Chapter I
Theories of Learning
The key to successful language learning and teaching lies not
an analysis of the nature of language but in understanding the structure and
processes of the main. Unfortunately we still to know little about how people learn.[1]
Nevertheless, if we wish to improve the techniques, method and content of
language teaching, we must try and base what we do in the classroom on sound
principle of learning.
Developments
in learning theory have followed a similar pattern to those in language descriptions, and each has had some
effect on the other. But if we are to see the important of each for language
teaching, it is best consider the theories relating to language and learning
separately. As with language descriptions, we shall describe the main
development in the theories of how learners learn and relate each to the needs
of the ESP learner and teacher.
Until the twentieth century there was no coherent theory of
learning available to the language teacher. Certainly there were empirical
observation such as Comenius studies made in the sixteenth century and the
precepts of the Direct Method at the end of the nineteenth century (see e.g.
Stern, 1983). But no coherent theory of learning emerged until psychology had
been established as a respectable subject of scientific enquiry in the early
twentieth century. We can identify five main stages of development since then,
which are of relevance to the modern English teacher (see Littlewood 1984, for
an excellent survey of theories of learning).
1.
Behaviorism: Learning as habit formation
The
first coherent theory of learning was the behavourist theory based mainly on the work of
Pavlov in the Soviet Union and of Skinner in the United States. This simple but
powerful theory said that learning is a mechanical process of habit formation
and proceeds by means of the frequent reinforcement of a stimulus-responses
sequence.
The
simplicity and directness of this theory had an enormous impact on learning
psychology and one language teaching. It provided the theoretical underpinning
of the widely used Audio lingual Method of the 1950s and 1960s. the method
which will be familiar to many language. Teachers laid down a set of guiding
methodological principles, based firstly on the behaviorist stimulus-response
concept and secondly on an assumption that second language learning should
reflect and imitate the perceived processes of mother tongue learning. Some of
these precepts were:
Never
Translate
New
language should always be dealt with the sequence: hear, speak, read, and
write.
Frequent
repetition is essential to effective learning. All errors must be immediately
corrected.
The
basic exercise technique of a behaviorism methodology is pattern practice,
particularly in the form of language laboratory drills.
Modern ESP books have also looked for more interesting ways
of handling pattern practice and a number of useful variations on the basic
idea have been developed.
In particular, authors have tried to provide a meaningful
context for the drills.
Pattern
practice exercise still have a useful role to play in language teaching. But only
as one part of the whole learning process. Under the audio lingual method they
constitute almost the entire
methodology. Subsequent developments
have as we shall see shown that learning is much more complex than just
imitative habit formation. But this does not necessarily mean that there is no
place for pattern practice in a modern methodology (see e.g. Stevick, 1982).
The mistake is too see it as the only kind of activity required.
2.
Mentalism: thinking as rule-governed activity
There was considerable
empirical evidence among language teachers that the audio lingual Method and
its behaviorist principle did not deliver the result promised. For apparently
perverse reasons, language on translating things, asked for rules of grammar,
found repeating things to a tape recorder boring, and somehow failed to learn
something no matter how often they repeated it (see Allwright, 1984a). Such
evidence from the classrooms, however did little to diminish the influence of
the theory-a sad example of human mistrust of intuition and experience in
favour of theory.
The first successful assault on
behaviorist theory came from Chomsky 1964. He tackled behaviorism on the
question of how the mind was able to
transfer what was learnt in one stimulus-response sequence to other novel
situations. There was a vague concept of ‘generalisation’ in behaviorist
theory, but this was always skate over and never properly explained. Chomsky
dismissed the generalization ideas as unworkable, because it simply could not
explain how from a finite range of experience, the human mind was able to cope
with an infinite range of possible situations. His conclusion was that thinking
must be rule-governed: a finite and fairly small, set of rules enables the mind
to deal with the potentially infinite range of experience it may encounter.
Having established thinking a
rule-governed behavior it is one short step to the conclusion that learning
consist not a forming habits but of acquiring rules-a process in which
individual experience are used by the mind to formulate a hypothesis. This
hypothesis is then tested and modified by subsequent experience. The mind, in
other words, does not just respond to a stimulus. It uses the individual
stimulus in order to find the underlying pattern or system. It can then use
this knowledge of the system in a novel situation to predict what is likely to
happen, what is an appropriate response or whatever. The mentalist view of the
mind as a rule-seeker led naturally to the next important stage-the cognitive
theory of learning.
3.
Cognitive code: Learners as thinking beings
Whereas the behaviorist
theory of learning portrayed the learner as a passive receiver of information,
the cognitive view takes the learner to be an active processor of information
(e.g. Ausubel et al., 1978). Learning
and using a rule require learners to think, that is to apply their mental
powers in order to distil a workable generative rule from the mass of data
presented, and then to analyze the situation where the application of the rule
would be useful or appropriate. Learning, then is a process in which the
learners actively tries to make sense of data, and learning can be said to have
taken place when the learners has managed to impose some sort of meaningful
interpretation or pattern on the data. This may sound complex, but in simple
terms what it means is that we learn by thinking about and trying to make sense
of what we see, feel and hear,.
The basic teaching
techniques associated with a cognitive theory of language learning is the
problem-solving task. In ESP such exercise have often been modeled on
activities associated with the learner’s subject specialism.
More recently, the
cognitive view of learning has had a significant impact on ESP through the
development of courses to teach reading strategies. A number of ESP project have
concentrated on making students aware of their reading strategies so that they
can consciously apply them to understanding texts in a foreign language (see
e.g. Alderson, 1980 and Scott, 1981).
The cognitive code
view of learning seems to answer many of the theoretical and practical problems
raised by behaviorism. It treats the learners as thinking beings and puts them
firmly at the centre of the learning process, by stressing that learning will
only take place when the matter to be learnt is meaningful to the learners. But
in itself a cognitive view is not sufficient. To complete the picture we need
and effective view too.
4.
The Affective factors: Learners as emotional beings
People think, but they also have feelings. It is one of the paradoxes
of human nature that, although we were all aware of our feelings and their
effects on our actions, we invariably seek answers to our problems is rational
terms. It is as if we believed that human beings always act is a logical and
sensible manner. This attitude affects the way we see learners-more like
machines to be programmed (‘I’ve taught them the past tense. They must know
it.’) than people with likes and dislikes, fears, weaknesses and
prejudices. But learners are people. Even ESP learners are people. They may be
learning about machines and systems, but they still learn as human beings.
Learning, particularly the learning relationship between the cognitive and
emotional aspects of being is, therefore one of vital importance to the success
or otherwise language learning This brings us
to a matter which has been one of the most important elements in the
development of ESP – motivation.The most influential study of motivation in
language learning has been Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) study of bilingualism
in French speaking Canada. They identified two terms of motivations
instrumental and integrative.
a)
Instrumental motivation is the reflection of an
external need. The learners are not learning a language because they want
to (although this does not imply that they do not want to), but rather because
they need to. The need may derive from varying sources, the need to sell things
to speakers of the language; the need to pass an examination in the language;
the need to read text in the language for work or study. The need may vary, but
the important factor is that the motivation is an external one.
b)
Integrative motivation, on the other hand, derives
from a desire on the part of the learners to be members of the speech community
that uses a particular language. It is an internally generated want rather than
an externally imposed need.
Gardner and Lambert’s conclusion was that both forms of motivation are
probably present in all learners but each exercises a varying influence,
depending on age, experience and changing occupational or social needs.
Motivation, it appears, is a complex and highly individual
matter. There can be no simple answers to the question ; ‘what motivates my
students?’ Unfortunately the ESP world, while recognizing the need to ask this
question, has apparently assumed that there is a simple answer ; relevance to
target needs. In practice this has been interpreted as meaning Medical texts
for the student of Medicine, Engineering English for the Engineer and so on.
But, as we shall see when we deal with needs analysis, there is more to
motivation than simple relevance to perceived needs. For the present, suffice
it to say that, if you students are not fired with burning enthusiasm by the
obvious relevance of their ESP materials, remember that they are people not
machines. The medicine of relevance may still need to be sweetened with the
sugar of enjoyment, fun, creativity and a sense of achievement : ESP, as much
as any good teaching, needs to be intrinsically motivating. It should satisfy
their needs as learners as well as their needs as potential target users of the
language. In other words, they should get satisfaction from the actual
experience of learning, not just from the prospect of eventually using what
they have learnt.
5.
Learning and Acquisition
Much debate has
recently centred around the distinction made by Stephen Krashen (1981)
between learning and acquisition. Learning is seen as a conscious process,
while acquisition proceeds unconsciously. We have not in this section paid much
attention to this distinction, using the two terms interchangeably. This
reflects our view that for the second language learner both processes are
likely to play a useful part and that a good ESP course will try to exploit
both.
6.
A Model of Learning
In the light of the
ideas we have discussed we will now present a model of the learning process,
which will provide a practical source of reference for the ESP teacher and
course designer. First, picture the mind as a network of connections, rather
like a road map (see figure 14). The individual houses, towns and villages represent
items or bundles of knowledge. These various settlements, however, are only
useful if they are connected to the main network by roads. The mind of the
learners is like a development agency. It wants to bring the settlements into
the network and so develop their potential. To achieve this, communication
links must be established. But as with any communications network, links can
only established from existing links.
In figure 14
for example town X is unlikely to be connected in to the network. Town Y and Z
are already connected. The town and village in K can not be conneted until some
way is found bridging the river.but, of course ones the river is bridged, it
wil open up a whole new area. The same
applies to the settlement beyond the mountains. There is no limit to the number
of links possible. Indeed the more links a place already has the more it is
likely to attract. Why have we pictures the mind as operating like this?
a)
Individual items of
knowledge, like the towns, have little significance on their own. They only
acquire meaning and use when they are connected into the network of existing
knowledge.
b)
It is existing network
that makes it possible to construct new connections. So in the act of acquiring
new knowledge it is the learner’s existing knowledge that makes it possible to
learn new items.
c)
Item of knowledge are
not of equal significance. Some items are harder to acquire, but may open up
wide possibilities for further learning. Like a bridge across a river or a
tunnel through a mountain. Learning a generative rule may take time, but once
it is there, it greatly increases the potential for further learning. This is
why so often learning appears to progress in leaps and bounds. For a long time
it might appear that little progress is being made; then suddenly the learner
makes an enormous leap to a higher level of competence. Think of these leaps as
the crossing of rivers mountains and other major obstacles.
d)
Roads and railways are
not built haphazardly. They require planning. The road builder has to recognize
where problems lie and work out strategies for solving those problems. In the
same way the learner will make better progress by developing strategies for
solving the learning problems that will arise.
e)
A communication
network is a system. If the road builder can see the whole system, the planning
and construction of the roads will be a lot easier. Language is a system, too.
If the learner sees it as just a haphazard set of arbitrary and capricious
obstacles, learning will be difficult, if not impossible.
f)
Last, but by no means
least, before anyone builds a road, crosses a river or climbs a mountain, they
must have some kind of motivation to do so. If they could not care less what is
beyond the mountains, dislike the people who come from there or are simply afraid
of travelling, the chances of communication links being established are
minimal. First of all, there must be a need to establish the links. In ESP,
this need is usually taken for granted. But as anyone who has set out on a long
and possibly difficult journey will know, a need is not enough. You can always
find an excuse for not going. The traveler must also want to make the journey.
And the traveler who can actually enjoy the challenges and the experience of
the journey, is more likely to want to repeat the activity. So with learning a
need to a acquire knowledge is a necessary factor, but of equal, if not greater
importance, is the need to actually enjoy the process of acquisition.
Chapter II
A.
Conclusion
In conclusion we should like to make two points :
a.
We still do
not know very much about learnig. It is important, therefore, not to base any
approach too narrowly on the theory. As with language descriptions, it is wise
to take an electic approach,taking what is useful from each theory and trusting
also in the evidence of your own experience as a teacher. It is probable that
there are cognitive,affective and behaviorist aspects to learning, and each can
be a resource to the ESP pracititioner. For exxample, you may choose a
behavorist approuch to the teaching of pronunciation, a cognitive approuch to
the teaching of grammar and use affective criteria in selecting your texts.
b.
Theories of learning and language descriptions
are not causally linked. As Corder (1973) says :
‘There is no logical connection between a particular
psychological theory of how grammar is learned and any particular theory of
language structure...there is,however, an undoubred historical connection between them.
B. Suggestion
If in the writing of this paper there is a
shortage or error we apologize. We welcome any criticism and suggestion from
reader to the improvement of this paper. Moreover, we also hope that this paper
can be useful for readers.
[1] . Tom Hutschinson and
Alan Waters, English for Specific
Purposes, Cambridge, Language Teaching Labrary, 1948, page 6
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar