Essay on language acquisition and learning theories

In the linguistic world, it is broadly known that first and second language acquisition differ substantially. Being trilingual, I can absolutely relate to that. I learned my first language at a young age in a family environment through tone of voice, demonstrations, sign language, observation, imitation and repetition. As it was the very first language I learned, there was no translation involved or even possible. I head to learn how to speak and understand in order to survive. As a child, I would start pointing at things that caught my interest and my mother would tell me what the object was called. This way, I learned what a dog is or what eating means. My brain simply established a connection between the stimulus in my environment and its meaning. This very process of learning a new skill is defined in the behaviourist approach. Behaviorism definitely is an approach that can be observed in children learning their first language. The connections formed in the brain are very strong and often stick with a person for the rest of their life. This is why we never forget our first language, although we might not use it for years, while a second language that is not being used can be forgotten easily.

However, later on in life, other ways of acquiring a new behaviour and new skills such as speaking a foreign language gain importance. The second language, for example is rather learned through cognitivism. In schools, there are well structured and organised information that are presented in a reasonable way, while the first language was acquired randomly through various stimuli. Cognitivism considers the mind as an information processor and aims to transfer information into the long-term memory through repetition and retention. This approach is common for second language acquisition.

I learned my second language in a completely different way than my first. Second language acquisition included books, exercises and grammatical explanations. Comparing the two, I find it interesting that people who only speak their native language often times do not even know anything about grammar and are still able to speak fluently and correctly. This indicates that grammar might not be the most important feature when learning a language. However, second language teaching is usually heavily focused on grammar and rules, which makes the process less natural and more abstract although language is one of the most vivid and practical things that I can think of. I observed that often times, people have no understanding of the grammatical terminology and can thus not connect with the grammar in the target language. They get lost and might lose interest in learning the language.

At least this is how I felt when I first started learning English in fifth grade. Classes were based on books, worksheets and grammar rules - completely different from how I learned my native language. While I was able to pick up on vocabulary, my brain was not able to process the grammar rules because I was not aware of the grammar of my native language. I could not see a clear structure and it was hard to create long-term connections in my brain. Also, we were taught bilingually, which led to a lot of translating in my head. Based on this experience, I strongly support using the direct method especially for beginners and children. As this method emulates the conditions of first language acquisition, it starts with speaking, listening and repeating rather than grammar rules. It is a way more natural way or learning that creates a long-term connection in the mind. As it is only taught in the target language, constant translating before forming a sentence is factored out. Instead of long vocabulary lists, new words are being illustrated or acted out. This way, students feel a lot more entertained and engaged in the learning process and can relate to the content. Learners will feel eager to learn more rather than frustrated because they do not understand a grammar rule or just do not enjoy memorising a vocabulary list. The direct method gives teachers the chance to make learning a language seem like a fun game rather than a drag. Students will have to interpret and guess the meaning of things. This type of brain activation will create long-lasting memory. You will always remember something better if you found it out yourself than if someone told you. With this method, learners also recognise certain grammatical patterns without being aware of the fact that it is grammar. We all learned our first language the same way. They will improve their speaking skills rapidly and speaking in the second language will feel natural to them. Another advantage is that it appeals to visual, kinesthetic, interpersonal and verbal learners. Students quickly lose their fear of speaking in the target language and will feel motivated every time they say something right. And creating a positive connection with the target language is crucial for the learning success. Students who enjoy their classes are a lot more receptive and motivated.

In contrast, the grammar-translation approach, which still is a commonly used method in most public schools, does almost nothing for a person's communication skills. Almost every citizen in Germany learned English in school for at least six years but only very few are able to actually speak Engish afterwards. This is proof that the grammar-translation approach is not a very successful one. The direct method might not work for absolutely everyone but I am convinced that it will reach a lot more learners than other methods. I consider it a lot more reasonable to use this method first and create a feeling for and understanding of the language and then explain grammar rules in more detail at a more advanced stage.

Throughout my journey of learning English, a series of different teaching models have been used. A common one is the PPP – Present, Practice, Produce. This model is very common in language courses. A teacher in the front presents a new topic and afterwards students have to practice and produce. Doing exercises is to transfer the new information to the long-term memory. I consider this an effective method. However, it is not suitable for larger groups and seems more appropriate for private lessons as students in a bigger group might struggle with paying constant attention in the presenting stage.

I personally always responded well to the ESA model, an approach that aims at finding a way to engage the student first and then let them practice. Engaging the students should always be a top priority for every teacher and the ESA model provides for this. Nothing is worse than being bored in class checking the clock every two minutes and hoping that the time will pass quicker. We all have been there and a teacher should always avoid this. The ESA model is also suitable for bigger groups as there are many ways to engange a large group and get their attention. The activate phase of the ESA model is very practical and interactive. It requires students to use their own thoughts, which will help transfer information into the long-term memory. It is a model that I had great successes with while learning and it certainly has its benefits.

However, I find all teaching models - the “PPP”, the “ESA”, the “TTT” and the “I.We.You” - very effective in their own way. The “TTT” model can be very effective when teaching a competitive student who likes to see if he or she can solve the problem independently. Others might feel intimidated by the initial test and could feel frustrated if they get all answers wrong. The PPP model performed in a bigger group could make students lose interest in the presenting phase, in which they are rather passive. Others might consider this model to be very well structured.

All models have great benefits to them. Which one the ideal model is depends totally on the learner, their strengths, preferences and learning type. I once had a student who was crazy about the TTT method as he was always competing with himself and wanted to see where his boundaries were. Taking a test prior to teaching a new topic was a great challenge for him and it motivated him if he got the answers right by himself. However, this method might not work for a person that likes to stay in their comfort zone and hates to make mistakes. For such a person, the PPP model would be a lot more suitable as it will not require a lot of guessing and makes the student feel more secure.

However, I consider the ESA method to be the most universial one as everyone likes to become enganged in a class, a topic or even a conversation. The interactive feature this model has will also help to remember new information in the long term.

Consequently, it all depends on the learner. It is up to the teacher to show empathy and identify which model is the most suitable one in which situation. Above all, I believe that enganging the students and making them enjoy the class will always be the most effective way to procude the best learning success possible. This requires a lot of creativity and passion from teachers.