5-_Almihmadi__2012
-
Upload
reginaldo-mora -
Category
Documents
-
view
10 -
download
1
description
Transcript of 5-_Almihmadi__2012
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)
41
Teaching English Phonetics to Non-native
Speakers of English: an Innovative
Constructivist Paradigm
Mariam M. Almihmadi
Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
In this paper, I propose an innovative paradigm for teaching English phonetics to non-
native speakers of English. In teaching segmental sounds, subsegmental features,
suprasegmental effects, and fine phonetic detail, the paradigm adopts the constructivist
approach. It promotes experiential learning through guided and interactive cognitive,
auditory, visual, and psychomotor tasks. Unifying these tasks is the theme of learning
phonetics by doing phonetics. The paradigm requires students to do visual and auditory
inspections of in-class live recordings, using the appropriate speech-analysis package.
Students also monitor speech unfolds in real time via x-ray movies and interactive
articulatory diagrams. Moreover, students watch themselves articulate speech sounds in
slow motion. To better understand and learn about the contribution of fine phonetic
detail to the pronunciation of words, students engage in constructing and analysing lists
of inter-language homophones. The paradigm also raises students’ awareness of inter-
language phonemic contrasts through the construction and analysis of lists of nativized
loanwords from English into their L1 and vice versa. Finally, the paradigm requires
students to make predictions about the likely English pronunciation of nonsense words.
Keywords: Phonetics teaching, Constructivism, Interactive Multi-Modal Tasks
Introduction
English phonetics is a staple component in EFL taught programs offered by universities
around the globe (see e.g., Bloothooft et. al., 1998; Hazan & van Dommelen, 1997,
1999; Ladefoged, 1995). The course is variably named Phonetics, Phonetics and
Phonology, Phonetics and Pronunciation, English Phonetics, etc. (Ezza & Saadeh,
2011). One of the major objectives of including this course into degree programs is for
students to have an understanding of the various phonetic concepts that are necessary to
appreciate points of similarity and contrast between their L1 and L2, and to improve
their command over sounds and pronunciation norms including intonation patterns of
English. These concepts belong to four major areas of phonetic research: (1) segmental
effects which cover, for instance, sound classes, articulation and acoustics; (2)
suprasegmental effects which standardly include pitch, loudness, stress, intonation, and
rhythm; (3) subsegmental aspects, such as nasality and voicing; and (4) fine phonetic
detail (FPD) found in systematic variations between and within speakers that are
measurable along temporal and spectral scales, for instance.
Different teaching paradigms have been proposed since the beginning of phonetics
pedagogy. For scope and space reasons, this paper is only concerned with the recent
innovations. However, most of these, though commendable, lack clear theoretical
underpinnings. Lack of theoretical vigor can take the discipline back to trial-and-error
methodologies. As Yilmaz (2008, p. 161) stresses “learning theories are indispensable
for effective and pedagogically meaningful instructional practices”. It is the ‘direction’
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)
42
and ‘focus’ in terms of McLeod (2003) and Fosnot (1996) that are at stake here. Any
form of teaching without theoretical grounding can easily lose focus and drift in
opposing directions, thus confusing the learners.
In this paper, I propose a paradigm for teaching English that is founded on the
principles of constructivism (Kolb, 1984; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Fosnot, 1996;
Hendry et. al., 1999). Lying at the heart of constructivism is experiential learning,
where learners construct knowledge by going through the constructivist cycle of action-
reflection-interpretation. The application of constructivism to classroom learning can
greatly improve the learning experience. It is unfortunate that with such theoretical
appeal, empirical success, and world-wide scholarly recognition, constructivism
remains largely unexplored in phonetics teaching research.
One of the main contributions of this paper is adding theoretical rigor to the emerging
field of phonetics pedagogy. Also, the paper offers an original scheme for teaching the
main topics of phonetics: segmental sounds, suprasegmental effects, subsegmental
features and fine phonetic detail.
Literature Review
Innovations in the teaching of phonetics flourish in the era of information technology.
With the rapid advances in IT, “entirely new forms of teaching interactions” (Mompean
et. al., 2011, p. 1) are now possible.
Among the first aspects of phonetics to have seen innovations were suprasegmental
effects. Researchers way back as in the 1960s used (what was then called) visualizers to
teach English intonation and pitch movements. For example, Vardanian (1964) used
computer-generated displays of English intonation contours in teaching EFL learners.
Also, Anderson (1960) used technology to teach deaf people English intonation.
More recently, however, there is a marked shift in teaching paradigms towards adopting
a more global and integrative form of teaching covering all main areas of phonetics. In
their review of the recent trends in phonetics teaching, Mompean et. al. (2011)
expressed the hope that contemporary trends could usher in “a breakdown of the
division between research and practice” (p. 2). These contemporary trends are the
following: (1) fieldwork-like practices, in which students observe speech data and form
hypotheses about the data. Ashby (2007) and Ashby et. al. (2005b) were among the first
to implement this method, which shares with the constructivist approach the concept of
learning by doing.
Another innovation is the utilization of speech analysis software. According to this
method, students make on-the-spot recordings of certain speech items, and then perform
instant acoustic analysis of these items. Researchers like Ashby et. al. (2005a), Wilson
(2008) published papers reporting the use of acoustic software, such as Praat (Boersma
& Weenink, 2012) and SFS (Huckvale, 2010). For example, Ashby et. al. (2005a)
administered a post-course questionnaire and reported a very high satisfaction level
among the students who completed the course. Ashby et. al. (2005a) conclude that the
use of technology in the classroom “can augment students’ learning experience, and
break down unnecessary division between theory and practice” (p. 1). Again, this
highlights the existing gap between theory and practice, which this paper tries to bridge.
Similarly, Wrembel (2001) presents an overview of the recent innovations in the
teaching of phonetics. She lists new teaching techniques including drama techniques,
voice setting techniques, and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Importantly, Wrembel
(2001, p. 63) speculates that the main driving force for innovation is “a general
tendency in foreign language teaching to embrace … holistic approaches”. This
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)
43
acknowledges the pivotal role theory plays in shaping and sharpening empirical
perspectives on teaching paradigms.
As is clear from this brief review, traces of constructivism are scattered within the
growing body of literature on phonetics pedagogy. These traces just need to be put
together into the assembly of a paradigm. A whole-hearted embracement of the
constructivist approach will make a big difference in students’ performance and
learning outcomes. In the next section, I present glimpses of the constructivist approach
to learning.
Theoretical Framework
This paper proceeds along the theoretical framework of constructivism (Kolb, 1984;
Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Fosnot, 1996; Hendry et. al., 1999). One of the defining
principles of constructivism in learning is that learners actively construct knowledge
based on experiences, rather than passively receive it from their teachers or read it in
textbooks. Specifically, in the classroom, learning occurs when learners attach meaning
to the learning materials (Fosnot, 1996; Hendry et. al., 1999). In other words, learning
consists in self-regulated actions, reflections, and interpretations of new ideas, data, or
events. By assimilating and accommodating incoming information into their past
experiences, doing all necessary modifications of former beliefs and opinions, learners
construct knowledge (cf. Gillani, 2003).
Another basic tenet of constructivist learning is the need for learners to engage in (even
struggle with) raw data and primary resources, rather than receive abstract information
from their teachers (see e.g., Brooks & Brooks, 1993). In this regard, the role of context
or what is also known as ‘situated learning’ (Akermann, 2008) cannot be overstated.
Learners need to see connection among the various pieces of the learning material.
Constructivism in the classroom involves the creation of an optimal environment for
learners to make meaning of the new experiences (Fosnot, 1996). Teachers should
assume the role of skillful facilitators, rather than information-givers. Skillful
facilitation consists in (1) selecting the right material that fits with or augments
students’ experiences, (2) securing the necessary tools for students to engage in the
cycle of actions-reflections-interpretations, (3) structuring learning around main
concepts and central ideas, and (4) soliciting learners’ meaning and checking their
understanding (for more see Beaudin & Quick, 1995).
The Paradigm
Features
Among the defining features of the proposed paradigm are theoretical groundedness,
integration of multi-modality tasks, and inclusivity of all main areas of phonetics.
Firstly, the paradigm is constructivism-grounded. It incorporates constructivist
principles into the teaching of phonetics to non-native speakers of English. For
example, according to the paradigm, students discover for themselves the basic
concepts of phonetics by doing phonetics. They record their own speech, analyze it, and
interpret and discuss their findings and conclusions. Students go through the
constructivist cycle of action-reflection-interpretation every time they come to the
phonetics class. In the same vein, students experience first-hand how speech unfolds in
real time by watching x-ray movies capturing speech internal organs executing a speech
command. These internal organs are normally inaccessible to hand-and-eye inspection.
Therefore, a technology-mediated intervention like x-rays, for instance, is necessary to
record their functions. See the next section for details.
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)
44
Secondly, the paradigm integrates activities and tasks drawn from auditory, visual,
psychomotor, and cognitive modalities. For example, students listen to a piece of
recorded speech while watching a visual display of it on a computer screen. See the next
section for details and examples.
Finally, the paradigm is inclusive of the main areas of phonetic inquiry: segmentals,
suprasegmentals, subsegmentals, and FPD. There are tasks designed to facilitate
learning in each of these areas. Details of these tasks appear in the next section.
Tasks
The tasks in this innovative paradigm are concerned with creating an optimal
environment for students to learn segmental sounds, suprasegmental effects,
subsegmental features, and FPD—areas which constitute the fundamentals of the
phonetics science in the twenty-first century.
For students to learn segmental effects, they first need to encounter the rudiments of
speech production, especially speech organs and the specific articulation maneuvers that
produce the different types of speech sounds. By the time students join university
studies, they will have possessed some form of constructed knowledge of the names of
organs and articulation settings. University students can use this background knowledge
for the new experience. All these students need to do is assimilate the new technical
terms and the unfamiliar articulation maneuvers into their existing experiences. A
particularly beneficial action-reflection task in this respect is the all-too-common
mirror-in-hand technique. Students can look into the mirror and watch themselves
articulate speech sounds in slow motion. A technically-superior alternative to this
technique would be to capture pictures or videos of themselves while slowly articulating
speech using cameras fitted to their smart phones or computers. This task puts forward
to their constructivist minds speech production, organs in action, differences between
types of speech sounds, etc. At the same time, it furnishes rich ground for meta-skills
including categorization and classification. Students engage into a meaning-making
process of hypothesizing about the right classification criteria—what sounds belong to
the same class? What do not? Why? The set of criteria that students arrive at towards
the end of the class might just as well look like the standard classification of sounds into
consonants and vowels, and the various sub-classes within each of these major classes
found in standard phonetics textbooks.
Also, students can assimilate new ideas and beliefs or accommodate former ones about
the inner speech organs (e.g., the vocal bands, the glottis, the pharynx, etc.), which
would not normally be amenable to manual inspection. However, in the paradigm,
students can embark on a technology-mediated journey into these inner organs and see
them in action. For example, monitoring speech unfolds in real time via x-ray movies of
speech and via interactive articulation diagrams that simulate the human larynx is a
truly constructivist experience. This should count as a first-hand experience of raw data.
An excellent resource for x-ray movies for speech is the x-ray database of the Speech
Perception and Production Laboratory, available at
http://psyc.queensu.ca/~munhallk/05_database.htm. Also, x-ray movies of the tongue,
jaw, and larynx during vowel productions are available from the UCLA Phonetics Lab
Data to accompany Ladefoged's textbook ‘Vowels and Consonants’ at
http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/vowels/chapter11/chapter11.html. For interactive
articulation simulations, the University of Iowa’s Phonetics Flash Animation Project is
recommended. Animated diagrams of English sounds can be accessed at
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/.
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)
45
Moving from articulation to acoustics, again the most effective way for students to learn
acoustics is to do acoustics. The paradigm includes tasks designed just for this.
However, to keep the paradigm in harmony with constructivism in learning, students’
first encounter with acoustics should highlight its relevance to their own experiences.
Thus, the very beginning of the session on acoustics requires students to record
themselves onto a speech-analysis package, such as Praat (Boersam & Weenink, 2012),
SFS (Huckvale, 2010), and WASP (Huckvale, 2012). Of course, the constructivist
teacher must first demonstrate to her/his students how to use the recording function on
the selected speech analysis software. The next step requires students to analyze these
recordings.
By design, acoustic analysis on most software packages allows for the synchronization
of visual and auditory inspections of waveform and spectrographic displays. Through
this multi-modality presentation, students construct acoustic concepts, rather than
passively receive them in abstract form. By allowing students to analyze their own
speech, we make their phonetics experience more personal, hence increasing the
likelihood of its assimilation into the ever-growing body of experiences that students
incessantly acquire.
This acoustic activity is an excellent demonstration of the differences between
consonants and vowels. At the same time, it will reinforce the classificatory stand that
students will have taken during the previous articulation-dominated experience.
Students will be able to construct an acoustic criterion and add it to the list of
articulation-based criteria that they will have already constructed. The same argument
applies to subclasses of sounds that are categorized according to place or manner of
articulation or even voicing.
As to suprasegmental effects, acoustic and perception experiences are in fact more
helpful than observing articulation. Speech analysis packages (see above for details)
offer visual displays of pitch contours, where stress and intonation patterns can be
investigated. Also, speech intensity (in the form of acoustic energy) can also be
analyzed and measured. In fact, the various stress correlates relevant to duration,
intensity, fundamental frequency (F0), and spectral prominence are all measureable.
Spectrograms are useful tools for measuring these parameters. The constructivist
teacher should introduce her/his students to the standard tools of analysis in the
discipline. As an action-reflection task, the paradigm puts forth a perception exercise of
the identification type: students record one or two English sentences in different speech
modes, like interrogation, affirmation, threat, hesitation, uncertainty, etc. Then the
teacher prepares a perception task using different randomizations of these utterances.
The students’ task is to match each utterance they hear to the right speech function. This
perception experience facilitates the internalization of the role of intonation in English
discourse. Similar perception tasks can be prepared for the learning of stress.
A similar action-reflection task for learning the components of the syllable (i.e.,
nucleus, onset, and coda) is to record and analyze spectrographic displays of words1 like
I [aı], my [maı], I’m [aım], and mine [maın]. Words like these highlight the
obligatoriness of the nucleus and the optionality of the edge materials (i.e., onsets and
coda).
The learning of subsegmental features in this constructivist paradigm resorts to x-ray
movies and simulation programs. In this paradigm, subsegmental features include
nasality (where the velum is lowered to allow air to escape through the nasal cavity) and
voicing (where the vocal bands at the glottis are set in vibration). Due to the inherently
1 Following conventions, phonetic transcriptions are given in square brackets.
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)
46
inaccessible nature of the production mechanism of these features, the paradigm works
out a technology-mediated, indirect encounter with these features. Specifically, students
watch these movies and interactively change the settings of voicing and nasality on the
interface panel of the selected simulation program.
Finally, we discuss FPD—the latest addition to phonetic sciences. To create a
constructivist learning experience, we need activities that are more cognition-based. The
idea is that by the time students get to encounter FPD, they will have already mastered
sound production, sound classes, articulatory and acoustic properties of sounds,
suprasegmentals and subsegmental effects. Working within the confines of the
relevance principle of constructivism, we first need to let students appreciate how
relevant FPD is to their lives. Therefore, the task of constructing a list of inter-language
homophones is particularly helpful. Homophones are words with different meanings
that have the same pronunciation. For example, in English, the words ‘bank’ meaning
the side of a river, and ‘bank’ referring to a financial institution, are homophones. Now,
in this paradigm, it must be remembered that the task is not just about English. Students
have to find words in English and in their L1 that have the same sound composition.
Examples of inter-language homophones in English and Arabic are listed in Table (1)
below:
Table 1: Examples of inter-language homophones in English and Arabic
English word Arabic word Gloss
‘bait’ [bejt] [bejt] house
‘moot’ [mu:t] [mu:t] die (imperative verb)
‘teen’ [ti:n] [ti:n] figs
With the list constructed, the teacher can prepare an identification or discrimination
perception task using different randomizations of the words. It is very important to have
the words recorded by a bilingual speaker, or, if not possible, to have the English words
recorded by a native speaker of English and L1 words recorded by a native speaker of
L1. This measure is to preserve the minute sound differences between the two
languages in these homophones. These words are composed of more or less the same
segments, yet there are fine phonetic variations in the actual production. These
differences are systematic and can be language-specific. In the identification task,
students will guess if the word or word pair they hear in each trial comes from their L1
or English. Similarly, in the discrimination task, students will have to decide whether
the words in a pair they hear are the same or different words. Advanced discrimination
protocols like AXB, or XAB, where the students have to decide whether the target X is
more similar to the A-word or to the B-word, can also be attempted. To further
appreciate the role of FPD in nativeness and foreign accent comprehensibility, students
can give verbal descriptions of the differences they observe during the perception tasks.
A reinforcement task would be to present students with randomized lists of nonsense
words and ask them to guess the likely pronunciation of the words. The task should
alternate English and L1 pronunciations.
Finally, to raise students’ awareness of the phonemic contrasts that exist between their
L1 and English, the constructivist teacher can ask her/his students to construct a list of
L1 words borrowed from English into their L1 and vice versa. Such words are known in
the phonetics and phonology literature as nativized loanwords. Take as an example, the
nativized Arabic word for ‘computer’ [kumbyu:tar], which is borrowed from English.
Since Arabic sound inventory does not have a voiceless bilabial stop [p], nativization
results in the substitution of [b], which is part of the sound system of Arabic, for the
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)
47
foreign sound [p]. Engaging students in this kind of phonetic-phonological
argumentation will greatly improve their meta-skills of comparative analysis and
appreciation of contrast, which they will need for more advanced phonetics and
phonology courses. It is for this reason that such a highly cognitive task is kept last in
the program. Students need to master the required basic vocabulary, tools, concepts
before they can construct and appreciate advanced argumentation.
Conclusion
This paper presented an innovative paradigm for teaching phonetics to non-native
speakers of English. The paradigm is both practical and theoretically grounded. With
excellent resources freely available, both students and teachers will find it easy to
handle the demand of constructivist learning. The paper is couched in the constructivist-
theoretic approach to learning and teaching. It emphasizes such concepts as experiential
learning, relevance to learners’ past experiences, and cycling through action, reflection,
and interpretation modes. The paradigm integrates tasks and activities appealing to
several modalities including vision, audition, cognition, and kinesthetics. At the same
time, the paradigm covers topics drawn from the main areas of phonetic inquiry. There
are tasks especially designed for facilitating the learning of segmental sounds,
subsegmental features, suprasegmental effects, and fine phonetic detail. The availability
of open-access, interactive and technology-mediated resources leaves little excuse for
teachers of phonetics to carry on with the traditional lecture-type, teacher-centered form
of teaching. This paradigm is an attempt to bring together theory and practice towards a
more effective learning experience.
References
Ackermann, E. (2008). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructivism: What’s the
difference? Retrieved September, 12, 2011 from http://learning.media.mit.edu/
content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Anderson, F. (1960). An Experimental Pitch Indicator for Training Deaf Scholars.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 1065-1074.
Ashby, M., Figueroa-Clark, M., Seo, E., & Yanagisawa, K. (2005a). Innovations in
practical phonetics teaching and learning. Proceedings of PTLC2005. London:
UCL.
Ashby, P. (2007). Fieldwork for success. Proceedings of PTLC2007. London: UCL.
Ashby, P., Manamperi, A., & Youens, M. (2005b). Discovering phonetics: learning
through fieldwork. Proceedings of PTLC2005. London: UCL.
Beaudin, B. & Quick, D. (1995). Experiential learning: Theoretical underpinnings
(Report No. ETT-95-02). High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural
Health and Safety (HI-CAHS). Colorado State University.
Bloothooft, G., van Dommelen, W., Espain, C., Hazan, V., Huckvale, M., & Wigforss,
E. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of future education in speech communication
sciences. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.
Boersam, P. & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version
5.3.26) [computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org
Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Ezza, A. & Saadeh, Z. (2011). Dictionary as a major resource for EFL course in
pronunciation. World Journal of English Language, 1(1), 63-67.
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)
48
Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of Learning. In C. Fosnot
(Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 8–33). NY:
Teachers College Press.
Gillani, B. (2003). Learning theories and the design of e-learning environments. MD:
University Press of America.
Hazan, V. & van Dommelen, W. (1997). A survey of phonetics education in Europe.
EuroSpeech97, 1939-42.
Hazan, V. & van Dommelen, W. (1999). Phonetics education in Europe. Proceedings of
MATISSE, 101-104.
Hendry, D., Frommer, M., & Walker, R. (1999). Constructivism and problem-based
learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education 23(3), 359–371.
Huckvale, M. (2010). SFS (version 4.8) [computer software]. Retrieved from
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/resource/sfs/
Huckvale, M. (2012). WASP (version 1.53) [computer software]. Retrieved from
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/resource/sfs/wasp.htm
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ladefoged, P. (1995). Teaching phonetics. Proceedings of the 12th
ICPhS (pp. 432-
433). Stockholm.
McLeod, G. (2003). Learning theory and instructional design. Learning Matters 2, 35–
53.
Mompean, J., Ashby, M., & Fraser, H. (2011). Phonetics teaching and learning: An
overview of recent trends and directions. Proceedings of the 17th ICPhS, (pp. 96-
99). Hong Kong.
Vardanian, R. (1964). Teaching English through oscilloscope displays. Language
Learning, 3(4), 109-118.
Wilson, I. (2008) Using Praat and Moodle for teaching segmental and suprasegmental
pronunciation. Proceedings of the 3rd International WorldCALL Conference (pp.
112-5). The Japan Association for Language Education and Technology.
Wrembel, M. (2001). Innovative approaches to the teaching of practical phonetics.
Proceedings of PTLC01 (pp. 63-66). London: UCL.
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and
implications for classroom instruction. Educational Horizons, 86(3), 161-172.
To cite this article: Almihmadi, M.M. (2012). Teaching English Phonetics to Non-native Speakers of English:
an Innovative Constructivist Paradigm. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, Vol. 3, 41-
48.