AUDIO - LINGUAL AND COGNITIVE CODE-LEARNING METHODS

 

OUTLINE:

 

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

THE CONCEPT OF AUDIO-LINGUAL AND COGNITIVE - CODE

LEARNING METHODS

THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW OF THE AUDIO-LINGUAL AND

COGNITIVE - CODE LEARNING METHODS

THE CRITICISM OF THE TWO METHODS

CONCLUSION

 

ABSTRACT

There are many methods of teaching languages. Few of them will be mentioned here such as the traditional method, the direct method, the audio-visual method, the eclectic method and the audio-lingual method.

In this paper, we shall be concerned with the audio-lingual and cognitive teaching methods. This is why it is necessary to teach languages with the right method for better assimilation of the learners.

Kohoe (1976) pointed out that a number of methods as mentioned above used in foreign language teaching and learning have been used in practical classroom situations. Researchers have also asked the following vital questions on methods used in language art teaching: “What are the potential values of the various methods of language teaching? How do they agree with a linguistic view of language learning?”

In discussing the methodology of teaching language, two important concepts: approach and method come to mind. It is outside the scope of this paper to dwell on these two concepts in details. However, from the psycholinguistic, point of view, audio-lingual and cognitive code learning methods of foreign language teaching can be profitably adapted subject to appropriate modification to the teaching and learning of the language as a second Language (L2).

INTRODUCTION

The audio-lingual and cognitive code learning methods are the concern of this write-up. Efforts will be made to treat these methods under the following: the concept, the philosophy and the criticism.

These two methods, according to Williams (1990) represent a change from one position to the opposite in language teaching. This means that the cognitive – code learning method is the result of the evolution of the audio-lingual method. They can also be said to be two opposites. The audio-lingual method teaches language through and repetition while the cognitive code — learning method teaches language through a conscious study of the rules. The audio-lingual method in particular is potentially effective and is based on sound psycholinguistic principles. The Audio-lingual method which dominated language teaching in the 1950’s was itself a reaction to the Reading Method which was launched in the USA in 1929.

Unoh (1994) quoting Rivers (1971) states that the main objective of this method is the “development of the mastery of various levels of competency in all four language skills, beginning with listening and speaking and at the same time to this linguistic aim is the endeavour to develop the foreign people through their language.

Byrne (1977) et al are of the view that cognitive strategies are general skills for analysing, learning, remembering and thinking that enable students to manage their own thinking processes. On the other hand, Johnson (1979) and Gagne (1979) noted that although cognitive strategies are often emphasized as a desirable instructional outcome, there is little evidence that teachers have a substantial commitment to instructing students on how to learn.

Our aim in this paper is to dissert these methods and have a critical view of their possibility of solving language-teaching problems in the area of methodology.

THE CONCEPT OF AUDIO-LINGUAL AND

COGNITIVE CODE - LEARNING METHOD

The audio-lingual method, formerly known as Aural — oral method emphasizes aural — oral skills. Listening and speaking are the primary skills aimed at being acquired by the L2 learner. The techniques of the method rely mainly on the use of dialogue.

Command of aural-oral competence based on his mastery of the basic structures such as phonological, morphological and syntactic of the target language.

In using audio-lingual method, the type of teaching aids used or the level at which it is used is not important. The main objective is the provision for systematic developments of language skills that are crucial for both receptive and expressive communication abilities. This method is in line with psycholinguistic theoreticians as well as with a “total language arts approach” which is flow widely advocated by communications and language artists.

One of the instructional materials used to this in this method is the language laboratory. To Williams (1990), the Audio-lingual Method cannot be complete without mentioning the use of the language laboratory. He opines that the language laboratory is just one of the techniques of the Audio-Lingual Method. It is not a method per se but it exemplifies the stimulus-response procedure which is typical of the method. For example, stimulus. (Tape Announcer): The sky is blue. Response (Tape Announcer): The sky is blue. Tape Announcer: (to students). Now do the same.

Stimulus: Bright

Efforts should be made to avoid creating confusion in the process. This can be achieved by the shaping of responses making use of correctly modeled utterances and carefully selected cues. This is an essential ingredient of the Audio-lingual technique.

Apart from the research carried out by Williams (1990) on the Cognitive-Code learning method, Brown (1980) also reviewed the research on cognitive approach carried out by Lois Bloom (1971). These three authors seem to be researching ten years ahead/after each other but still their observation findings and opinions are the same.

According to Brown (1980, p.25), the late 1960’s witnessed a shift in patterns of research, not away from the generative/cognitive side of the continuum but as a move “deeper” into the essence of language. This is a move from abstract, formal, explicit and logical framework (generative rules) of language study. These generative rules deal specifically with the forms of language while the cognitive approach deals with the very deepest level of language where memory, perception, thought, meaning and emotion are all interdependently organized in the superstructure of the human mind. The latter strives to account for the functions.

Lois Bloom (1971) pointed out that the relationships in which words occur in telegraphic utterances are only superficially similar. She opines that there other underlying relations (deeper meanings/interpretations). Children learn these underlying structures and not the superficial word order found in pivot grammar. She then gave a similar example of ambiguity of sentences/words as Williams (1990) did “Mommy sock”. This can mean (1) Mommy is putting the sock on

Mommy sees the sock

Mommy’s sock

Although this is a child’s utterance, sentences with such underlying meaning/ambiguity can be found in adult” speech s in the examples of Williams (1990, p.50) and Lewis Carroll (1872) in his book Through the looking Glass. Herein lies the concept of cognitive-code learning method simply referred to as The Cognitive Approach by Brown (1980, p.25).

Research revealed that the cognitive code learning method is a reaction against the Audio-Lingual Method. To Williams (1990), the teaching principles of the cognitive code learning method derive from the view that language learning is rule-formation and not habit-formation. This method is like the

Proponents of the Cognitive Code-Learning Method is of the view that since most second and foreign language learners cannot sound exactly like native speakers, pronunciation practice should not be emphasized in the course of learning the language. To these people writing is as important as speech in language teaching.

Group work and individualized instruction are given more attention than choral work. The repetition exercises found in the audio-lingual classes are discouraged. In this method, as opposed to the Audio-lingual Method, much use is made of audio-visual aids, anecdotes and other illustrations.

Another unique thing about the Cognitive Code Learning Method is that there is allowance for the use of the mother tongue and of translation.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW OF THE AUDIO-LINGUAL AND

COGNITIVE CODE LEARNING METHODS

Folarin’s (1975) idea of Audio-Liigua1 Method is quite interesting.

According to him, a good ear is important for efficient learning of a second language. He is of the view that the audio-lingual method places emphasis on mastery of all the four basic language skills but with the aural, that is listening and language the literacy skills and the competence skills are faulty. In this approach, there is conscientious attempt on systematic step by step training. It ensures students’ progress through thorough practice in structural and patterned drills. It prepares students as skilled manipulators of linguistic structures without ensuring that they are capable to communicate effectively outside the formal classroom setting.

One can rightly share the opinion of Williams (1990) that the audio-lingual method is based on structural linguistics and the theory of behavioural psychology (stimulus — response theory).

Another learning theory underlying this method is that a specific form of language behaviour is likely to occur when it is followed immediately by pleasurable consequences. This is the principle of reinforcement.

The principle underlying the cognitive code learning method is based on the fact that language is of rule-governed. This stems from the view held by Chomsky (1966) that human beings have a language acquisition deviser (LAD) which enables them to internalize the rules of a language. This is what Goodman, et al (1987. pp.32-33) called the nature-nurture theory. The language acquisition device.

The innate theory does not concern itself with language change and universal characteristic of language but concerns itself more with control over the rules by which language is governed.

Goodman et al (1987) argues that many linguists accept a view of language as innate as a reaction against the view of BF Skinner and other behavioural learning theorists that language learning is simply an example of operant conditioning. The writer is of the view that an innate knowledge that language is rule-governed, that it has a hierarchical structure and that it makes use of structure – dependent operations, combined with an inbuilt ability to make hypotheses about it not only explains the whole of language acquisition but the principle behind the cognitive code learning method.

CRITICISMS OF THE TWO METHODS

There are some shortcomings of Audio-Lingual and cognitive Code Learning Methods. Richards (1989) opines that much of the criticisms of audio lingualism came from the recognition of the very limited options available to learners in audio lingual methodology. Learners are seen as stimulus – response

In using the Audio-Lingual Method, there is the tendency to focus on discrete items in isolated contexts; mechanical laboratory drills which does not represent language as it is used for real — life communication is utilised making the learning of language to be artificial. This may make the learner not to appreciate the aesthetics of the target language. It also lacks varieties among learners. There is this emphasis on the aural aspect to the detriment of the other, three language skills. The visual-minded learners are the victims of this method because they do not benefit much from the aural drills.

There is also unnecessary emphasis on error-free learning in the area of pronunciation. This can instill fear, shyness and lack of confidence on the learner. He is not free to express himself for fear of making mistakes. This is also in contrast to contrastive and error analysis phenomena which is very essential in language learning. Research has proved that both in child and adult language learning, making mistakes helps in the trial and error hypothesis of mastering the language. By insisting on error-free learning, the tendency is for the learner to be nervous and withdrawn. He does not make effort to improve on and master the language. This is more pronounced when the learner converses with the native the sense that people do not normally interact with cues and responses as in pattern practice in the laboratory.

This notwithstanding, the Audio-Lingual Method has been modified in line with the eclectic method. There is now provision for explanation during pattern drills, real-life situations are now being simulated in the classroom; use are being made of pictures, dramatization, role-playing and an increased use of native language (mother-tongue) equivalent where necessary. This improvement is the genesis of the communicative approach.

On the positive side, the Audio-lingual Method has an impressive influence on language teaching. There is more learner participation and more carefully selected and graded materials based on the language in actual use. Despite its limitations and few usefulness, the Audio-lingual Method cannot be said to have offered the complete answer to language teaching/learning problems.

Having looked at the pros and cons of the Audio-lingual method, we shall now review the cognitive code learning aspect in the same manner. Williams (1990) is of the view that the cognitive code learning method is rules based. The techniques of the cognitive learning method are more effective because they encouraged. Here, language is presented in meaningful contexts. The method benefits from more up-to-date insights about the way in which language is acquired and about the way in which it is structured. This means that it employs the surface structure and the deep structure of Noam Chomsky’s (1966) Transformational Generative Grammar. The linguistic analysis on which the cognitive code — learning method is based helps to clarify ambiguity of sentences in teaching. For example: “Flying Aeroplanes can be dangerous” is an ambiguous sentence.

In addition, the grammar on which the cognitive code — learning method is based enables the teacher to explain this surface and deep structure difference in order to avoid the learner substituting items wrongly through false analogy.

The Cognitive Code – Learning Method can be likened to the eclectic approach. The former methods (cognitive code - learning method) like the eclectic method employs techniques that are adapted to the various purposes and functions for which language is used in the society. In short, it is communicative in nature and has led to the study of the communicative function of language – the latest innovation in language study.

CONCLUSION

Having considered these two methods of teaching language based on its conceptual, philosophical and critical domain, one can conclude that no one method can solve language-teaching problems. Linguists have to intensify their search for the right approach to language teaching and learning.

REFERENCES

Aitchison, J. (11984): The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to

Psycholinguistics; London: Hutchinson & Co.

Aitchason, J. (1986): The Articulate Mammal

Brown, H.D., (1980: Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New

Jersey: Prentice-HIll, Inc.

Burns, P.C. et al (1983): The Language Arts in Childhood Education. U.S.A.:

Hughton Mifflin Company.

Byrne, K., et al (1977): Psychology: Understanding Behaviour. Canada: W. B.

Saunders Co.

Goodman, KS., et ai (1987): Language and Thinking: Language and Thinking: A

Whole Language Curriculum. New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers Inc.

Ojinna, L.N. (1996): “Inspection of Foreign and Indigenous Languages in Nigerian Classroom” in Education Today, Vol.7, No.3: A Quarterly Journal of the Federal Ministry of Education and Youth Development.

Richards, J.C., (1989): The Context of Language Teaching. U.S.A.: Cambridge

University Press