Second language acquisition theories

Matthew Johnson: Hello, so today we're
going to start looking at

second language acquisition theories.

And, we're not going to make it to
technical.

The idea is to have a general overview.

Lots of teachers have a lot of knowledge
about second language acquisition theories,

and some teachers maybe don't have very
much explicit knowledge.

But there are things that they intuitively
feel.

And in the way that they've probably
taught, uh, and ideas that they've got

from colleagues, and so on.

There are probably lots of elements of
second language acquisition theory,

which they do in fact apply, into their
teaching into their classes.

So, the idea here is to get a general
overview of some of these theories

and to reflect on how they can inform
our teaching.

So, first of all, we have behaviorism.

Uh, and these are based on the ideas of
behavioral phycologists.

Like the famous Russian one, Pavlov.

Uh, and he showed how a dog could be made
to associate the ringing of a bell, uh,

with food.

and, uh, Skinner told these ideas and
expanded them and applied them to the

learning of, uh, a language.

Uh, and he emphasized the importance of,
uh, reinforcement, positive reinforcement

or rewards, of the desired language
behavior.

I.E correct language, and the kind of
punishment of undesirable behavior.

Um, and what he thought was this, uh,
model, uh, explained language development,

uh, so he argued for breaking tasks down
into small sequential steps.

And programming learning by providing
positive reinforcement.

Lots of positive reinforcement.

And the idea is, I mean it has big
limitations.

Um, because it suggests that language
is learned only by imitation.

Um, which makes you think, 'well how did
the first people learn language, who were

they imitating?'

Um, it takes the idea that, uh, a child,
or a language learner is a tabula rasa,

like a blank slate.

So, like an empty page.

Um, and suggests that language is nurture,
so language is conditioning.

Um, rather than something that the-the
learner, uh, learns for themselves.

Now it is a theory that has limitations
but it's very common, um, around the world.

Still, it's had a big influence on the way
languages are taught.

Uh, in the kind of companies that choose
language laboratories, you'll see, uh,

a methodology based on this idea of
language learning.

Also, you get repetition and drilling, and
substation activities.

For example for prepositions 'the pen is
on the table' everybody repeats,

'the pen is under the table' everybody
repeats.

'The book is next to the phone' 'the
picture is next to the phone'.

And we get this kind of, uh,
substitution.

Um, so this is the, uh, one of the first
significant theories about how we aquired

language, but it's kind of out of fashion
and, uh, it's been decided more or less

that this isn't really the way we learned
languages today.

Uh, if we only learn by repetition and
imitation, how is that children make very

logical mistakes that they've never heard
an adult say?

I've already given you a few little clues
about this.

But this is your first question for
reflection.

The innatist prospective is where this
starts to get interesting.

Uh, it was definitely an action against
the behaviorist approach.

Uh, and it's much more encouraging because
the idea that is, uh, that learners are

actually, using their brain to find
patterns that they're hypothesizing and

analyzing, they're deducing information.

So, their minds are actively involved in
the learning process.

Um, so yeah, they have to identify
patterns, work out rules, and-and

experiment, take chances.

And also making mistakes is something that
is considered to be an important part

of the learning process.

A-and, there are kind of two schools of
thought, in, uh, this innatist approach.

The first one is really the big name here,
is uh Noam Chomsky.

And, uh, he thought that there was a
specific part of the brain that was common

to all of us, that is specifically
dedicated to learning languages,

and we have this, uh language learning
ability built into us.

Um, and this has had an enormous, uh,
influence on language teaching.

Although really, though no specific
teaching methodologies that have been

based on this assumption.

The other school of thought is that really
we use our general cognitive functions,

the ones we use to complete other tasks
and learn other things in life.

And those are the ones we also apply
to learning languages, so it is the same

skills of looking for patterns and, uh,
arriving at conclusions and so on.

Um, so, a typical lesson based on this
kind of innatist cognitive approach,

um, the teacher might ask students to
analyze a text, to analyze some language

and to try and identify which, uh,
language structures are included there,

and how they're being used so that the
students can arrive at their own

conclusions, and-and-and use their minds
to learn the language.

Um, so yeah.

So, this is starting to get a little more
interesting then the behaviorist approach.

Uh, it's not perfect, it's not without
critics.

There have been lots of theories since
then.

But it starts to better explain, even if
only in a partial way, how we actually,

um, learn languages, or at least one of
the ways in which we learn languages.

More than a question, is an interesting,
uh, little task to do.

Uh, there is a difference between the two
lists of words, and most people generally

find one list easier to remember than the
other.

So, try and do the task, see how you do,
and speculate on what happened and why?

For constructivists, people are involved
throughout their whole lives really.

In constructing their own knowledge.

Um, and we do this from how we personally
understand experiences.

And everybody does this in their own
unique way.

So, you've probably experienced this,
for example, at the end of a lesson you

ask your students what they've learned and
they'll all tell you something

which is completely different because
they've all experienced it and constructed

meaning in their own particular individual
way.

And [clears throat] excuse me, the way of
Piaget was particularly influential, uh,

in the developments of constructivist
ideas, um, and these ideas have important

implications for language teachers.

Um, as learners are exposed to language,
to new language, they incorporate it,

this knew knowledge, into what they
already know.

Into their existing knowledge.

Uh, and this means that they modify what
they already know, um,

Bruna, was another important figure in
constructivist ideas, and he argued that

learners need to know how to learn, and
to develop their cognitive capacities

by being absorbed in challenging and
meaningful problems.

So, they need to make guesses, speculate,
use intuition, take risks, and,

have curiosity, but they also need to feel
confident in their

ability to solve problems.

Um, and an extension of this idea is that,
um, we are continually creating

and testing hypothesis and this is how
we learn.

We either refute our hypothesis or we
arrive at the conclusion that we're right

based on our experience and the knowledge
that we've constructed.

So, a teacher who follows a kind of
constructivist mind, might start a lesson

by eliciting personal or emotional
responses from learners.

Um, and also, y'know, things that they
might already know about a topic,

and this might be organized in a visual
way.

And then they'll be provided with
opportunities to, uh, to create new

knowledge, uh, with the foundation of what
they already know.

Um, so that basically is constructivism,
the idea that through experience we

construct our own reality, again, uh,
using, uh, our brains, but in a specific

context, in which we find ourselves.

Here's something else for you to think
about.

Does this kind of learning suit everybody?

And do you have any experience of this?

Humanistic approaches emphasize the
importance of considering the whole person

when learning.

Um, so their individuality, and um, the
important role that their feeling and

emotions play.

Uh, and Maslow formed this hierarchy.

And, uh, what he suggested, what he argues
is that, uh, it's very difficult to

fulfil the hire order of needs if we don't
have the lower order of needs fulfilled.

So, if we start at the very bottom
obviously, if your students don't have

the physiological needs, the-the food, the
water, warmth, the rest, then they're

probably not even going to be in class.

So there the basic kind of survival needs.

And, uh, after that, the need to feel
secure.

And beyond that, the needs are not
necessarily essential for survival, but,

if we're looking for, uh, a developing the
students self esteem and then actually

getting them to fill their potential and
to be able to learn, um, then we

obviously need a very strong basic and
phycological foundation.

So, teachers really need to take this into
account.

They need to create a safe, secure,
productive, learning environment.

So, a humanistic teacher might, uh, start
a class by getting learners to focus on

a partner and imagining how that partner
feels.

Or by closing their eyes and visualizing
something.

Or by taking a very affective and emotional
route and asking them to explore their own

feelings, or doing some kind of activity
to get them into a positive frame of mind.

So, it goes well beyond just the cognitive
here.

Um, humanism looks at the whole person
and focuses holistically on the whole person.

Takes a whole individual into account.

What do you think about this?

Is the effective side, uh, in
opposition to the cognitive side?

Are they mutually complimentary?

Is one more important than the other?

What do you think?

It's easy to see how this is an extension
of earlier theories of

language accusation.

The thing is here, from that
socio-cultural perspectives do not

separate the individual from
the context of which they're learning.

Um, sees learning as a essentially a
social process, uh, in which the, there

is a [stuttering] double direction really.

Um, the social context has an impact
on the individual, uh, but the

individual by participating influences the
social context.

So, you can imagine in the situation
of a class, you might have 12 people

in a class, and one very dominant
personality or somebody with very, uh,

particular characteristics.

And on the day that that student doesn't
come to class maybe the whole

dynamic of the class changes.

Um, I'm sure you've experienced
this.

Um, so, big name here, Viscosi, um, was
one of the most influential phycologists

in the area, um, and, other writers have
applied his ideas specifically to language

learning, to uh, to the learning, of uh,
foreign language.

Um, and indeed the mother tongue.

Learning happens when the individual, the
students, the learner, is faced with

something that is a little bit beyond
their current level of mastery.

A little bit beyond what they can do.

So, here it's important to take into
account, peers, um, and, teachers and

parents, who are a little bit, or a lot
above the current level of the learner.

And they can use scaffolding to help the
learner get to the next level.

Uh, this space between what the student or
what the learner can do in the moment, uh,

and what they're able to do with some help,
is called the zone of proximal development,

and this is quite famous in, um, in
educational circles.

So, students are often working in groups,
discussing, uh, negotiating.

And while they're doing cognitive tasks,
they're interacting with other people,

um, and verbalizing what they're doing,
so there is a metacognitive element here.

Um, and they're using mental processes
such as memory, decision making,

problem solving, and things like this.

So, in a class, which has been informed by
socio-cultural theory, teachers will be

scaffolding learners to reach the next
level of ability.

Um, and they'll tend to encourage learners
to work in groups, and communicate with

each other-with each other as they're
conducting tasks.

And they'll also be pushed to discuss
how they are learning in order that they

can become, uh, more conscious of this.

And now there's another question for your
consideration, again.

Thinking a little bit of your personal
experience.

So. now we've come to the time for you
to really do some work.

Um, you have here 4 different classroom
scenarios, and what you have to do is

to analyze the activities which are
described, and to try and decide what

the key characteristics of each of those
classrooms is.

And also identify the cycle of logical
perspective, the second language

acquisition theory perspectives that
we've been talking about in this video.

And, uh, see how reflected in these
activities.

And in some of them there is something
of an overlap.

So, it's not necessarily just one.

And finally when you've done that, what
you need to do now is to image that your

the teacher of the class carrying out
these activities.

Now, some of them you maybe feel have
pedological, or teaching value, and

some of them perhaps not so much.

And some of them you might like, and some
of them you might not like.

Now this is not an exactly the same thing,
because some activities that we might

think of good teaching activities are ones
that we ourselves are not comfortable with

doing, because of our own personality,
because of the things we like to do or

don't like to do in the classroom.

I often find myself that I ask my students
to do things that I wouldn't enjoy doing

myself, but I do them because I think
maybe they would enjoy them.

And also maybe that they are effective
learning strategies even though the way I

learn might be quite different from the
way that they do.

So, that really is a nice way to finish
this video.

Um, I'm not suggesting that any of the
explanations of how we learn languages

is perfect, in fact there is currently no
agreement on really how we learn languages,

but it seems that there are elements we
can take from each of these methodologies

which contribute towards effective
language teaching.

So the idea really here was to learn a
little bit more about these perspectives,

and reflect and think about how they can
inform you and your teaching in the future.