Frontiers of Language and Teaching ....

Volume 3 (2012)

Teaching English Phonetics to Non-native Speakers of English: an Innovative Constructivist Paradigm

Mariam M. Almihmadi Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia Email: mmmihmadi@uqu.edu.sa
Abstract In this paper, I propose an innovative paradigm for teaching English phonetics to nonnative 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 interlanguage 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 41

Frontiers of Language and Teaching .... Volume 3 (2012)

and focus in terms of McLeod (2003) and Fosnot (1996) that are at stake her e. 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 actionreflection-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 break down 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

42

Frontiers of Language and Teaching .... Volume 3 (2012)

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.

43

Frontiers of Language and Teaching .... Volume 3 (2012)

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 FPDareas 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 criteriawhat 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 Iowas Phonetics Flash Animation Project is recommended. Animated diagrams of English sounds can be accessed at http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/.

44

Frontiers of Language and Teaching .... Volume 3 (2012)

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 words 1 like I [a], my [ma], Im [am], and mine [man]. 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.

45

Frontiers of Language and Teaching .... Volume 3 (2012)

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 FPDthe 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 46

Frontiers of Language and Teaching .... Volume 3 (2012)

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 constructivisttheoretic approach to learning and teaching. It emphasizes such concepts as experiential learning, relevance to learners past experiences, and cycling throu gh 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). Piagets constructivism, Paperts constructivism: Whats 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.

47

Frontiers of Language and Teaching .... Volume 3 (2012)

Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of Learning. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 833). 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), 359371. 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. 432433). 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. 9699). 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, 4148.

48