Theories of Learning and Instruction

According to the basic parameters of language learning theories based on this week’s article; “Introduction the Theories of Learning and Instruction by Driscoll (2005),  I could state my insight explicitly from one of the favorite sayings of Aristotle  “Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach”. In the article, I could summarize my basic understanding of the aforementioned Nativist theory and Socio-cognitive perspectives in SLA upon the reflection of the quote that I have internalized. All of the theories put forward by researchers, linguists have been discussed or criticized on the light of their own discipline so far. However, there is a certain sound on the shed of language learning theories which is called practice and utilization of applied linguistics in teaching-learning process.  The number of different perspectives clearly enlightened in Walt’s article led me to questioning how applied linguists indulge on SLA theories to explain that complex issue: Language Acquisition. 

On the other hand, there is another crucial perspective on language learning which concerns behavioral, cognitive and environmental factors effecting learners in socio-cultural contexts. As it is defined in Driscoll (2012), “Learning is a lifelong activity and it occurs intentionally in formal instructional settings and incidentally through experience.”  Therefore, teachers of second languages need to analyze the perspectives of SLA approaches on real teaching environment: “classroom” with the guidance of linguistics and language pedagogy.  Importantly, the nurture of a learner is more considerable than his/her nature as it is explained via Nativist and Environmentalist Theories (Walt, 1991, p. 4).

Within the harmony of Behaviorism and Nativism, I have series of observations from my classes reflecting the reality of innate biological endowment and response behavior. Referring to Chomsky’s Universal Theory, human beings have an innate capacity of learning or acquiring the language they exposed to as well as encoding syntactic rules and principals. Personally, I have experienced in one of my classes; the child said: “Teacher drink water go” instead of uttering “Teacher, may I go to drink water”. This led me to ponder about set of unconscious constraints of English comparing my example with the other child, whose father is English, saying “Teacher, may I go to the water fountain to fill up my bottle” with her British accent.  This stance clearly goes in the same line with Chomskys’ UG framework; “The acquisition of grammar is only possible if it is guided by some kind of innate structure…” (as cited in Walt,1991, p. 5) In addition to this point of view, it is a kind of complex work for adult learners I comparison with an adult speaker of English. To set an example, one of my college friend from “State University of New York” was having trouble in usage of spoken English “wanna”  “I want to go to Wallmart” > “I wanna to go to Wallmart” as a clear example of fossilization instead of the generalization from the language she heard even though most adults internalize this knowledge automatically and subconsciously.

Supportively, Driscoll enumerated the pros and cons of behaviorism in their article, it is hard to employ behavioristic ideas for adult learning. The term which is used in socio-cognitive perspective “In the head and in the world” ( cited in Fahim&Mehrgan, 2012, p. 160) outstandingly clear our minds on  how social and cognitive characteristics  has an effect on acquisition. We could refer that our methodologies in teaching is commonly based on rule memorization and translation rather than applying communicative needs. It basically relies upon awareness in language learning more than memorizing rules. I strongly believe that as teachers we can do trendy theories based on SLA, but we need to teach how our students could construct their own reality of learning based on cognitivist constructivism by crystallizing impacts of their social and cultural contexts different from classrooms to worldly conditions.

According to Driscoll (2005), “Social learning theory proposes that social life and psychological life interact as part of learning as highlighted views by Bruner and Vygotsky. This perspective supports my following stance from grade four: a nine- year -old student whose family divorced wanted to choose his topic “my family” for the speaking assessment which will be recorded, and there is no doubt that he wants to confront his reality in this psychological frame and I believe that he is going to present his family with a fluent flow and correctness by creating his identity and self-esteem. Linguistically, this stance goes through ZPD which identifies his engagement in social behavior thanks to his mother’s support in solving his problems creating him a learning environment as well.  Thus, learning is indispensable behavior and it is always a positive thing whereas the growth is perceived as a negative thing and cognitive psychologists define learning as mediated by thought processes inside the learner. In addition, there are three epistemological traditions regarding to the study of learning; objectivism, pragmatism and interpretivism. As Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve referring to verbal learning and Thordike’s puzzle box experiment which associates with learned helplessness, learning is a kind of period of inactivity or trial and error before grasping the solution. It takes a certain of time and effort with repeated actions, and practices but it is inevitable process that harmonizes different perspectives and insights based on learning theories. All in all, those different perspectives illuminate our views on learning theories as teachers and lesson planners based upon social learning theory and ideologies.