Skip to main content

So where do you stand on the learning/acquisition continuum?

You can choose to look at approaches to second language learning in any number of ways, but it is common to view them as placed somewhere on a continuum:

learning    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acquisition

conscious  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconscious

formal  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  natural

Fans of explicit grammar teaching, grammar-translation and structured skill practice would lean towards the left and fans of comprehension based work, with little explanation of rules and little rote learning, would lean to the right. If you believe that second language learning is fundamentally like child language acquisition you would be on the right. If you believe that older learners bring a good deal more to the game (knowledge of their first language, literacy, experience of learning techniques), you might lean to the left rather more.

In practice, most teachers find themselves somewhere along the line, maybe near the middle, acknowledging that there is some place for structured practice and explanation, just as there is clearly a need for large amounts of target language input with an emphasis on meaning.

The context of the learning is also significant. You could argue that in an immersion environment there is more room for natural acquisition, whereas in the traditional foreign language classroom, where you only get limited input each week, you need to take some short cuts and introduce more rote learning and explanation. Or could you argue the precise opposite? If you only have two or three contacts a week, should you maximise acquisition and sacrifice formal explanation and practice?

It's worth having this continuum in the back of your mind when planning lessons. Why are we doing this activity? How much language input is the class getting? Does the class need some formal explanation of rules here? Is this activity aimed at developing fluency or accuracy?

The fact is that we do not know for certain how second language learning works best. Furthermore, different students may have different preferred learning styles. If that is the case, then perhaps teachers are wise to hedge their bets and adopt an eclectic approach, adapting to some extent to the context and the class in front of them.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,