates the tent until pronunciation is stable, making the effort visible to the learner.

Key Sources¶

• Kohli, R., & Solórzano, D. G. (2012). Teachers, please learn our names!: Racial microagressions and the K-12 classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(4), 441–462. doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.674026
• Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. doi:10.1126/science.1198364
• Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They're not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301. doi:10.3102/0034654311405999