Learning Theories and Language Teaching

1. Learning Theories and Language Teaching Third of the main conceptual areas (show three circles diagram?) that have strongly influenced/influence LT. As saw when looked at language descriptions, language is a reflection of human thought processes. So language learning conditioned by the way the mind works. Key to successful language learning and teaching = understanding structure and processes of mind (vs. analysis of nature of language). Once again, developments here have taken form of historical succession of ideas, each one adding something further to the picture. Third of the main conceptual areas (show three circles diagram?) that have strongly influenced/influence LT. As saw when looked at language descriptions, language is a reflection of human thought processes. So language learning conditioned by the way the mind works. Key to successful language learning and teaching = understanding structure and processes of mind (vs. analysis of nature of language). Once again, developments here have taken form of historical succession of ideas, each one adding something further to the picture.

2. Word list Look at the list of words and try to memorise as many of the items as possible. Do not write any of them down. Will first of all do a little experiment to find out something ourselves about the way the mind works vis a vis language learning. Show for 30 seconds.Will first of all do a little experiment to find out something ourselves about the way the mind works vis a vis language learning. Show for 30 seconds.

3. Behaviourism Learning as habit formation Stimulus-Response-Reinforcement repetition Pattern practice (drills, etc.) Learner as passive receiver of information Earliest scientific theory of learning (beginning of 20th century) - Pavlov -> Skinner. Input-output model. If you can control what goes in, you can control what comes out (learning). Method of doing so = Stimulus, Response, Reinforcement: e.g., tell dog �sit�, dog sits, dog gets pat. Repeating this process often enough was seen as resulting in learning, as led to formation of correct habits. In LT, led to language laboratory drills, e.g., Is this a pen? No it isn�t. Is this a pencil? Yes it is. (etc.) Based on view of learner as tabula rasa. Responsible for views in LT such as all errors must be avoided/immediately corrected, translations should be avoided, etc., as otherwise inappropriate habits will develop. Although this theory now looks very old-fashioned, better to see it as an oversimplification rather than completely wrong: mistake was to see input and repetition as whole picture, instead of only part of it. Earliest scientific theory of learning (beginning of 20th century) - Pavlov -> Skinner. Input-output model. If you can control what goes in, you can control what comes out (learning). Method of doing so = Stimulus, Response, Reinforcement: e.g., tell dog �sit�, dog sits, dog gets pat. Repeating this process often enough was seen as resulting in learning, as led to formation of correct habits. In LT, led to language laboratory drills, e.g., Is this a pen? No it isn�t. Is this a pencil? Yes it is. (etc.) Based on view of learner as tabula rasa. Responsible for views in LT such as all errors must be avoided/immediately corrected, translations should be avoided, etc., as otherwise inappropriate habits will develop. Although this theory now looks very old-fashioned, better to see it as an oversimplification rather than completely wrong: mistake was to see input and repetition as whole picture, instead of only part of it.

4. Mentalism Behaviourism unable to account for creativity of language learning: novel utterances system-building 2. Learning as rule-governed activity (Chomsky) habit formation vs. acquiring rules stimulus triggers search for underlying pattern hypothesis-testing Behaviourism eventually challenged because seen as unable to account for the creativity involved in everyday, basic aspects of language. Parrot joke illustrates this well. What shows is that parrot wouldn�t have been able to say what it said if behaviourism was all that there was to language learning. As you know, even very young children in their mother tongue routinely produce utterances that they have not been exposed to - how can this be possible, unless there is something more to learning than input? Also, everyday L1 language learning is creative in the sense that not only is the language learned, but also the system of the language as well - I.e., the grammar of the language is unconsciously internalized at the same time. Not in sense of being able to state the rules of course, but in sense of being able to show a working knowledge of them by e.g., judging whether an utterance is grammatical or not. In both cases, clear that language learning involves a considerable amount of going beyond the information given. The main attack on the behaviourist position from this perspective came form Chomsky. Argued that what was missing from the behaviorist concept of learning was a theory of mind - a mentalist perspective, in other words. The mind was seen to possess a set of deep-seated ways of processing language data that lead to the unconscious discovery of the grammar of the language - learning as a rule-governed activity. Thus the input the learner was exposed to needs to be seen in a very different way - not so much a means of forming habits but a trigger for pattern-seeking. This can be illustrated via our list or words: write down what can recall how many? show -> which ones? -> pattern/familiar -> individual connections pattern seeking process takes form of hypothesis testing -> see h/o past tense = V + ed past tense = V + ed, except� Behaviourism eventually challenged because seen as unable to account for the creativity involved in everyday, basic aspects of language. Parrot joke illustrates this well. What shows is that parrot wouldn�t have been able to say what it said if behaviourism was all that there was to language learning. As you know, even very young children in their mother tongue routinely produce utterances that they have not been exposed to - how can this be possible, unless there is something more to learning than input? Also, everyday L1 language learning is creative in the sense that not only is the language learned, but also the system of the language as well - I.e., the grammar of the language is unconsciously internalized at the same time. Not in sense of being able to state the rules of course, but in sense of being able to show a working knowledge of them by e.g., judging whether an utterance is grammatical or not. In both cases, clear that language learning involves a considerable amount of going beyond the information given. The main attack on the behaviourist position from this perspective came form Chomsky. Argued that what was missing from the behaviorist concept of learning was a theory of mind - a mentalist perspective, in other words. The mind was seen to possess a set of deep-seated ways of processing language data that lead to the unconscious discovery of the grammar of the language - learning as a rule-governed activity. Thus the input the learner was exposed to needs to be seen in a very different way - not so much a means of forming habits but a trigger for pattern-seeking. This can be illustrated via our list or words: write down what can recall how many? show -> which ones? -> pattern/familiar -> individual connections pattern seeking process takes form of hypothesis testing -> see h/o past tense = V + ed past tense = V + ed, except�

5. The cognitive theory Mentalist position led to view that learning is a thinking (i.e., cognitive) process (cf. Descartes - I think, therefore I am). Picture of learner opposite to that of behaviourism - seen as active meaning-maker, at heart of learning process. Learners therefore need to be given the chance to use their thinking abilities in the learning process. Led to idea of using techniques for learning such as problem solving, and learning strategies (thinking consciously about ways of learning, e.g., inferring meaning of unknown words, etc.) Mentalist position led to view that learning is a thinking (i.e., cognitive) process (cf. Descartes - I think, therefore I am). Picture of learner opposite to that of behaviourism - seen as active meaning-maker, at heart of learning process. Learners therefore need to be given the chance to use their thinking abilities in the learning process. Led to idea of using techniques for learning such as problem solving, and learning strategies (thinking consciously about ways of learning, e.g., inferring meaning of unknown words, etc.)

6. Affective theory Learning as an emotional process The cognitive-affective interconnection Motivation Language, learner and learning situation levels framework (Dornyei 2001: 18) Process model (ibid: 19 - 23) Authentic texts/tasks, small group-work, etc. Cognitive theory also came to be seen as insufficient, however, as doesn�t take into account the way that feelings also influence learning. So also need an affective theory of learning (affect = technical term for emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc. - not to be confused with effective!). Cognitive-affective interaction: can help to see two sides of learning as interconnected, with affective aspect primary (see handout) Leads into question of motivation and its vital importance in learning. Have already touched on this in session 2, re language learner variables. Dornyei text, esp. Ch. 1, a key text in this regard. As points out, need to see motivation in terms of language level (integrative vs instrumental motivations), but also learner�s own psychology (e.g., self-confidence, need for achievement, etc.), and learning situation levels (made of course-, teacher- and group-related variables). Also has process model, which has three main stages - generating, maintaining and retrospecting - similar to cognitive-affective cycle diagram in some ways - but key point is that different kinds of motivation involved in each of these phases, not a monolithic matter form this perspective. Motivation thus v. complex and important learning factor, esp. in lang. learning. In terms of learning activities, the affective theory has lent support to the use of authenticity (real-life) in LT, on grounds that likely to create greater interest -> motivation, and, e.g., group work, as caters to learners working with friends, more positive emotional climate than being always under beady eye of teacher, etc. Cognitive theory also came to be seen as insufficient, however, as doesn�t take into account the way that feelings also influence learning. So also need an affective theory of learning (affect = technical term for emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc. - not to be confused with effective!). Cognitive-affective interaction: can help to see two sides of learning as interconnected, with affective aspect primary (see handout) Leads into question of motivation and its vital importance in learning. Have already touched on this in session 2, re language learner variables. Dornyei text, esp. Ch. 1, a key text in this regard. As points out, need to see motivation in terms of language level (integrative vs instrumental motivations), but also learner�s own psychology (e.g., self-confidence, need for achievement, etc.), and learning situation levels (made of course-, teacher- and group-related variables). Also has process model, which has three main stages - generating, maintaining and retrospecting - similar to cognitive-affective cycle diagram in some ways - but key point is that different kinds of motivation involved in each of these phases, not a monolithic matter form this perspective. Motivation thus v. complex and important learning factor, esp. in lang. learning. In terms of learning activities, the affective theory has lent support to the use of authenticity (real-life) in LT, on grounds that likely to create greater interest -> motivation, and, e.g., group work, as caters to learners working with friends, more positive emotional climate than being always under beady eye of teacher, etc.

7. Learning vs. acquisition (Krashen) Finally, learning can also be seen as conscious or unconscious process. Krashen has argued that formal, conscious learning of grammar rules etc. not much use because they are too complicated to use in practice most of the time, especially spoken communication. Therefore, better to think of L2 language learning being mainly a non-conscious, informal acquisition process, like learning of L1. Basic idea is that learners need to be exposed to input + 1, so-called �comprehensible input�, i.e., at next stage up from current level. As a result of grappling with trying to understand, the necessary learning processes will be stimulated, and the language knowledge will be acquired. Probably best to assume, however, that while some language learning can occur this way, conscious language learning also useful (see e.g., Johnson Ch. 7 and Littlewood 92 Ch 5 esp.). Finally, learning can also be seen as conscious or unconscious process. Krashen has argued that formal, conscious learning of grammar rules etc. not much use because they are too complicated to use in practice most of the time, especially spoken communication. Therefore, better to think of L2 language learning being mainly a non-conscious, informal acquisition process, like learning of L1. Basic idea is that learners need to be exposed to input + 1, so-called �comprehensible input�, i.e., at next stage up from current level. As a result of grappling with trying to understand, the necessary learning processes will be stimulated, and the language knowledge will be acquired. Probably best to assume, however, that while some language learning can occur this way, conscious language learning also useful (see e.g., Johnson Ch. 7 and Littlewood 92 Ch 5 esp.).

8. SEMINAR What theory/theories of learning underlie each of the language teaching activities provided?

9. RECOMMENDED READING