learner autonomy pedagogies: a phonological ...

Journal of the Nigeria English Studies Association (JNESA) 16:1

LEARNER AUTONOMY PEDAGOGIES: A PHONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. C.U.C Ugorji, University of Benin, Benin-City, Nigeria

Abstract The author examines the tenets of the learner-autonomy pedagogical model and suggests how its requirement may be implemented in the learning of phonetic skills. He synthesises phonological elements in terms of their articulatory-perceptual make-ups, indicating the paths and procedures which define the techniques for self-practice, recall and self-correction, considered central to practice in learner-autonomy pedagogy. He also indicates the paths for input materials for learning, as well as the strategies for implementing a teacher-supervisory role. The major achievement is facileness, such that both segments and prosody are learned with relative ease, confirming the belief that learning efficiency in phonological materials may be guaranteed in a learner-autonomy approach. The author thus suggests a technique for learner-autonomy, essential to the learning of phonetic skills in English language pedagogy. Key words: Learner-Autonomy, Phonetic Skills, Pronunciation, Articulatory-Perceptual Approach, English Phonology, Introduction Here we introduce the concept of learner-autonomy outlining its characteristic tenets. A contrast with teacher-driven pedagogy which may be thought worthwhile is only implied, as pursuing such directly may take us far afield and tread off some volume. It is instead discussed directly elsewhere (see Ugorji 2010a; Dalton and Seidlhoffer 1994, etc.). Learner–autonomy pedagogy is about learners taking charge of their learning, the right to determine their learning programmes and the dimensions and direction of learning, the skills targeted for learning and for application. Its underlying ideology assigns the responsibility and capacity for learning to the learner. It endorses metacognitive learning strategies; and as Macaro’s (1997:168) adds Student centered learning draws its rationale from theories of individual learner differences and proposes a learning environment which might best cater for those differences. The concept of learner autonomy has been around for more than three decades, as part of an ideology and an advocacy for participatory democracy. Henri Holec, who is said to be the father of learner autonomy, defines it as the “ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (Holec 1981:3). It came as his contribution to the work of the Council of Europe on adult education in 1979. The characteristic concerns of the autonomy paradigm may be summed as follows (cf. September 2013

Page 133

133

Journal of the Nigeria English Studies Association (JNESA) 16:1 Thanasoulas 2000, Little 2006): 

Quests and strategies for situations in which learners study entirely on their own;



The set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning;



The expression of faith in an inborn capacity to learn which may be constrained by institutional education;



The exercise of responsibility for learning on the part of learners;



The exercise of the right to determine the direction of learning by learners.

According to the Council of Europe … Behind these concepts is a broader based philosophy which argues that man (sic) is as much a producer of society as a product of it. Therefore the exercise of responsibility implies a degree of autonomy from educational structures and processes, an autonomy which will enable the adult to undertake a process of lifelong learning; (Macaro 1997:168) and this freedom is aimed to enable the learner develop ‘those abilities which enable him to act more responsibly in running the affairs of the society in which he lives’(cf. Little 2006) The principal demand of the paradigm is precisely that within such a conception, learning is not simply a matter of rote memorisation; 'it is a constructive process that involves actively seeking meaning from (or even imposing meaning on) events' (Candy 1991: 271; cf. Thanasoulas 2000) How this requirement may be implemented in the learning of phonetic skills is what this research hopes to deal with. Consequently, an Articulatory-Perceptual Approach is suggested, with strands as paths and procedures which the learning efforts might engage in for the more efficient learning of phonological elements and for self-practice and selfevaluation. It represents an effort to evolve alternative methods and techniques to the more traditional audio-lingual methods to guarantee learning efficiency conceived as a basis of learner-autonomy. It defines the path for teacher involvement, however, as a supervisory role essentially. The paradigm concerns itself with descriptions as basic input strategies for learning and teaching phonological elements. The descriptions rely on phonetic information and address the microelements of this level of linguistic analysis, making a coordination of articulatory gestures with perceptual impressions. Its thrust, the primacy of linguistic explanations, is believed to indicate the dimensions required in the new world emphasis

September 2013

Page 134

134


on learner autonomy in pedagogy. It includes overt recognition of properties peculiar to learner’s first language background and associated problems, the exponents of which include poor aural discriminations, poor oral discriminations or both; and targets in general the acquisition of a phonology which does not interfere with communication, either from the speaker’s point of view or from the listener’s point of view (cf. Paulston and Bruder 1976). The learner-autonomy model is assumed to have a universal applicability in democratised contexts, of nations, communities, and curricular. This study assumes that the Nigerian contexts are not exempt but rather typify one of the best grounds to demonstrate its gains, especially with respect to the learning of English and its phonology. In this section we therefore provide an overview of the Nigerian situation with respect to English and how it applies the model. In particular, we note the essential facts along the following lines: the dominant ESL situation, the growing ENL situation which provide insight into the learner’s lingual cognitive makeup, the teacher input materials, the variant nature of English usage and the dialect selection or preferences, the complex multilingual environment and the resultant societal aggregate cognitive minds, when the Nigerian society is considered a ‘big’ mind. Historically, Nigerian English (NigE) has developed from an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) situation to an English as a Second Language (ESL) situation, and in contemporary times has a growing English as a Native Language (ENL) population. TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) programmes target the earlier two situations; and A-P as a TESOL tool also targets the two. This progression has international recognition and acclaim, especially in the New Englishes and World Englishes frameworks as well as the later Post-colonial Englishes framework. Schneider (2007:2) sums the development succinctly as follows: what is perhaps even more interesting is that our virtual traveller will encounter native speakers of English not only in Canada and New Zealand, where this would be expected, but also in Nigeria and Singapore and many more parts of the world in which English is not an ancestral language [added emphasis] He further states that in Nigeria, Both English and Pidgin have acquired first-language, native speakers. English is a family language, and thus becomes the mother tongue of children born to these families... (Schneider 2007:207) [added emphasis] Since the Nigerian English presents a cline of varieties, a target on the phonological elements of its standard cline in pedagogical engagements benefit immensely from the synergy of Learner-Autonomy and Articulatory-Perceptual approaches: The complex cline of varieties and linguistic diversities which characterise Nigerian English are no September 2013

Page 135

135


doubt evidence for internal heterogeneity; but there is a flourishing collective identity, which hosts a cognitive construct of Nigerianness of the English, commonly expressed as ‘our own’; not to ignore the individual conservative nostalgia for the status quo ante remaining here and there; but this minority conservatism diminishes by day. Research indicates the existence of several varieties of Nigerian English (see further details elsewhere: Jowitt 1991, Banjo 1995, Ugorji 2010b, etc). For social Nigerian English varieties, for example, four or more typologies are identified. (Regional varieties are a lot more). Four varieties are suggested in Brosnahan 1958 (see Angogo and Hancock 1980), Banjo 1995, Jibril 1986 (see Jowitt 1991), to mention but a few. Banjo’s classification which is most popular among scholars may specially be noted (cf. Ugorji 2010b): 1. mother-tongue based (associated with heavy mother tongue transfers characteristic of the semi- educated, generally below post primary education) 2. influenced by mother-tongue (shows mother tongue transfers and lack of vital phonological distinctions, associated with speakers who may have at least primary education) 3. close to RP (characteristic of some speakers with university education) 4. indistinguishable from RP (associated with speakers who may be more highly educated and some who have some training in the Humanities and phonetics) Nigerian English is shown as a natural cline, ranging from the English of the semi-literate (variety 1) to the variety 4 which is equivalent to RP according to the analysis. As shown, variety 4 hardly differs from standard British English. Variety 3 may refer to near-native or near-RP forms and 2 and 1 show various degrees of mother- tongue influence. Banjo 1995 and Eka 1985, among others, further inform that varieties 2 to 4 are internationally intelligible, but that intelligibility increases towards variety 4. Variety 1, however, may not be intelligible abroad, and decreases in intelligibility the farther one moves from its regional base. The standard variety by scholarly consensus is estimated in Jibril’s account as ‘a union of Sophisticated Hausa and Sophisticated Southern varieties’ noting that there is pressure towards a southern- influenced model, estimated closer to Banjo’s varieties 3 and 4. In other words, while homogenisation very clearly exists, there are mother-tongue influenced usage and L2 usage co-existing with it. The latter two host ethnic and regional marks. Schneider (2003:254) argues that this is also characteristic of Englishes elsewhere: in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Singapore (cf. Ugorji, press). This kind of linguistic situation is intended in the A-P; and gives credence to the advantage we assume the synergy of the frameworks provides. An Articulatory-Perceptual Approach (A-P) As noted, the main concern of A-P is with descriptions of phonological materials in terms of their micro phonetic make-ups. The primary contributions may come from L2 forms, but these may be complemented by those of L1, as shown in Fig.1, below. The block arrows indicate paths that may be obligatory, while the truncated one indicates paths that September 2013

Page 136

136


may be complementary. Both paths contribute the micro units that are associated with the model or targeted form, which also the learner is expected to realise. The reverse, as the double-headed arrows indicate, is also true to the approach; namely, that reversing the path is what is needed to rehearse the learning process. Realisations are thus verifiable on the teacher’s part, leading the learner back through the ‘stages’, which also represent at one and the same time the path to self-practice and self-correction for the learner. In this way, this approach proves an effective support for reflective teaching as well as taskbased pedagogical frameworks (cf. Adams 2006, Blazquez 2007).

In general, the tenets of A-P may be summed in a bird’s panoramic view in terms of the following formalisation: A-P Generalisation: where (a) and (b) are cooperative and contingent September 2013

Page 137


a) input X (X, a minimal micro unit) or Xs (one by one) b) recall or rehearse X or Xs as in (a) c) drill on associated contextualised data The formalisation defines two entwined domains; teaching and teacher domain largely suggested in (a), and learning and learner domain in (b). Thus, while (a) defines the teaching path; namely, the material(s) which teacher presentation or teaching material provides (e.g. textbooks or pronunciation manuals in A-P model); (b) defines the domain of learning appropriate to learner autonomy; that is, the learning path and the path for learner self-practice. (a) and (b) might always remain cooperative and contingent; such that together they constitute one leg on which the model stands; its second leg is the pattern drills taken in appropriate linguistic communicative contexts. Conceptually, the two legs are not equal; pragmatic and logical priority rest with the first leg. The second is however indispensable, especially as it hosts the forces that make motor skills realisable; but plays a supportive role. Operability The tenets of A-P may be verified by examining its applicability using select phonological elements. Accordingly, relevant elements which training on phonetic skills may target are sound segments and prosody. We shall examine them in turns beginning with sound segments. Vowels The vowel, /з/, for instance, which occurs in bird, firm, heard, etc. may be formed in a number of ways. Here we suggest one. Thus, the following basic gesture motions may be noted in respect of its production: the tongue is in the front position (about the position within which /ε/ in bed may be produced). Its tip is made to touch the back of the lower teeth and/or curled slightly, vocalisation being constant, among others. These gestures may be observed, say in a hand-held mirror. To check for possible errors including L1 interference where necessary, series of words containing the vowel in question may be listed as well as others that contrast such in English, for self-drills or practice. This is particularly productive where previous lectures discussed the other vowels with which it could contrast. Some examples include: (a) farm, firm, form, fame (b) walled, world, weld (c) hard, heard, head, hoard This implies that, the pedagogy recognises the fact that a given learner may very easily produce /ε/, as in bed, set, etc. based on his L1 intuition or previous lessons. The learner may then be guided to observe his own production of /ε/ (say in a hand mirror) and asked thereafter to follow the teacher’s descriptions to slightly curl the tip of the tongue, among others, to realise /з/. In this way, sounds or features that already occur in learner’s L1 or other familiar language constitute early materials in the demonstration before the September 2013

Page 138

138


difference (in gestures) that results in the model pronunciation is obtained. In due course of practice, the learner gains confidence and keeps apart the contrast between L1 quality and the newly gained model production, (see also Gimson 1980, Jones 2006; cf. Ugorji 2006, etc.) Consonants Let us consider /θ/, for instance, initial in think, thrill and third. Competent speakers produce it in either of two ways: placing the tip of the tongue in-between the upper and lower front teeth or by placing the tip of the tongue at the back of the upper front teeth. These may be observed. Some words may then be listed to check for possible errors involving a substitution perhaps of /θ/ with any other sound which may be more familiar to the learner’s intuition, such as /t/ or /d/ or /s/ or /z/ and so on: (a) through, true (b) sooth, suit (c) thin, tin Prosody In our pedagogical approach, basic prosodic elements, including stress and intonation, comprise the composite micro units of pitch, viewed broadly as the basic relative pitch variations which may apply at all levels of linguistic descriptions across human languages. They consist of gesture commands mediated by glottal activities, as its kernel, which may be associated with other supra glottal muscular adjustments. Languages make selections in terms of the distinctive use of pitch variations or ‘tones’ (see Goldsmith 1979; Ugorji 2010b) at different levels of linguistic inquiry, from syllable to phrasal units. English operates a stress-timed system, expressed as being quantity- sensitive in metrical terms. It is shown that as far as English is concerned, it is pitch changes which are most reliable cues in the perception of stress, followed by duration (Dalton and Seidlhoffer 1994; cf. Ugorji 2010b); and stress canonically associates with syllables that are intrinsically prominent; thus defining a preference for stress placement on heavy syllables generally. The application of pitch variations at lexical levels may be associated with lexical stress. Beyond this level, phrasal or sentence stress may be assumed. Accordingly, lexical stress which may not vary in a’ddress, re’pair, suc’cess and a’ccount is indicated on the second syllables by their being simply prominent comparatively. In generative phonology such features are binary, such that [prominence] versus [non-prominence] or [stress] versus [non-stress] are distinguished. But stress may vary according to lexical category in insult, subject, import, survey, etc. thus, while ’survey (n) bears stress on the first syllable; sur’vey (v) has it on the second syllable. A basic guide is the fact that the relatively more prominent syllable is said on a higher pitch and its nucleus is not reduced. Word stress patterns may be coextensive with phrasal patterns. Phrases readily correspond with lexical patterns, such that the rhythmic patterns are copied. For example, he ’came said as a statement has a stress pattern comparable to survey (v). General September 2013

Page 139

139


intonation patterns for, say, question tags may indicate Rising when information is sought and Falling when confirmation is sought. Syllable structure may generally be thought of as an area of least difficulty, once segments and prosody are synthesised or learnt; but for English, main learner problems may relate to certain syllable patterning, including consonant clusters, checked syllables, assimilation properties, and vowel reduction and elision (see also Ugorji 2009). In stop clusters, for example, our viewpoint demonstrates the essential properties to include the composite commands which mark place of contact, nature of contact, its hold and release; and states as a general principle, that the release stage of a preceding stop needs not be realised in pronunciation. Thus, in fig. 2, the hold stage (H) in the articulation of stop clusters is the stage to watch in the learning: whereas the approach stage (A) and H are realised in each part of a cluster of stops, the release stage (R) is not realised for the preceding stop. Fig. 2 A

H

R

This implies that in goodbye, for instance, the release stage of is not realised and in goodnight it is only a nasal plosion preceding , and so on (ignoring other assimilatory possibilities). In this way, no intervening vowel or vowel ‘offglide’ may be perceived after , which may mark foreigner talk or so. Concluding Remarks Learner-autonomy pedagogies represent the new world emphasis in learner independence understood to be co-extensive with the new world democratic ideologies. They thus indicate a paradigm shift from the focus on teaching practice to the focus on student learning, in classroom delivery and material development. The fact that the most crucial enterprise of pedagogies is learning further justifies the conceptualisation. Central to the present study is the learning of phonetic skills in English language. For this purpose, the present study suggests the way and manner the learning of phonetic skills could be pursued in a learner-driven pedagogy in all learning environments, classroom and text development inclusive. This essential tool is called an Articulatory-Perceptual Approach (A-P). A-P is thus an effective tool for learning phonological elements in learnerautonomy pedagogies. It also indicates the strategies for a teacher-supervisory role. It specifies that the learning and teaching of phonological elements should be based on description, especially for second language learners, if aural-oral discrimination should be readily achievable. Such description or explanation, in this paradigm, views phonological materials for presentation in terms of the micro-gesture commands of the speech apparatus. The commands relate to those basic motions of the speech apparatus relevant in the production of given sounds, prosody or features. The motions may generally be observable or tactile or demonstrable; and may include the micro-gesture September 2013

Page 140

140


properties of L1 as well or other language-specific information existing in learner intuition. Thus, materials with which a given learner or learner group may be familiar constitute part of the descriptive input. In classroom practice, among others, this approach is coordinated with a set of conditions, principles and procedures (see Ugorji 2006, among others), which together provide both focus and necessary guide towards greater pedagogical efficiency. While the conditions would show recognition for situations involving the existence of several varieties of English in a polity and in the world, and factors that may be crucial to the goal of the pedagogical enterprise, principles indicate the primacy of descriptions over and above imitation; and procedures suggest how the teacher may proceed in actual (classroom) presentation. This forms the learning or practice guide for the learner, especially as they help learners take conscious notice of descriptive cues to articulation and perception in pronunciation, which are necessary for the effective recall required for self-practice and cultivation. Where properly implemented, learners work out a means to self-correction and independent practice along their learning path, which is what accounts for cultivation of target language norms. Moreover, learning targets are readily achievable with or without access to language laboratory or any sophisticated aid; and both teacher and learner benefit from this near costless advantage. It also shows overt recognition for learner’s L1 by adopting or adapting what may already exist in learner’s intuition and using it to guide the learner into a target form. It endorses communicative and function-based language learning and teaching as well as grammar-based approaches; and by these features it has, among others, eclecticism to its advantage, and can be part of ‘whole language’ pedagogy. It is well suited for adult learners who would want to learn pronunciation on their own and for self-refreshing a learner or a teacher. In general, taken its features together, no approach may be more effective for ideologies and programmes that stress learner-autonomy than A-P, except that it may in practice require teacher input for a start. Such input could as well be provided by a book which adopts the approach, perhaps accompanied with audio/video materials. This is therefore considered pedagogically efficient; and its advantages appear clearly enormous. Thus, for phonology, it seems safe to state that in general A-P efficiently supports the modern day emphasis on learner-driven pedagogy, leaning largely on metacognitive learning strategies, among others. References Adam, R. (2006) L2 Tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 153:7-33 Angogo, R. and I. Hancock (1980) English in Africa: Emerging standards or diverging Regionalisms? English World-Wide.1, 1:67- 96 Banjo, A. (1995) On codifying Nigerian English: Research so far. In A. Bamgbose, A. Banjo and A.Thomas (eds) New Englishes: A West African Perspective. Ibadan: Mosuro Publishers, pp. 203-231. September 2013

Page 141

141


Blazquez, B. (2007) Reflection as a necessary condition for action research. English Teaching Forum. 45.1:26-35. Brosnahan, L.F. (1958) English in southern Nigeria. English Studies 39, 3:91-110. Candy, P.C. (1991) Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. California: Jossey-Bass. Dalton, C. and B. Seidlhoffer (1994) Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press Dimitrios T. (2000) What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered?” The Internet TESL Journal, Vol.VI, No.11 [http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Learner_autonomy, 07/10/2011] Eka, D. (1985) A Phonological Study of Standard Nigerian English. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Amadu Bello University, Zaria. Gimson, A.C. (1980) An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London: ELBS and Edward Arnold Goldsmith, J. (1979) Autosegmental Phonology. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc. Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jibril, M. (1986) Sociolinguistic variation in Nigerian English. English World-Wide 7: 147-174. Jowitt, D. (1991) Nigerian English Usage: An Introduction. Lagos: Longman. Jones, D. (2006) Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary. Roach, Peter; James Hartman; Jane Setter (eds.) 17th edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Little, D. (2006) Learner autonomy: drawing together the threads of self-assessment, goal-setting and reflection. http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/ELP_TT/ELP_TT_CDROM/DM_layout/00_10/06/0 6%20Supplementary%20text.pdf [08/10/2011] Macaro, E. (1997) Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy. UK: Multilingual Matters. Paulston, C. B. and M. N. Bruder (1976) Teaching English as a Second Language: Techniques and Procedures. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers Schneider, E. W. (2003) The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language. 75, 2: 233-281 Schneider, E. W. (2007) Postcolonial English Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University press Ugorji, C. U. C. (2006) English in Nigeria: A teaching guide to pronunciation. Nigerian Journal of the Humanities 13, 84 -96. . (2009) English Pronunciation for Non-Native Speakers. Onitsha: Africana Publishers . (2010a) An Articulatory-Perceptual approach to the teaching of pronunciation to L2 learners. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria 13, 1: 193 – 209. Ugorji, C. U. C. (2010b) Nigerian English Phonology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

September 2013

Page 142

142