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.