chapter 2 english language teaching methods -...
Post on 24-Apr-2018
248 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 2
English Language Teaching Methods
To analyse the curriculum of English language teaching and to evaluate its
effectiveness, knowledge of the principles underlying the curriculum is a
prerequisite. The pedagogic theories that form the basis of the actual practice in and
out of classrooms, has to be studied. Through continuous analysis and research
English language teaching methodology has been subjected to reform and change.
The reforms and the adoption of new methods were the result of the need felt by the
teaching community.
In Kerala, the Higher Secondary school curriculum was redesigned in
accordance with constructivist principles in 2005-2006. The shift of paradigm from
behaviourist to constructivist was undertaken with the aim of making the higher
secondary curriculum a natural continuation of the curriculum up to the secondary
level. In keeping with the general shift in paradigm, the English language curriculum
also was revised.
The revised constructivist curriculum was introduced to the teachers through
two Sourcebooks which delineate the salient aspects of the curriculum. The
Sourcebook 2 declares the nature and quality of the revised second language
curriculum as: “The proposed methodology, activity based, process-oriented and
child centred approach, operates in the constructive paradigm which would be
helpful for the learners to construct language appropriate to various communicative
contexts” (14). A theory based analysis of the curriculum and evaluation of the
28
pedagogic practices necessitate a study of the theory of constructivism and the
theories of English Language Teaching.
Constructivism presents a radically different view about the process of
education. Constructivist language classrooms view education as a meaning making
process and centre their attention on the construction of knowledge and language by
learners. Constructivist language pedagogy is primarily inspired by the findings of
Jerome Bruner and Lev Vygotsky. The mind is the focus of constructivist thought;
the working of the mind is deemed to be of central importance in education. Bruner
highlights the constructive power of the mind saying: “Constructivism is no where
more compelling than in the psychology of art and creativity. Blake, Kafka,
Wittgenstein, and Picasso did not find the worlds they produced, they invented
them” (The Process 97).
Constructivism itself is the product of theoretical evolution and has inspired
pedagogic practitioners in the realm of language. Language pedagogy has been
trying to reform itself over many decades. All the teaching methods aimed to suit
themselves better to the mind of the learner so that learning occurs more effectively
and quickly. As Stern observed, “One of the main features of the development of
language pedagogy has been the continuous attempt to renew language teaching
through changes in teaching method” (Issues 6). Constructivist ideas were taken up
by scholars to illumine language teaching methodology and practice. Traces of
constructivism are found in Stephen Krashen’s Natural Approach, in the Total
Physical Response approach, Community Language Learning, Suggestopedia and
Communicative Language Teaching. It is to be noted that the various methods
29
evolved from the realizations that resulted from previous pedagogical practices.
Elizabeth Murphy points out that: “Although new methods or approaches signify a
certain break from the old, they nonetheless maintain a link with the past by
incorporating positive aspects of previous paradigms” (2.2.1).
The history of pedagogic reform in language can be traced back to the final
decades of the nineteenth century. It was a time when the Grammar Translation
method came under pedagogic doubt and criticism. There is almost no comparison
between constructivist language teaching and the Grammar Translation method
which was the offshoot of the notion that education is largely about the knowledge
of classical languages like Latin and Greek. These languages were studied with the
objectives of learning how to read classical Greek and Latin texts, to enable
. . . understanding the fundamentals of grammar and translation, and
gaining insights into some important foreign influences Latin has had
on the development of other European languages. The method used
to teach it overwhelmingly bore those objectives in mind, and came
to be known (appropriately!) as the Classical Method. It is now more
commonly known in Foreign Language Teaching circles as the
Grammar Translation Method. (Web. English Raven.Com. 17 July
08)
Though it was acclaimed and practiced for quite some time as the only
possible method to teach and learn language, as time elapsed its weaknesses became
evident. There was in it an element of coercion as it did not give any consideration
to the workings of the student mind. The classroom experience of those students of
the past, who learned the second language following the precepts and practices of
this method, was dull as there was nothing that catered to their curiosity or the finer
30
aspects of their individual interests and tastes. In course of time, due to its
narrowness the method was sidelined in favour of others which seemed better.
Frustrations in the academic circles about the limitations of the Grammar
Translation method led to the emergence of the Direct Method. “The principles
emphasized the importance of listening and speaking the foreign language.
Meaningful contexts for learning, inductive teaching of grammar and avoidance of
translation were some of the principles put forth. These principles provided the
foundation for the Direct Method” (Murphy, 2.2.3). The central premise of the
Direct Method was that by conscious avoidance of the first language and by learning
to think in the target language, the students would learn to communicate in the target
language. The meaning to be communicated was yoked with the target language
and the spontaneous use of the target language was encouraged. The method gave
due place to listening and speaking the target language. The Direct Method gave
some consideration to the role of meaning making as it realized the value of
meaningful contexts for learning.
As the Direct Method was found deficient also for historical and political
reasons it was abandoned in favour of the Audio-lingual Method. The turmoil of the
World Wars and the military moves created a need for learning languages. The
soldiers participating in the wars needed to converse in foreign languages to
communicate with their soldiers from different countries, speaking different
languages. To meet demands of this situation, the "Army Method" was suddenly
developed to build communicative competence. The method, however, did not have
strong theoretical backing
31
The ‘methodology’ of the army method, like the direct method, is
derived from the intensity of contact with the target language rather
than from any well-developed methodological basis. It was a program
innovative mainly in terms of the procedures used and the intensity of
teaching rather than in terms of its underlying theory. (Richards and
Rogers 45)
Though the Audio-Lingual or Army method was new in some aspects it shared
some features of the Direct Method. Both the methods emphasized the use of the
target language and aimed to teach grammar inductively. The need for language in
actual conversation was sharply realized and as such great emphasis was given to
conversation practice. As the method led the learners to rather quick communicative
competence and as it had the backing of Skinner’s findings, it was hailed as the ideal
method to learn languages. The middle of the twentieth century also witnessed the
emergence of theorists like B F Skinner, Thorndike, Ferdinand Saussure and
Leonard Bloomfield. Their theories lend their colours to the Audio-Lingual Method
and made it seem all the more learned. The underpinnings of their theories gave
currency to the strategies of the Audio-Lingual Method. Indians participated in the
World Wars in support of their colonial masters. The participation of Indian soldiers
in the World Wars contributed to their learning of the English language from the
military contexts and the war front.
The Audio-Lingual Method was strongly influenced by behavioural
psychology and structural linguistics theory. Structuralism proposed the notion that
diverse phenomena do not occur by themselves in isolation. All phenomena occur in
relation to other phenomena as they all form part of a whole. All of them have a
32
structure that is definite though their structure may not be defined. In diverse areas
of knowledge the structuralists attempted to perceive the structure of the whole and
the relation of the elements with other elements and with the whole. Ferdinand de
Saussure the originator of Structuralism applied structuralist theories to the study
and understanding of language. Structuralism became a subject of serious study and
scholars dedicated themselves to further the advances made by it. Saussure’s theory
of structuralism was made more specific by Leonard Bloomfield who aimed at
making the study of language scientific by dissociating it from mundane and
unstudied notions. His theories were restrictive in nature but in the height of the
popularity of his theory it stood up to question prevailing philosophy, pedagogy and
language teaching methods. He strongly believed and propagated the notion that
repetition and habit formation ensure language learning. As such his theory echoed
the claims of B F Skinner. Bloomfield’s theory was received without much criticism
as it appealed to the commonsense reasoning of the time. Vivian Cook points out
that the “Bloomfieldian version of language acquisition was the commonplace of
linguistics before Chomsky” (Chomsky’s 76).
By simplifying language learning to the bare equation of imitation and
repetition, Bloomfield dismissed the realm of meaning with out a meaningful
explanation. As meaning is an elusive factor in language he dismissed it as irrelevant
and taught his followers to do the same and to concentrate on the stimulus-response
equation. It could be assumed quite logically that the days of Bloomfield’s theories
and notions witnessed the death of meaning to the immeasurable detriment of
pedagogic practices in the realm of language.
33
Like Bloomfield, Skinner considered language as originating from physical
needs and serving to satisfy physical needs or ends. Both of them gave no
consideration to the role of the mind in the learning of language. He used
sophisticated laboratory equipment and conducted elaborate experiments to prove
how behavioural rules operate on particular organisms. His theories including that of
Stimulus-Response were founded on the proof from his elaborate experiments.
Skinner erred by making his theoretical conclusions about man from his experiments
with the lower animal species. The behaviourist theories of skinner were underlined
and established by the findings from Pavlov’s experiments with dogs and Edward L.
Thorndike’s experiments with cats. Their influence in the realm of language led to
the adoption of massive drilling and habit formation based on the conviction that
language is only verbal behaviour.
In language teaching the behaviourist paradigm with its inherent methods
was introduced with rigor. The textbook and the teacher dominated the language
classrooms. From the kindergarten to the tertiary level the students memorized
language data in the name of language learning. At the kindergarten level the
students were taught stories and songs, which they learned assiduously as it was
forced on them by the teachers and the textbook. Songs like -Johnny Johnny, Yes
Papa, Twinkle, twinkle little star, and Ba ba black sheep; became synonymous with
kindergarten education. These songs and similar stories were taught to the students
and they had to repeat them till they learnt them by rote. The students were
meticulously taught language in fragments like - This is a book/This is a pen/This is
a ball/This is a bat etc. In the higher classes the same method of data drilling
34
continued emphasizing habit formation, repetitive drills; avoidance of errors
mimicry and rote memorization.
In the behaviourist paradigm education was considered as the mission of
intervening in the environment of the student. The mind of the student was
considered as a ‘tabula rasa’ to be written on by the teacher the textbooks and the
classroom procedures giving no consideration to the inner psychological aspects of
the student mind. The behaviourist curriculum consisted of textbooks workbooks
and the omniscient presence of the teacher and through these agencies, data was
drilled into the minds of the students. Memory power was equated with intelligence
and it was tested in the examinations. The spirit of competition ruled in the classes
and in the examinations and the students left school with the awareness that life is a
big competition. They also learned to be submissive to teachers in the name of
discipline and learning. As Jerome Bruner pointed out Behaviourism was charged
with the notions of original sin, primary process, and ego centrism – “All of them
imply that there should be something rooted out, replaced or compensated, the
pedagogy that resulted was some view of teaching as surgery, suppression,
replacement, deficit filling or some mix of them all” (Bruner 124). Despite its many
drawbacks behaviourism ruled the realm of academics for long as the only way to
teach and to learn.
In the middle of the twentieth century, even while the behaviourist practices
were being actively embraced in academic circles critical thought about the
behaviourist paradigm led to further pedagogic advances. The demerits of the
paradigm came to view and various new methods were experimented in classrooms.
35
New linguistic theories in the 1960s challenged the structural view of language as
well as the behaviourist view of language learning. Noam Chomsky’s
Transformational Generative grammar dismantled the Structuralist assumptions and
posed a new framework of acquisition of languages. According to Chomsky
innovation and the formation of new sentences and patterns help the creation of new
utterances from the learner’s underlying knowledge of abstract rules. Chomsky’s
references to innateness of human capabilities conflicted with skinner’s emphasis on
observable behaviours. Through this book he introduced for the first time the notion
of an innate language system. Through his Critique on Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour
he destroyed the elaborate foundations of Locke’s Empiricism and Skinner’s
Behaviourism. Chomsky’s theory presented language as a property of the human
mind and sought to explain how human beings acquire it. Language for him was ‘the
system of principles, conditions and rules that are elements or properties of all
human languages … the essence of human language’ (Chomsky, Reflections 29).
His theory embraced and brought together all languages and the disparities between
languages was resolved.
Chomsky disproved the arguments of Skinner and the behaviourists
regarding language learning. Skinner had asserted that people learn language from
their elders and use language as they learned. Chomsky pointed out that people
understand sentences that they have never heard or used previously. Language arises
in situations and people understand the language in keeping with the situations and
the combination of words and ideas. Language use is creative and is not a product of
imitation and repetition. Chomsky also proved that language is stimulus-free; that
36
the language use of people is independent of stimuli. He provided an intellectual
counter to the behaviourist notion of stimulus-response. Skinner had asserted that
language learning depended on reinforcement of children’s utterances by elders.
Chomsky pointed out that parents and elders do not encourage and reinforce all
correct expressions of the child or discourage incorrect ones.
The behaviourists reached their conclusions about human learning based on
experiments conducted with animals. Chomsky pointed out that humans are different
from animals. Parrots pick up cards and chimpanzees ride bicycles, dogs and cats
respond to bells and food and some animals like chimps may utter a few words if
given thorough training. But these accomplishments by animals and birds are
achieved through the rigorous and continuous training given to them. Skills are
learned through practice, but learning a human language is not the same as learning
a skill like cycling. Chimpanzees and parrots may utter a few words or sentences but
they cannot use the human language intelligently to express their needs or their
thoughts. They can only repeat words and sentences as a skill, which they learned
through practice.
In addition to refuting the logic that the behaviourists put forward, Chomsky
presented a better view of human language and language learning potential. One of
Chomsky’s central claims is that the language faculty is species-specific. No other
species of living things are known to be equipped with language ability. The
language organ is an exclusive property of the human brain. All children learn to
speak language because they are genetically designed to speak language. Humans
learn language not as a skill but they acquire it as knowledge through an intuitive
37
theory-construction process. This human quality or gift is not shared by the lower
animal species. Chomsky proved the inability of animals to speak ironically bringing
in the point about the inability of human beings to fly: “the distinction between
jumping and flying is arbitrary, a matter of degree; people can really fly, just like
birds, only not so well” (Chomsky, Reflections 71)). The human mind and its
constructiveness were brought to focus by Chomsky’s theory of language.
Chomsky’s theories of language supported the theories of constructivism upheld by
Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner and Lev Vygosky and they can be blended to arrive at
better pedagogic practices.
Till the 1960s linguistics followed the E-language tradition and linguists
collected samples of language and based on the collected samples they described
language. E-language linguists collected sentences ‘understood independently of the
properties of the mind’. The E-language approaches framed theories that emphasized
the physical manifestations of language and also those that treat language as a social
phenomenon ‘as a collection (or system) of actions or behaviours of some sort’. The
grammar that emerged based on the samples of language as used in everyday life
aimed to describe the regularities and the irregularities of language and such “a
grammar is a collection of descriptive statements concerning the E-language”
(Chomsky Knowledge, 20).
The radical leap from the superficial E-language approach to the in-depth I-
language approach began with Chomsky and his revolutionizing theories; “the shift
of focus from the dubious concept of E-language to the significant notion of I-
language was a crucial step in early generative grammar’ (Chomsky, Some notes
38
10). He realized that only an I-language approach is capable of generating an
organic and binding theory of language. The basic premise of I-language linguistics
is that language is an intrinsic feature of the mind. Chomsky’s linguistics centred on
I-language and aimed to discover as to the elements of language knowledge. Such an
approach takes into consideration the sprouting, growth and flowering of language
in the mind of the speaker. It completely does away with the E-language concepts
and methods and considers language as ‘a system represented in the mind/brain of a
particular individual’ (Chomsky, Language 36). Chomsky’s theories of language
aimed to analyze and study the mind rather than the environment and dismissed the
E-language approaches as futile: “E-language, if it exists at all, is derivative, remote
from mechanisms and of no particular empirical significance, perhaps none at all”
(Chomsky, Linguistics 10).
Chomsky’s UG theory was an offshoot of his I-language approach and is
innatist in nature. He claimed that language is a capacity that is specific to the
human species and that it is innate in the genetic structure of human beings.
Universal Grammar or UG is a common possession of all human beings despite the
large variety of human languages across the world. UG is “the system of principles,
conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages … the
essence of human language” (Chomsky, Reflections 29). Chomsky postulated that
language belongs to the realm of knowledge and it is knowledge that all human
beings are genetically equipped to acquire. UG theory deals with the knowledge of
language and it explores the internal structure of the human mind.
39
The UG theory has a few sub theories that wedge into its framework. The
first of these theories is the Principles and Parameters theory. It claims that the
knowledge of language depends on the knowledge of the principles that are common
to all languages and parameters that vary from language to language. “Universal
Grammar summarizes the differences between languages in terms of a limited
choice between a few possibilities, known as a parameter” (Cook 15). To know a
particular language thus implies that the speaker has knowledge of principles that
are common to all languages and parameters of the particular language. The
differences in parameters result in different languages, the “complexes of properties
differentiating otherwise similar languages are reducible to a single parameter, fixed
in one or another way” (Chomsky, Lectures 6). The acquisition of a language means
merely the acquisition of principles and parameters.
All languages have their specific structure and the utterances are formed in
keeping with the principles and parameters of structure in the language. An
individual speaker has to acquire the structure of the language to produce utterances.
To produce sentences anyhow would hinder communication with the other speakers
of the language. “Any human being who knows any language therefore includes the
principle of structure-dependency within their knowledge of language” (Cook 12).
The arrangement of words in a sentence is ruled by structural rules. Knowledge of
language means knowledge of the rules that regulate the structure of sentences in the
language. The concept of Structure-dependency asserts that knowledge of language
rests on the structural relationships in the sentence. Structure-dependency therefore
is a universal principle of language; “all known formal operations in the grammar of
40
English, or of any other language are structure-dependent’ (Chomsky, Problems 30).
A language exists and grows through its lexicon. It is the lexicon that
differentiates languages from each other. The Principles and Parameters theory
realizes the importance of the words in a language. To know a language means to
know the words in it; their sounds meanings and their respective uses and the
positions where they occur in sentences. The Principles and Parameters theory
encompasses also the Projection Principle. The Projection Principle implies that the
syntax of a language has to include the characteristics of lexical items. “The lexical
entry is said to ‘project’ on to the syntax; the lexical specifications of the word
ensure that the syntax has a particular form. This is summed up in a central principle
known as the Projection Principle” (Cook 19). In any language the words cannot
occur anyhow; there are restrictions on which words can occur in which
constructions. Chomsky points out that the “lexical structure must be represented
categorically at every syntactic level” (Chomsky, Knowledge 84). The features and
qualities of each lexical item in the language are recorded in its lexical entry. The
speaker’s knowledge of the occurrence restrictions for all the words in the language
is included in such entries in their mental lexicon. A speaker has thousands of words
in his mental lexicon, which he uses to express meanings he has in mind. The
lexicon as a list of words and their meanings is not separate from the syntax, the
lexical items are loaded with syntactic features and their use in sentences is dictated
by their syntactic qualities. As a result syntax itself is simplified by the avoidance of
many rules, as the lexical items themselves are charged with meanings and
functions.
41
The Projection Principle is a universal feature of human language. It is this
feature of language that makes the acquisition of language easy for the child. As
children become familiar with the words they also imbibe effortlessly the syntactic
features of the words and gradually learn the accurate use of words in sentences as
“the properties of lexical items project onto the syntax of the sentence”. It is this
feature of projection that enables children to acquire language without the deliberate
learning of rules. “UG theory emphasizes not only the importance of syntax but also
the crucial role of vocabulary in the knowledge of language” (Cook 20, 21). In the
process of language acquisition, the child acquires a massive amount of vocabulary.
Each item of vocabulary is acquired with its own pronunciation, meaning and
syntactic features. Children assimilate the characteristics of thousands of words are
with ease and speed. “A large part of ‘language learning’ is a matter of determining
from presented data the elements of the lexicon and their properties” (Chomsky,
Some Concepts 8). The principles and parameters of language are in a way
concerned directly with the lexical items of languages. The hypothesis about the
learning of the lexicon, known popularly as Lexical learning hypothesis, makes the
claim that parameters belong to lexical items rather than to principles. The vital role
of the lexicon in language acquisition was highlighted by Chomsky when he said
“there is only one human language apart from the lexicon, and language acquisition
is in essence a matter of determining lexical idiosyncrasies” ( Chomsky, Some notes
419).
Chomsky, concentrating his attention on I-language made suggestions about
the language faculty. He claimed that the language faculty is independent of other
42
mental faculties. He pointed out that the language faculty has particular features that
are not shared with other mental abilities; “syntax seems to observe a property of
‘structure-dependency’, unable to make use of linear and arithmetical properties that
are much easier to implement outside the language faculty” (Chomsky, Language
16). He suggested that the independence of language faculty could be deduced from
the very nature of language acquisition. Children do not learn Principles such as
Structure-dependency as they learn other skills like cycling or roller skating. The
acquisition of language is attained by other ways that are not based on mere
repetition
In the absence of more definite evidence, the uniqueness of language
principles such as Structure-dependency points to an autonomous
area of the mind devoted to language knowledge, a ‘language
faculty’, separate from other mental faculties such as mathematics,
vision, logic and so on. Language knowledge is separate from other
forms of representation in the mind; it is not the same as knowing
mathematical concepts. (Cook 31)
He also presented the notion that in the human brain there is an area that is dedicated
entirely to the acquisition and use of language. Just as the body is described in terms
of bodily organs that have specific roles and functions, he described the mind in
terms of mental organs like the logic organ, the mathematics organ, the
commonsense organ, and the language organ. “We may usefully think of the
language faculty, the number faculty, and others as ‘mental organs’, analogous to the
heart or the visual system or the system of motor coordination and planning”
(Chomsky, Rules and 39). As such Chomsky’s theory is at the same time
psychological and biological in essence. By extension, he related the principles of
43
UG to the physical aspects of the brain; “the abstract study of states of the language
faculty should formulate properties to be explained by the theory of the brain”
(Chomsky, Knowledge 39). Chomsky’s theory of language is not delimited to the
boundaries of particular languages but is relevant in the case of all languages and
language acquisition. All people in the process of acquiring language become aware
of the principles and parameters of the language they learn and they also acquire the
principles of Projection and Structure-dependency.
Chomsky explains language acquisition saying that children are equipped
with a Language Acquisition Device, LAD, by birth. They hear the words and
sentences used by their parents, caretakers and others around them. The linguistic
data that they receive often tends to be crude, broken and unfinished. The raw
material of language that they receive is processed in their minds but they attain the
capacity to use the language for their purposes. From the input that the children
receive and the output that they bring forth in their actual communication, the
process that goes on in their minds can be deduced. The capacity and functioning of
the LAD can be sufficiently understood from the knowledge of language that the
children acquire from the data that they receive.
Having some knowledge of the characteristics of the acquired
grammars and the limitations on the available data, we can formulate
quite reasonable and fairly strong empirical hypotheses regarding the
internal structure of the language acquisition device that constructs
the postulated grammars from the given data. (Chomsky, Language
113)
44
The LAD is “a procedure that operates on experience acquired in an ideal
community and constructs from it, in a determinative way, a state of the language
faculty” (Chomsky, Language 69). Chomsky’s conceptualisation of the Language
Acquisition Device is thus a powerful metaphor for language acquisition.
Central to Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar is the poverty-of-
stimulus argument which is directly concerned with language acquisition and LAD.
A human being’s knowledge of language is complex and abstract though the
experience of language that is received is comparatively limited. The richness and
abundance of the knowledge of language has no one to one correspondence with the
language experience that is received. To elaborate this in terms of the language
acquisition device would be to say that the input into the LAD is limited and
insufficient but the output is rich and abundant. “This is the conundrum called
‘Plato’s problem’ which is at the heart of Chomskyan ideas of language acquisition”.
Plato’s own explanation to the problem was that it all originated from memories of
previous existence; Chomsky attributed it to the innate properties of the mind. The
poverty-of-the-stimulus argument “claims that the nature of language knowledge is
such that it could not have been acquired from the actual samples of language
available to the human child” (Cook 82, 86). To explain further would be to say that
if the child’s mind constructs knowledge of language from the insufficient data, that
the child’s mind is equipped with the power to construct the knowledge of language.
The insufficiency of the input is compensated by the UG in the mind itself. The
mind is not just a processor of the input; it on the other hand contributes things of its
own.
45
In Chomsky’s writings related to UG, the nature of evidence available to the
child is a recurrent theme. Language evidence available to the child has a crucial
role in language acquisition. Children acquire language from the linguistic evidence
that they get. If they get no evidence they will learn no language at all. With
sufficient evidence, they can acquire any language with ease be it German, French or
English. The evidence that children get can be either positive or negative. Negative
evidence consists of explanations, corrections of wrong sentences that clarify as to
what is not to be done in the use of language. In the case of first language
acquisition, children get mostly positive evidence. Children have to learn from
positive examples of language that is used by their elders and parents rather than
from what they don’t say. “In principle, children must be able to learn language
simply from example of language spoken by others (positive evidence), without
correction, explanation etc (negative evidence)” (Cook 92). This notion of
Chomsky’s sharply contradicted the theories of the structuralists and the
behaviourists who strongly upheld the role of elders in the learning of language
accomplished by children. The third type of evidence that children get is indirect
negative evidence, which help children to know what types of sentences normally do
not occur in the language use by elders. All these three types of evidences help
children in the acquisition of language. However, all these three types of evidences
do not play an equal role. Chomsky qualifies their roles saying, “there is good
reason to believe that direct negative evidence is not necessary for language
acquisition, but indirect negative evidence may be relevant” (Chomsky, Lectures 9).
This again is dependent on occurrence uniformity and the amount of language taken-
up by the child/learner.
46
Chomsky’s notions about language and language acquisition differed from
those of the behaviourists on several points. The behaviourists considered the mind
of the child as a tabula rasa to be filled in by the parents at home and by teachers
and books in school. Chomsky put forward the notion that the learning of language
is not accomplished by filling in language data from the outside environment. It is
not the same as learning geography or learning to ride a bicycle. We do not actually
learn the language, but rather the grammar grows in the mind naturally. “In certain
fundamental respects we do not really learn language; rather grammar grows in the
mind” (Chomsky, Rules 134). It is the development of the organism from the inside
in response to limited but vital experience from outside. He compared it to the
sprouting of a seed. For a seed to sprout and to grow it needs a suitable environment,
which includes air water, and earth but the sprouting is done by the seed itself as if
in response to a biological setting. With the congenial environment the seed has to
sprout, it cannot do anything else. The environment only facilitates the realization of
its inherent potentialities. “Chomsky argues that language acquisition more akin to
growing than to learning; it is the maturing of the mind according to a preset
biological clock” (Cook 106).
Language is not deliberately learned, because it is something that we inherit
through our genes. To speak a language, there are not many prerequisites; we need
not possess a specific brain size or require a special type of interaction with
language speaking adults. “The requirements for learning a human language are to
be a human being and to have the minimal exposure to language evidence necessary
to trigger the various parameters of UG”(Cook 107). The physical basis of UG is in
47
human physiology rather than psychology. “Universal grammar is part of the
genotype specifying one aspect of the initial state of the human mind and brain…”
(Chomsky, Rules 82). However this does not mean that all human beings can speak
and use language with equal facility. The ability and dexterity in the use of language
also is dependent on the intellectual and mental capabilities. The variation in the
abilities of human individuals, it is reflected in the language abilities too.
Acquisition and use of language vary from individual to individual depending on the
nature and quality of their abilities, which they inherit through their genes.
Chomsky’s theories marked the beginning of a new epoch in the realm of
language studies. His UG theory and the other arguments led to a reconsideration of
existing pedagogic practices. He presented a holistic view of languages and was
concerned with features that are common to all languages. Clarifying UG he pointed
out that
… there are only a certain small number of languages possible
because the combinations of the different values for the various
parameters are limited; each possible human language must have one
of these combinations. Human languages are limited to the ‘finitely
many (in fact relatively few) possible core grammars’. (Chomsky, On
the representation 17)
Chomsky saw linguistics as a science that develops by making deeper accounts of
human language in general rather than limited accounts of particular languages;
“real progress in linguistics consists in the discovery that certain features of given
languages can be reduced to universal properties of language and explained in terms
of these deeper aspects of linguistic form” (Chomsky, Aspects 35).
48
Chomsky’s theories of language helped to reinstate the human mind to its
proper esteem. “The theory of language is simply that part of human psychology that
is concerned with one particular ‘mental organ’, human language” (Chomsky,
Reflections 123). In fact they helped to open the eyes of the academic world to look
on man as a species that is special and a lot different from lower animals like apes,
dogs and cats. His notions about Universal Grammar, Language Acquisition Device,
and his poverty-of-the-stimulus argument helped pedagogic practitioners and
linguists to look on language anew. Chomsky’s theories helped to trigger further
research in the realm of language and language pedagogy. Chomsky’s theories have
not widely been translated into pedagogic practice. His theoretical findings have
inspired the academic world to look in the direction of the mind and human
psychology to arrive at better pedagogic practices.
The innovations that brightened language pedagogy in the seventies were
given a new direction by Chomsky’s theories. Methods such as Community
Language Learning, the Silent Way, Suggestopaedia, Total Physical Response and
Natural Approach received positive responses and took the attention away from the
skill and drill approach towards communication. All these methods had in them a
shadow of some of the elements of Chomsky’s theories though they were not a total
rendering of Chomsky’s theories into pedagogic practice. All of them took into
consideration the importance of constructing the language in the mind through
strategies that are effective in stimulating the minds of the students. All these
methods shared the thrust on meaning and the easy capturing of meaning by the
mind through language. They tried to seize in their own ways the best methods and
49
practices that would contribute to the learning of language and were charged by
sympathy for the human mind and its workings influenced by the notions propagated
by the humanist movement.
The humanist movement was the result of the combining of ideas developed
in the fields of general education and psychology. Humanism influenced education
to look upon the learner as a true human being and considered education as a
lifelong process. Humanist psychology insisted on giving importance to the whole
person and to high level health and well being. It gave consideration to the need for
change and development and the human motivation towards self realization.
Humanist philosophy with its thrust on the subjective needs of the learner influenced
language teaching and made significant contributions to language teaching/learning.
Methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response, Curran’s Community Language
Learning CLL, Gattegno’s Silent Way, and Lozanov’s Suggestopedia struck popular
imagination by embodying the humanistic approach to language teaching. The
humanistic movement in language teaching, contained a respect for the feeling of the
students, valued social relationships and encourage friendship, co-operation, gave
importance to responsibility, intellect and the need of the learner for self
actualization.
The humanist language learning practices expanded the range of insights and
pedagogical resources available to teachers. The humanist theories argued for a
positive and human approach to the mind and its workings. It realized that the mind
is not an entity that is separate and distant from the physical realities and also that
the physical realities can be modified to suit the mind better. The influence of
50
humanist theories helped to make pedagogy more student-friendly and invited
positive academic thought in line with the workings of the student mind and psyche.
Though humanist theories and practices had their peculiar novelty most humanistic
methods failed to take into account learner variability and the ways in which this
influences the process of teaching/learning.
Traces of Humanism and Constructivism are found in Community Language
Learning, which gained some currency in the seventies. By encouraging teachers to
see their students as "whole" persons, Community Language Learning introduced an
approach that was new. It gave prime consideration to affective factors in the
learning process. The students’ individuality and specialties of disposition were
taken into active consideration to lower the anxiety caused by the educational
context. The teachers tried to put the students at ease with themselves, with each
other and with the classroom atmosphere. The teachers cast off the air of serious
moralizing masters and communicated with the students and encouraged
communication among the students. The interaction among the learners as a
miniature community and the teachers’ empathetic understanding of the student
mind, were utilized to help the learning processes. The method gave serious
attention to the feelings, intellect and the interpersonal relationships of the students.
The teaching learning experience became humane and student-friendly, giving
consideration to the inner lives of the students as whole beings. The method aimed
to take the students from dependence on the teacher to independence, empowering
them through assistance to achieve freedom. This stream of thought and action had
in it a reflection of Vygotsky’s notion of the Zone of Proximal Development ZPD,
51
according to which the learner is assisted by a more competent peer to reach higher
levels of learning and proficiency. The positive aspects and practices of the method
were also a reaction against the behaviourist pedagogic practices which gave no
consideration to the workings of the student mind.
The method was criticized for giving undue emphasis to affective factors at
the expense of intellectual aspects and for blindly assuming the motivation of the
students to learn. The method also demanded the teachers’ command over two
languages, the mother tongue and the target language to make the learning sessions
effective. Though the method had its drawbacks it enjoyed the attention of the
academic world and helped to attract the students into the language. Despite its
drawbacks it is a fact that the method had in it a cognitive turn and the way it
addressed the affective factors made it different from earlier methods. Some of its
strikingly positive elements could be used effectively in combination with other
teaching methods.
In the 1970s the Silent Way method also emerged suggesting its practices as
a solution to the problems of language teaching. The strategies of the method
contained an element of novelty and in some significant ways differed from the
existing methods. The Silent Way as a method for language learning contained a
fusion of cognitive principles and discovery learning and as such was advancement
on the existing methods and practices. The key feature of the method, as suggested
by its name, is the silence of the teacher. Silence was used as a tool to trigger
thought and learning. The teacher spoke only if the situations direly demanded her
speech. The method aimed to develop the thinking process of the students and the
52
construction of language in the mind through minimum help from the teacher who
remains silent most of the time. The use of charts, rods and gestures filled the
vacuum created by the teachers’ silence and it was presumed that these tools help
the students eventually to use the language for self-expression.
By offering scope for experimental learning, the method gave space for
student independence. The use of the silence of the teacher makes the approach
unique. Its view regarding student independence is in some ways a reflection of
ideologies of community language learning. By considering student errors positively
it extended its sway into the theories of constructivist learning. The encouragement
given to group work and the use of the target language in the Silent Way method
were signs of the positive evolution towards constructivist theories.
Suggestopedia gathered academic attention quickly after the Silent Way or
even coexisted with it and complemented its practices. By introducing a
psychological perspective to learning it invited the attention of the academic world
to the fact that psychological barriers like fear and anxiety hamper learning.
Suggestopedia was also an offshoot of humanist pedagogic thought and it gave
prime consideration to the workings of the human psyche. Like Community
Language Learning, Suggestopedia considered relaxation of the mind as the basis of
education, the means to achieve concentration and retention. Soft comfortable chairs
and softer Baroque music to increase alpha brain waves and decrease blood pressure
and heart rate were used in the classes to supplement the learning. The teacher was
given the complete control over the classes and it was his/her duty to take the
students on a relaxed joyride to the vistas of learning. The radical realization about
53
the barriers to learning created by psychologically unbalancing factors and the
unique method of overcoming them by using the method of de-suggestion
contributed positively towards the evolution of constructivist theories and practices.
The method of using (de)suggestion in pedagogy became a positive realization
towards enriching pedagogic practices.
Suggestopedia has been praised for its psychological basis but has been
criticized as entailing too many paraphernalia, which ordinary classes cannot afford.
However, it has also been noted that the methods of Suggestopedia could be
fruitfully combined with other methods of language teaching. Though the method
did not enjoy currency for long, it brought into the focus of the academic world that
affective factors are to be given due consideration in the teaching learning situation.
The TPR method, like Suggestopedia gave importance to the idea that
learning should be stress-free and must involve as much fun and joy as possible.
While Suggestopedia was concerned almost solely with the solutions to
psychological factors that hamper learning, the TPR approach was more positively
inclined in as much as that it said that language learning could be made more
effective by linking language and motor activity. It drew on the "trace theory” which
postulates that memory is stimulated and increased when it is closely associated with
motor activity. The method relies on physical response to language as the means to
facilitate language learning. Substantial amount of listening and comprehension is
combined with physical responses like smiling, grabbing and looking, before
learners begin to use the language orally.
54
The TPR method carried in it traces of constructivist principles, as it was
concerned with constructing language in the mind of the student by suitably linking
activity and language. The method drew heavily on the basic principles of language
acquisition and took into account the way young learners respond to language
physically before they actually begin to speak. TPR won popularity among teachers
of foreign languages who generously adopted its technique in the classrooms. It is
acclaimed as being highly effective at entry levels, and is considered as a standard
requirement in the instruction of young learners. It is also admired for its simplicity,
which makes it accessible to a wide range of teachers and learning environments.
With the Natural approach which came in as a sequel to the TPR method
language pedagogy neared constructivism as never before. Stephen Krashen’s
theories of Second language acquisition served as its theoretical base while it
accommodated the findings of Suggestopedia and the Silent way. Based on Stephen
Krashen's theories about second language acquisition, Krashen and Tracy Terrell
developed the Natural Approach in the eighties. Like the TPR method, the Natural
approach advocated the need for a silent phase, allowing time for spoken production
of language to "emerge" naturally. It also demanded that the learning process should
be rid of tension and stress. In addition to these principles, which the natural
approach shared with the TPR method it gave priority to ‘language acquisition’
which is quite different from ‘language processing’. As in constructivist practices,
in the Natural Approach students are given plenty of comprehensible input by the
teacher, which facilitates the acquisition of language. The comprehensible input that
is given to the students in a natural and realistic manner facilitates the construction
55
of language in the minds of the students. Meaning is considered as the essence of
language and vocabulary its heart. Grammar and rule learning are cast aside to bring
in ease into the language learning situations. The students are also given the freedom
to use the mother tongue along with the target language. The student mistakes are
not corrected so as to enable them to use the language without inhibitions about
making errors. Meaning making processes are facilitated in the classroom
procedures enabling the students to construct meanings as best as they can. The
emphasis given to meaning making processes and the tolerance of errors proclaim its
constructivist leanings.
Krashen's theories and the Natural approach received criticism, particularly
about the recommendation of a silent period that is terminated when students feel
ready to emerge into oral production, and the idea of comprehensible input. Critics
point out that the emergence of the students is unpredictable as different students
will emerge at different times depending on their capabilities. There may even be
cases wherein the students never emerge into language at all. They also point out
that the idea of comprehensible input is vague and indefinable as what is
comprehensible to some students may be incomprehensible to others. These factors
can create a classroom that is essentially very difficult to manage unless the teacher
is highly skilled. However, these and other criticisms of the method can be ignored
to an extent as this was the first attempt at creating an expansive and overall
"approach" rather than a specific "method".
Research on second language in the seventies recognized the importance of
the individual’s construction of language taking into consideration the learner’s
56
motivation and initiative. The growth of psycholinguistics, socio-linguistics and an
interest in semantics led to the emphasis on real-world language use. The work of
the Stephen Krashen and his distinction between acquisition and learning provided a
theoretical basis to give place to communication in second language learning.
According to Krashen, second-language acquisition is analogous to the way in
which a child would acquire his/her first language. The concept implies that
languages can be learned effectively without formal study of structure and form. By
the middle of the eighties, these insights and the realizations derived from the
alternate methods like Suggestopedia, Community language Learning, TPR and the
Natural Approach merged to form the communicative approach to language teaching
known also as CLT. It won credence and following by its emphasis on meaning,
fluency, interaction, communicative competence, tolerance of errors and the
acceptance of creative factors in both teaching and learning. The approach is still
considered by many as the only suitable method to teach language.
Communicative Language Teaching originated in the mid 1960s in its
rudimentary form, as a result of the discontent about audio-lingualism and grammar
translation method. It had in view the real world communicative needs of the
student. A major role in its development was played by the Council of Europe’s
Modern Languages Project, MLP, which was set up in 1963. MLP was an ambitious
initiative to promote language teaching and learning in Europe. It embraced school
and adult education. Its aim was to promote ‘learner centred, motivation based’
approach to teaching.
57
Richards and Rogers sum up the main characteristics of the communicative
view of language as follows
1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
2. The primary function language is interaction and communication.
3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative
uses.
4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and
structural features, but categories of functional and communicative
meaning as exemplified in discourse. (Approaches 71)
The Communicative Language Teaching method was embraced earnestly in
the pedagogic circles and was for some time considered the only method possible in
language teaching. David Nunan lists five basic characteristics of Communicative
Language Teaching as follows
1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the
target language.
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on the
language but also on the learning process itself.
4. An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as
important contributing elements to classroom learning.
5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language
activation outside the classroom. (279)
In comparison with the methods that preceded it, the Communicative
Language Teaching approach had certain qualities that made it appear academically
modern. The tolerance of errors and the prime focus on communication made it
admirable. The thrust given to meaning, actual performance and the placing of
58
language teaching and learning in the heart of active day-to-day life won much
active following. A salient feature of the approach was that it took in materials from
actual day-to-day life such as magazines, newspapers and graphic and visual sources
around which communicative activities could be constructed. Techniques such as
role-plays, simulations as well as a variety of games are used in actual classrooms to
build up the linguistic competence of the students. These strategies helped to ward
off rote learning. Errors are tolerated and seen as a normal phenomenon in the
communicative processes. Interaction is an important feature of the communicative
classroom. Through grouping, pairing, and co-operative relationships students are
given the opportunity to express their own individuality.
As the approach centred on actual communication in real or simulated
situations, it naturally led to a restructuring of the traditional teacher- student roles.
The teacher initiated and led the process of actual communication done by the
students and served as a guide who monitored their progress in the most unobtrusive
way. The actual communicative classroom situation “often requires teachers to
acquire less teacher-centred classroom management skills” (Approaches 78).
Teachers are responsible for monitoring learners and catering to the language
learner’s needs by organizing the classroom as a platform for communication. The
teacher’s role is not that of faultfinder, but that of a teacher-counsellor who presents
models of effective communication. Littlewood describes the role of the teacher in
CLT as that of a “facilitator of learning” a consultant, advisor, coordinator of
activities, classroom manager, co-communicator, “human among humans” who
“Steps out of his didactic role” (Communicative 94).
59
The communicative approach to language teaching has seen a decline as the
whole realm of language teaching became alive with radically new and more
rational findings about what ideal language teaching methods and methodologies
should be. Along with CLT trends towards individualization developed in language
teaching and learning. Work on individualization took place in the 1960s and 1970s.
In the individualized approach, the structure of the programme is flexible. This
approach accommodates the interests, needs and abilities of individual learners
giving due consideration the undeniable fact that learners progress at varying rates.
The practical results of the work on individualization did not rise up to the levels
expected in theory. It turned out to be concentrating on materials, and inclined
towards teacher centeredness. It paved the way to elaborate teaching procedures and
not learning procedures.
Upon the realization that the methods of individualization in actual practice
led to teacher centeredness as the teacher designed all the strategies according to
discretion, the practices that followed CLT and Individualization were highly
swayed by learner centeredness. Learner centeredness is reflected in the activity
organization and the consideration given to learner autonomy, “there is of course no
neat and historical divide between these perspectives … many teachers for example
still subscribe enthusiastically to one or another school of humanistic language
teaching and CLT continues to provide the dominant paradigm in mainstream
language teaching”. Learner centred activities help to counter the problems created
by large classes, low-tech materials and inadequate course books. The potential of
the learner is to be taken into consideration while language learning activities are
60
attempted. The learners have their own ideas, experiences opinions and expertise,
what they need is the language to express all these. “Encouraging the learners to
express their own ideas freely is a more direct route to fluency than one where the
teacher imposes irrelevant topics in the hope that with time, learners will be able to
say what they really want to” (Tudor 12, 14).
The needs of learners are analyzed constantly as an ongoing process. The
activities are chosen in the light of the current needs of the learners and activities are
designed by teachers accordingly. Leaner interest in issues is kept in focus and
topics of current interest and relevance are used to trigger activities and this
contributes to make the learning experience open ended. Learners are given the role
of authors as they are involved in preparing and using the practice materials. In this
approach, the pace of learning may be slow initially as there are no ready made texts
to follow. As the activities progress, the pace of progress also increases. This helps
to elicit the involvement of the students throughout as the teacher is always mindful
of the pace of the individual students. As the materials are not ready made and
available in advance, the element of surprise is maintained continually. They are
surprised about the initiation and about the results. Peer teaching and correction are
part of the method. The students work together and learn from each other. As the
work is done together it helps to pool together the resources of the individuals. This
in turn helps the development of group solidarity. Learners work with one another
and not against each other; they collaborate and do not compete.
The perspective in learner centeredness which gave attention to the working
of the learner minds
61
. . . accorded a crucial role to the subjective or process-oriented needs
of learners”. In other words, “to the way in which various cognitive,
affective and attitudinal factors influence learner’s reactions to
teaching procedures … Learners explore both their objective and
their subjective learning needs in collaboration with their teacher as
part of a shared process of discovery. (Tudor 22)
The advance of language pedagogy has been in the direction of the learner and the
workings of his mind. With learner centeredness, it achieved a greater concentration
and momentum in the direction of subjective orientation.
The methods of learner centeredness gradually contributed to the notion and
practice of learner autonomy. The notion has become clearer over time. From the
1980s most emphatic trend in language pedagogy and in education as a whole has
been to shift the focus from the teacher, the text book and the evaluation procedures
to the learner. The learner has been brought to the focal position in pedagogic
practices. The learners’ age, tastes, and previous knowledge are given consideration
in curricular practices and in the adoption of pedagogic strategies. The autonomy of
the learner is recognized and the whole curriculum planning is influenced by the
beliefs about the autonomy of the learner. As David Little points out, “the concepts
of learner autonomy and independence have gained momentum, the former
becoming a 'buzz-word' within the context of language learning” (Learner 2). Like
communicative language teaching which preceded learner autonomy, it is becoming
an unquestionable goal and an integral part of language learning methodologies.
Time, energy and money are spent for its promotion and implementation. It is a
truism that one of the most important spin-offs of more communicatively oriented
62
language learning and teaching has been the premium placed on the role of the
learner in the language learning process (Wenden, Learner xi). It is realized that
education has to breathe the spirit of independence, the teacher student relationship
and the education procedures have to cater to the spirit of independence as the
“proper aim of teaching is precisely to affect those inner processes that...cannot in
principle be made subject to external control, for they are just, in essence, the
processes germane to independence, to autonomy, to self-control” (Hawkins, The
Roots 44).
The most popular definition of learner autonomy is that of H. Holec. He
defined it as 'the ability to take charge of one's learning' (Autonomy 3). As a large
number of scholars have studied the idea, definitions abound. As scholars view it in
their own individual and origin always, separate and several aspects of learner
autonomy are brought into focus. The relevant literature presents innumerable
definitions of autonomy and other synonyms for it, such as 'independence', 'language
awareness' 'self-direction' and 'andragogy' which testifies to the importance attached
to it by scholars. The term autonomy has sparked considerable controversy and
linguists and educationists have failed to reach a consensus as to what autonomy
really is. D. Little considered learner autonomy as 'essentially a matter of the
learner's psychological relation to the process and content of learning— a capacity
for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action'
(Learner 4). It is not something done to learners; therefore, it is far from being
another teaching method. Autonomy can be explained as the learner's willingness
and capacity to control or oversee her own learning and qualify as an autonomous
63
learner when he independently chooses aims and purposes and sets goals; chooses
materials, methods and tasks; exercises choice and purpose in organizing and
carrying out the chosen tasks; and chooses criteria for evaluation. The autonomous
learner takes an active role in the learning process, generating ideas and availing
himself of learning opportunities, rather than simply reacting to various stimuli of
the teacher. The varied views about autonomy of the learner have been analyzed by
Benson and Voller and they point out that the term autonomy has come to be used in
at least five ways
for situations in which learners study entirely on their own;
for a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed
learning;
for an inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education;
for the exercise of learners' responsibility for their own learning;
for the right of learners to determine the direction of their own
learning. (Autonomy 2)
The teacher and the texts purvey due importance and consideration to the learner
who now occupies the central position in the classroom situation and is regarded as
having the “capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and
independent action” (Little, Learner Autonomy 4).
Learners are expected to assume greater responsibility towards their learning.
However, learner autonomy does not sideline the teacher into insignificance. The
teacher is a resourceful presence, a sure guide, an inspiration. As such the role of the
teacher is analogous to the facilitator roles assigned to the teacher in constructivist
classrooms. Learner autonomy is a process that grows in the academic situation
64
rather than a product of academic work. It is dynamic process of becoming on the
part of the students, which makes them open to interventions and capable of lateral
thinking.
Learner autonomy being a process, it has to be kindled and nourished by the
presence of the teacher. The design of the curriculum has to cater to the demands of
the concept of learner autonomy. It is the curriculum that determines the roles of the
teachers, students and the texts and therefore, strategies that effectively contribute to
the autonomy of the learner have to be thoughtfully designed. When the teacher’s
moves are in keeping with the stipulations of such a curriculum, the learners gain the
chance to grow in autonomy. Individual learners differ in their learning habits,
interests, needs, and motivation, and develop varying degrees of independence
throughout their lives. The teacher in an autonomous classroom takes into
consideration the needs and capabilities of the individual students and guides them
to autonomy.
The basis of the notion of learner autonomy is that the learner has the
freedom to make his/her choices and it also means that he/she is not to become a
victim of choices made by others. In this way it shares humanistic ideas like
responsibility, intellectual development and self actualization. The students learn
better when they are in charge of their own learning. What is learned autonomously
by oneself is more permanent, more meaningful and more focused on processes.
Economically, too this has advantages. The society may not have the resources
enough to cater to all the learning needs of its members. When learners take the
responsibility for learning, it becomes economically more feasible. Moreover, as far
65
as good teachers are concerned, it caters to the ideal of good teaching and ideal
teacher – learner relationship. It is a fact that no good and sensible teacher would
desire to maintain or foster dependency in her students. She would love to see her
students autonomous and self reliant. Learner autonomy is taken into consideration
in designing language curricula as it has its own advantages and fosters future
learning and contributes to make learning a lifelong process. It is seen that the
progress of language teaching methods is in the direction of giving more importance
to the mind of the learner. The mind of the learner and its workings are given prime
consideration on the realization that it is the mind that has to be actively engaged to
facilitate the construction of language in the mind. As the learning of English and
other second languages in the separate parts of the world is gaining more
importance, language teaching methods are getting canalized in the direction of
Second Language Acquisition.
In the light of globalisation and international political and business
relationships the learning of languages receives a thrust in all nations across the
globe as never before. Every nation is aware of the need for learning other languages
and second and third language learning becomes common. The advancements in the
fields of language learning linked with the progresses in other areas of learning and
knowledge are fused to make up the realm of Second Language Acquisition.
“Second language acquisition research (SLA research) has developed into a wide-
reaching and somewhat amorphous field of enquiry, drawing on and contributing to
a number of distinct disciplines – linguistics, cognitive psychology,
psycholinguistics, socio-linguistics, and education”. The roots of SLA research
66
could be located in the latter half of the twentieth century. Rod Ellis notes that
“Although it is not possible to set a precise date on when second language
acquisition (SLA) research first established itself as a field of enquiry, there is a
general agreement that it took place around the end of the 1960s” (Rod, The Study 9,
1). It was the time when Chomsky came forward with his radical theory of the
innateness of language and UG theory creating a revolution in the intellectual circles
of the time. It was also the time when Stephen Krashen illumined language
pedagogy by his findings about second language acquisition and second language
learning. The progress of Second Language Acquisition research has since then been
making its impact in pedagogic circles.
Since the emergence of Krashen, second language acquisition and second
language learning are seen as entirely different. Language acquisition and language
learning are considered as entirely separate and are treated with different pedagogic
orientations
Language acquisition is very similar to the process children use in
acquiring first and second languages. It requires meaningful
interaction in the target language –natural communication - in which
speakers are not concerned with the form of their utterances but with
the messages they are conveying and understanding. (Krashen,
Second 5)
It is realized that for acquisition to take place the correction of student errors and the
deliberate teaching of grammar rules is not required. Based on their feel about the
language the language acquirers themselves do the correction of errors. In the case
of the younger language acquirers, caretakers and other native speakers are of great
67
help as they modify their speech to suit the age and tastes of the younger ones.
Language learning unlike language acquisition is a conscious process. It is done
deliberately and the learner is aware that he is doing a learning activity to become
facile in the use of a particular language. In the case of the acquirers, language
acquisition takes place as a part of their life as the use of language is intimately
connected with the needs of their daily life both physical and otherwise. Conscious
language learning depends on the learning of rules and the correction of errors
committed by the learners. “Error correction, it is maintained, helps the learner come
to the correct mental representation of the linguistic generalization” (Krashen,
Second 5).
Krashen enriched second language acquisition research by his findings,
which have served to give meaningful direction to linguists and pedagogic
practitioners. His Natural Approach was itself based on language acquisition
theories, which were tested and proved through a series of scientific studies. As he
himself claimed it was based on an empirically grounded theory of second language
acquisition. He realized the vital role that input plays in facilitating language
acquisition. He pointed out that
. . . language acquisition occurs in only one way: by understanding
messages. We acquire language when we obtain comprehensible
input, when we understand what we hear or read in another language.
This means that acquisition is based primarily on what we hear and
understand, not what we say. (Krashen, The Natural 1)
Krashen’s emphasis of the role of meaningful and comprehensible input has
been a radical one as it influenced pedagogic practices. The comprehensibility of the
68
input is a vital factor in facilitating the acquisition of language by learners of all ages
and tastes. When input that is given to the students is above their level of
understanding it cannot in anyway contribute to acquisition.
According to research in second language acquisition, it is thought
that acquisition can take place only when people understand
messages in the target language. Incomprehensible input (e.g.
listening to an unknown language on the radio) does not seem to help
language acquisition. We acquire when we focus on what is being
said, rather than how it is said. We acquire when language is used for
communicating real ideas. (Krashen, The Natural 19)
Krashen also enriched second language acquisition theory, practice and research
through his six major assumptions, which he preferred to call hypotheses. His
hypotheses about acquisition, learning, natural order, monitor, input and affective
filter serve as guidelines to studies in second language acquisition.
SLA research has established itself as a prime area of academic pursuit in the
realm of language pedagogy and concerns itself with the description and explanation
of the process of second language acquisition with the aim of enlightening language
teaching practice and methodology. It aims to provide language teachers with
insights to construct their own theories and practices.
Studies in second language acquisition take up learner language seriously to
get valid insights into the process of language acquisition. Their manner of language
acquisition and their speed and accuracy are subjected to analysis to reach
conclusions that are valuable. Ellis Rod points out that “An obvious starting point in
the study of second language (L2) acquisition is the study of the language that
69
learners produce at different stages of their development. Learner language can
provide the researcher with insights into the process of acquisition” (Rod 43).
Different approaches are adopted to describe the learner language; while some study
the errors committed by the L2 acquirers, others study the developmental patterns or
variability or the pragmatic features.
SLA research enriches itself by searching in diverse directions on the
realization that a perfect theory of SLA has not been formed.
It is probably true to say that SLA research, some twenty-five years
after its inception as an identifiable field of enquiry, is characterized
by facts, opinions, explanations, positions, and perspectives that
frequently exist an uneasy state of complementarity and opposition.
(Rod 689)
The ideal theoretical framework has to be formed by conducting studies in the areas
of sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, neurology, neuro-
linguistics and the like. However this does not mean that the SLA theory that
evolves will be an admixture of the theories and findings of these separate branches
of academic pursuit. Academic pursuit in SLA has succeeded
. . . in broadening the overall scope of SLA research, in identifying
the essential issues in need of investigation, in developing methods
for studying them, and in collecting an enormous amount of
information about them. Also, the discovery of competing and
overlapping phenomena might e seen as evidence of the principal
strength of SLA research – a willingness to explore a wide range of
issues by means of alternative paradigms and methods. (Rod 689)
70
It is found that the theories and practices of SLA blend easily with the theories and
practices of constructivism. There is much similarity in the basic tenets of
constructivism and second language acquisition.
Since the nineteen sixties, the realm of language education has witnessed
massive changes due to the emergence of a variety of highly rational theories
including the theories of second language acquisition, Chomsky’s theories of
innateness and UG and constructivist theories. The cognitive turn of academic
pursuit in the realm of language education has been significant. Behaviourist
theories were cast aside in favour of more rational and cognitive theories. Stephen
Krashen and Noam Chomsky illumined the realm of language acquisition and their
theories added vigour and mileage to the pedagogic practices. Chomsky’s theories of
language helped to formulate clear notions about language acquisition and use.
Chomsky’s Innateness Hypothesis is based on few indisputable facts about language
acquisition
All children regardless of I.Q level can acquire language;
Children acquire language effortlessly and in a relatively short period
of time.
Children do not have to be taught formally to acquire language;
Language is a complex system;
Children discover the system of language from a small unsystematic
amount of data;
Language acquisition involves very little imitation;
Language acquisition is an active process, involving ‘mental
computation’: children say things that they have never heard from
adults, e.g. camed. (Anandan 59)
71
His theories blend with the cognitive theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and
Bruner. Piaget’s view point namely, that the learner learns things when she is
developmentally ready to do so as learning follows development, is the starting point
of Cognitive theory (Anandan 42). Cognitive theories emphasized the importance of
meaning in human learning. They put forward the view that acquiring knowledge by
the human mind is a process of constructing meanings. Meanings cannot be forced
on to the mind by the compelling tactics of repetition and rote memorization.
According to them, learning is a meaningful process of relating new events or items
to already existing cognitive concepts, leading to further constructions in a
meaningful manner. Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input wedge into
constructivist theories which consider learning as the construction of meaning in the
mind. Krashen pointed out the importance of comprehensibility of input in the
language learning situations. It was an idea that looked small and even negligent but
its relevance is intense and undeniable.
The cognitive notions about language acquisition, the procedure of selecting
appropriate vocabulary, grammatical rules and pragmatic conventions governing
language use are much different from the previous notions. They put forward the
argument that language acquisition is a holistic process, not analyzable as stimulus
response associations. Language learners pay attention to the particular aspect of
language that they are attempting to understand and produce and become able to use
certain parts of their knowledge through experience and practice. SLA theories, the
findings of cognitive science and the contributions of Piaget and Vygotsky together
have illumined the constructivist practices in language education. Vygotsky
72
contributed to constructivist thought by linking human development with the socio
cultural environment; thereby lending to constructivist epistemology, a social
inclining. Vygotsky’s social constructivist theories inspire educational practitioners
and constructivist classrooms. Constructivist methodology upholds learner centred
education that is driven by the knowledge skills and attitudes of the student. Under
this paradigm, students become active discoverers and constructors of their own
knowledge.
The theories of second language acquisition and constructivism find a more
definite direction in the Whole Language approach. “The definition of Whole
Language emerges from adopting a holistic view of the language that treats language
as an integrated whole rather than a conglomerate of separate and independent
skills” (Jangid 13). The Whole Language approach stems from a philosophy that
draws on a variety of perspectives and disciplines
. . . among them language acquisition and emergent literacy
psycholinguistics and socio-linguistics, cognitive and developmental
psychology, anthropology and education. it is also based upon the
successful practise of teachers who have implemented in their
classrooms some of the insights from these disciplines or who are
‘natural’ Whole Language teachers, based upon their own insights,
and observations of how children learn. (Weaver 4)
Under the Whole Language approach language is taken as a whole and is not
fragmented into skills. The approach expects the children to learn to read and write
as gradually and naturally as they learned to talk. Direct instruction and correction of
mistakes is limited to minimum and the students are encouraged to participate in the
73
learning processes. Literacy skills and strategies are developed through whole and
authentic literacy events and the curriculum is permeated with real reading and
writing experience. The learning processes within the classroom are integrated with
the whole life of the child. As such the learning processes take on continuity with
the life of the students. There are as many definitions of Whole Language as there
are Whole Language practitioners who interpret it and modify it according to their
own understanding of it. “Classroom teachers themselves define and redefine Whole
Language as they increasingly manifest their philosophy in their teaching” (Jangid
14).
The Whole Language approach supports the concept of active learning,
which can be explained as the transactional model of learning. In this kind of
learning the learner is always engaged either physically, mentally or both. Learning
is made possible by the transactions of the learner with the external environment
which may include books, people, other media or anything surrounding him/her. The
concept and practice in the transactional model of teaching is different from the
traditional transmission model of teaching in the following ways
1. In the transaction model of teaching, the emphasis is on learning rather
than teaching and learning is facilitated by the teacher instead of being
controlled by her.
2. The transactional model of teaching is based on Vygotsky’s cognitive
and social model of learning and Piaget’s constructivism rather than on
behaviourist models.
3. Learning is seen as a complex cognitive process, which can be
facilitated by the teacher and peer interaction rather than habit
formation.
74
4. Risk taking is encouraged and errors are seen as essential for learning
rather than as a sign of incompetence or failure.
5. It is expected that learners will be at different stages of their learning or
development and will develop at their own pace and in their own time.
Thus there is no concept of failure.
6. The ability to apply knowledge across a wide range of tasks and
contexts and to think in novel ways is encouraged and is considered a
sign of learning, rather than encouraging the reproduction of correct
answers. (Weaver 9)
Learning in the Whole Language approach involves bringing together personal and
social knowledge. This stream of thought is definitely on par with the theories and
practices of constructivism. Social constructivist theories uphold the value of
transaction among learners and between learners and more learned peers. The Whole
Language Approach and constructivist practices address the mind of the learners and
hold the capabilities of the learner in high esteem.
Language teaching methods and pedagogic practices in general cannot be
complete without taking into consideration theories about human mind and
intelligence. It can be seen that as the language teaching methods progressed in the
latter half of the twentieth century, understanding about human intelligence was also
progressing. Better understanding about the human mind in the light of cognitive
theories and constructivist practices also led to the emphasis on deeper analysis and
understanding of human intelligence. Dissatisfaction with the theory of IQ and the
behaviourist evaluations of the human mind and realizations from constructivist
experiments led to a more scientific study about human mind and intelligence. The
constructivist notions of Piaget and Vygotsky gave momentum gave clearer insight
75
into the workings of the human mind. The humanist beliefs and practices which
were sympathetic towards the needs of learners prompted deeper thought on human
intelligence. These factors combined led to the emergence of the theory of Multiple
Intelligences which presented the mind as an amalgam of diverse aspects and
abilities. Multiple Intelligence theory offered “a pluralistic view of mind,
recognizing many different and discrete facets of cognition, acknowledging that
people have different cognitive strengths and contrasting cognitive styles” (Gardner
6).
The human intelligence cannot be measured by the testing measures usually
undertaken. The traditional testing done in schools and IQ tests conducted in and out
of schools only attempt to measure verbal and mathematical aspects of intelligence.
Gardner identified seven types of intelligences in human beings which included
Linguistic intelligence, Logical mathematical intelligence, Spatial intelligence,
Musical intelligence, Bodily kinaesthetic intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence and
Intrapersonal intelligence. Of these multiple intelligences “. . . all seven of the
intelligences have equal claim to priority” though much of our testing is based on
this high valuation of verbal and mathematical skills. Gardner also said that the
number of intelligences could exceed this list and emphasised the point that human
intelligence is multi-faceted, plural in its basic nature. “Each intelligence is based, at
least initially, on a biological potential which then gets expressed as a result of the
interplay of genetic and environmental factors”. This accounts for the differences
between individuals regarding abilities. Human cognitive competence is understood
better when described in terms of abilities, talents mental skills, which may be
76
termed aptly as intelligences. Though intelligence is pluralistic in nature, “. . . the
general faculty of intelligence does not change much with age or with training or
with experience. It is an inborn attribute or faculty of the individual.” (Gardner 7,
88, 15) The MI theory explains why when one is good at mathematics; he may not
be good at language and relationships. This is due to the predominance of one type
of intelligence over others. All humans possess certain core abilities in each of the
intelligences.
The MI theory has much relevance in education as it enables educators to
look upon the student mind in a better and more scientific manner. Each student is
unique as far as his cognitive powers are concerned. Every student has his own
peculiar combination of ‘intelligences’ and therefore he should not be compared
with any other student. The present concept of uniformity is foolish to the levels of
condemnation as it sees education as a levelling process. “It has now been
established quite convincingly that individuals have quite different minds from one
another. Education ought to be so sculpted that it remains responsive to these
differences” (Gardner 71). Educational practices ought to ensure is that each student
receives education that maximizes his/her potential. This will necessitate the
abandoning of uniform schooling, and schools have to be redesigned in an
individual-centred manner to cater to the intelligence demands of the individual
students. Educators need to consider each individual child’s tendencies, proclivities
and goals and design methods accordingly. The traditional subjects and information
need to be taught in unconventional ways to suit the intelligences realizing that
“intelligences are best thought of as bio-psychological constructs: they constitute
77
cognitive resources by virtue of which an individual may effect a meaningful
connection to a content area” (88). In an ideal classroom, the students can be
provided with a rich variety of materials which trigger their intelligences; and
ideally, education should be the cultivation of the multiple intelligences. The general
trend in education is to emphasize uniformity and give no consideration to the
individuality of the individuals. The insights from MI theory when mixed with
constructivist pedagogic practices can help to bring in new teaching techniques
giving consideration to individual students, considering each of them as distinct and
special. MI theory only illumines constructivist theories and practices. Close
analysis reveals that both these theories illumine each other and highlight the need
for special attention to individual students. Though mass education has its
advantages it accompanied by disadvantages of which scholars are becoming more
keenly aware. As Rousseau said,
. . . each individual is born with a distinctive temperament … we
indiscriminately employ children of different bents on the same
exercises, their education destroys the special bent and leaves a dull
uniformity. Therefore after we have wasted our efforts in stunning the
true gifts of nature, we see the short lived and illusory brilliance we
have substituted die away, while the natural abilities we have crushed
do not revive. (116)
top related