.
Introduction
Teachers are introduced to a wide variety of different
approaches concerning First Language (L1) and Second
Language Learning or Acquisition (SLA/L2), and the
influences behind these approaches. Future foreign
languages teachers need to develop an in-depth
understanding of these theories to see how they will
influence the outcome of the teaching. The recent
seminar How languages are learned explored the
approaches of the theories, examined the history to see
how they were developed and discussed external
influences such as psychology, biology and
environmental on them.As I found out during my literary
research, the behaviouristic approach brought an initial
change towards the understanding of language learning
in SLA and henceforth towards teaching. Because of
this, I will discuss an overview of the various approaches
of the 20th century, paying special attention to
behaviouristic methods, emphasising its significance.
The behaviouristic approach leans towards the use of
the Audiolingual Method in second language
classrooms. This approach was dominant in the 1950s
and 60s and was popular among renowned
psychologists and linguists such as Skinner, Watson,
Lado, and Bloomfield. They were of the opinion that all
learning can be understood as a habit formation through
stimuli from the environment. (Ellis, 1997, pp. 31&138)
As a result, the Audiolingual Method concerning L2
teaching became popular and can be characterized
trough the following activities of teaching: repetition,
inflection, replacement, completion, expansion, etc.. I am
going into detail with these terms later. Concerning the
Audiolingual Method it is important to mention that its
basis, namely the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(CAH), creates the connection between behaviourism
and the audiolingual teaching methodology. The CAH
can be briefly defined as the assumption (based on
behaviourism) that all language learning depends on the
mother tongue or L1 and where there are similarities
between both, no mistakes will occur in the L2, whereas
on the other hand where there are differences between
L1 and L2, errors are likely to occur. (Richards &
Rodgers, 2001, pp. 50-61)Questions that arose from the
seminar which are both interesting and important for
discussion are: As we have so many good and bad to make such drills possible (Hockett; cited in Richards
approaches, which one is the best? Is there in fact one
true approach?
The following document will attempt to provide the
reader with information about how languages are
learned; discuss the approaches and provide the future
Language Teacher with what each approach offers
and does not offer.2. Different Approaches to
Second Language Acquisition and/or Second
Language Learning an overviewWhen Richards &
Rodgers (2001, pp.50-52) investigated Second
Language teaching according to Second Language
Acquisition (hereafter: SLA) theories throughout history,
they began describing the development around the time
of World War II. They found that the American entry into
World War II was an initial starting point for L2 learning
in America because of the language learning
programmes, which were established in 1942. These
programmes were designed to enable the military
personnel to speak languages like German, French,
Italian, etc. fluently. As the background of teaching a
second language was a military one, there is no need to
figure out reasons for drill methods. Language learning
was characterized by an intensity of language contact,
without the real methods we have established today and
was oral-based. It is obvious that teacher education
followed the same method that designed to train special
agents for the US. Leonard Bloomfield was one of the
first linguists who had developed a L2 teaching
programme in 1939, and which the Army adopted. His
method was oral-based and worked through students
imitation of the language produced by a native speaker,
the informant. The informant method was practiced via
drill and with highly motivated students even lead to
success. However, for conventional language teaching
this method was not successful and so new approaches
were necessary (Richards & Rodgers, 2001,
p.50).Bloomfields method was popular for the next ten
years in L2 teaching but the number of linguists working
on the topic and methods increased. In the English
Language Institute in Michigan, Charles Fries applied
structural linguistics to language teaching (Richards &
Rodgers, 2001, p.51). Richards & Rodgers (2001)
explain that the starting point of teaching was the
grammar of a language and students were taught to
identify sentence patterns and grammatical structures
firstly, then oral drilling practiced pronunciation. As
Hockett (1959) put it, it is these basic patterns that
constitute the learners task. They require drill, drill, and
more drill, and only through and only enough vocabulary
& Rodgers, 2001, p.52). This statement shows explicitly
that in those days practice was seen as the only way to
success, disregarding different learner types or
important vocabulary, etc. what we see today as
fundamental in L2 teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2001,
pp.51-52).In the 1950s the behaviourist theory came up
which as one of the first to study learning directly, i.e.
how people learn in general. This theory was quickly
adapted to SLA and henceforth to L2 teaching
methodologies. As Lightbown & Spada (1999) describe
it: behaviourists account for learning in terms of
imitation, practice, reinforcement (or feedback on
success), and habit formation. (Lightbown & Spada,
p.35) This leads to a way of language teaching which
still makes use of pattern drill but with the view of
encouraging students, i.e. giving them positive feedback
to ensure correct repetition, (the Audiolingual
Method).Learning via imitation and behaviouristic
elements held the sway of the teaching community as
their main influence for an extended period of time. In
1980 Noam Chomsky highly criticised this view, insisting
in his view that the language was not a habit that could
be learned. On the contrary, his theory is based on the
hypothesis that innate knowledge of the principles of
Universal Grammar (UG) permits all children to acquire
the language of their environment. (Lightbown & Spada,
1999, p.36). Cook (2001, pp. 181-183) describes that
Universal Grammar underlies the belief that all grammar
of a language was based on universal principles or
structures of the target language which only need to be
used. They do not need to be learned because they are
part of the human mind. According to SLA this approach
is not suitable entirely, but Chomskys innate UG has
often been characterized as a very good starting point
for L2 learning. As Cook (2001) put it: As the universal
Grammar in the students mind is so powerful, there is
comparatively little for the teacher to do. (Cook, p.183)
This standpoint was often discussed because many
others argue that the UG, if it exists, may be a little help
in L2 language learning but because of different
structures in various languages it cannot be the basis of
SLA (Lightbown & Spada, 1999, p.36). Together with the
cognitive approach the Critical Period Hypothesis was
formed, which is closely related to Chomskys theory of
the innate Universal Grammar. This hypothesis roughly
states that children can only learn a language until a
certain age, i.e. Lenneberg (Lightbown & Spada, 1999,
p.19) constituted that children need to be stimulated at
the right time to learn a language. He compares this
development with the biological development of learning
to walk. He states that a child who cannot speak may
learn to understand complex sentences but a child who
simply was not stimulated to speech until a certain age
will never be able to speak. This has been proved by
several natural experiments, e.g. Victor and Genie. They
were 12 and 13 years old when they were found they
have never been exposed to language and both of them
never reached an adequate level of language
concerning their age. Other factors besides biological
maturity (Lightbown & Spada, 1999, p.21) may be
further reasons why both of them did never learn a
language properly but those are hard to define. A long
time, the Critical Period Hypothesis was also valid for
SLA. Lenneberg (Lightbown & Spada, 1999, pp.19-21)
again argued that biological factors would determine the
ability of SLA, i.e. between the age of two and twelve
years languages, including L2, can be learned best.
However, various investigations proved the Critical
Period Hypothesis to be false because even adolescents
and adults have been able to achieve very good abilities
in the target language, and sometimes they show better
results than children do. Age appears to neither
significantly simplify nor harden L2 learning. Changes of
personality, cognitive maturity, motivation and socio-
psychological reasons have a great influence on SLA.
Stephen Krashen, another opponent against the
behaviouristic approach, yet considers some of these
points. He offered other innatist theories to SLA in the
1970s/80s. His theory extremely influenced L2 teaching
practice (Lightbown & Spada, 1999, p.38). He was of the
opinion that innate mechanisms continue to operate
during SLL, and make key aspects of SLL possible, in
the same way they make first-language learning
possible. (Mitchell & Myles, 2004, p.14) The Input
Hypothesis Model or Monitor Model established by him
has been discussed intensively. His theory consists of
five hypotheses, Cook (2001, p.190):1. The acquisition-
learning theoryKrashen distinguishes between
acquisition as an unconscious learning process and
learning as a conscious learning process.
2. The monitor hypothesisstudents only learn when
they can check what they have acquired.
3. The natural order hypothesisthere is an order in
which structures are acquired.
4. The affective filter hypothesisthere are individual
variables which may disturb the SLA are filtered.
5. The input hypothesisstudents only acquire a
language by understanding the comprehensible input
from the environment.
Some of Krashens hypotheses have still survived and
today can be seen in major aspects of language
teaching, e.g. the principle of emotional safeness
(Butzkamm, in Timm (Ed.), 1998, p. 52) which is closely
related to the affective filter hypothesis.
Since the 1980s, many further theories have been
established. For example, McLaughlin, a cognitive
psychologist, offered the Information Processing Model
(1987) which constitutes that learning begins with
controlled processing of the target language and
becomes more and more automatic. What is very
important to mention concerning this model is the
assumption that language learning is the same as the
learning of other skills such as driving a car.(Cook,
2001, p.189) This contradicts with all the other theories,
which have been established after the behaviourist
theory. The latter also claimed that SLA functions in the
same way as any other learning. Anderson in 1993 also
used the behaviouristic learning theory in creating the
Cognitive Behaviourist model ACTR. As Cook (2001,
p.188) found its basis is to build up response strengths
which are to be divided into a declarative memory and a
procedural memory. Declarative stands for the individual
information and procedural for what the student does,
i.e. students get declarative facts better to known and
thus incorporate them into their procedural memory to
structure the amount of individual information.
Connectionism is one last psychological approach to
SLA in recent time. This theory differs in so far from the
ACTR model that the established strengths are
processed simultaneously and not one after the other.
The environment is seen as a factor of greater
importance because learners learn eventually from it and
hence widen their language knowledge. (Lightbown &
Spada, 1999, p. 42 & Cook, 2001, p. 188)
As we have seen, investigations made progression. The
approaches seem to tend into two directions -
behaviouristic or cognitively undermined. Concerning our
first question from the beginning we can conclude that
there seems to be no `true approach which teachers
can believe and thus follow the concerning methods, up
to this point. Progression took place because existing
theories were never fully satisfying, but neither are the
latest ones. Some theories about L2 learning have gone
in a complete circle with behaviouristic approaches at
the forefront again. This raises the original question of
whether there is a true approach. We can determine
that no single true method has been found at the
present time.
3. B. F. Skinner his theory on learning
In most of the literature concerning the topic of SLA,
discussions of the behaviouristic approach are only brief
because most of its content is not incorporated in todays
teaching methods. In Ellis work on Second Language
Acquisition and Language Pedagogy (1992, p.3) it is
described as follows: Learners learnt the L2 as a result
of responding to stimuli and receiving feedback on the
correctness of their productions. The principal
mechanisms of learning were imitation, repetition and
reinforcement. Successful learning occurred when the
learner succeeded in forming new habits. Unsuccessful
learning (which manifested itself in errors in learner
production) was the result of negative transfer
(interference) from the learners L1. (Ellis, 1992, p.3)
Howatt (1988) summarized the structuralism which
underlies the behaviouristic approach:
1. The conviction that language systems consisted of a
finite set of `patterns or `structures which acted as
models for the production of a finite number of
similarly constructed sentences;
2. The belief that repetition and practice resulted in the
formation of accurate and fluent foreign language habits;
3. A methodology which set out to teach `the basics
before encouraging learners to communicate their own
thoughts and ideas. (pp. 14-15; cited in Mitchell & Myles,
2004, p. 30)
These short summaries gave an overview on the
behaviouristic approach. However, I want to go into more
detail from Skinners standpoint because he is
a neo behaviourist because he added a unique
dimension to behaviourist psychology. (Brown, 1994, p.
77)
Skinner (1968, pp.1-8) stated that learning needs to be
trained in the same way as muscles are trained, i.e. all
learning behaviour has to be trained frequently through
repetition, drill and rote learning to reach positive effects.
As all the other approaches named before, Skinners
theory should bring a change into the classrooms to
improve learning. He constituted the importance of
learning by doing, and wants students to be an active
part in the lesson. Skinner found three variables to
compose contingencies of reinforcement under which
learning takes place: (1) an occasion upon which
behaviour occurs, (2) the behaviour itself, and (3) the
consequences of the behaviour. (Skinner, 1968, p.4)
This means that whenever students are stimulated
somehow they will response. Depending on the
consequence of the response, i.e. positive or negative
reinforcement, they are likely to repeat this behaviour.
Skinner put his main emphasis on these consequences
and not only on the stimuli as it is often described. This
is called the operant conditioning and within this model
the importance of stimuli is deemphasized. (Brown,
1994, p. 77) In Skinners opinion, positive reinforcement
is the motor of teaching and hence learning. I.e., the
stimulus that leads somebody to respond cannot always
be identified and therefore the consequence is the
stimulus. (Brown, 1994, p.77) Thorndikes Law of Effect
also emphasizes the importance of reinforcing the
learners responses by rewarding target-like responses
and correcting non-target-like ones.(Ellis, 1995, p.299)
As Brown (1994, p.77) put it, Skinner believed in the
power of the reinforcement because positive
reinforcement strengthens the behaviour and makes it
more likely to occur again. For that reason Skinner
(1968, pp. 13-30) criticized classrooms of those days in
so far that children often only acted to avoid punishment
because there was little reinforcement given by
teachers. Reinforcement has to be given immediately
but in many cases, the childs response and the
teachers reinforcement are intervened by time
constraints. Another critical point concerning Skinner is
that certain stimuli will never receive a response from the
students, but they will end in anxiety, a feeling of guilt
and fear because the student has experienced negative
consequences once. This may lead to students who will
not speak in L2 classrooms, e.g., and thus thy will not be
able to learn anymore because they are not acting. A
very slight reinforcement may be tremendously effective
in controlling behaviour if it is wisely used. (Skinner,
1968, p.20)
I prefer to learn with motivation. 4.57 .736
Highuse 2 Teacher should be a kind. 4.53 .
711 Highuse 3 Teacher should use audio
visual aids. 4.47 .800 Highuse 4 Self-
motivation is helpful in learning English
language. 4.50 .702 Mediumuse 5 English
language is important. 4.61 .684 Highuse 6
English learning is necessary for your future.
Friendly atmosphere increase learning 4.34 .
975 Highuse 8 Motivation/love in learning
English leads student to work 4.39 .903
Highuse 9 Complete your home work in this
environment of kindness 4.18 .860 Highuse
10 Teacher should create awareness by
storytelling and jokes. 4.17 .947 Highuse 11
You love to spend more time with your
English teacher. 4.19 1.079 Highuse 12
Teacher should create the atmosphere of
love. Fear of punishment gives better results
in learning English language. 3.73 1.423
Highuse 14 Punishment teaching technique
is useful for building confidence. 3.27 1.690
Mediumuse 15 Mar / punishment effects
positively to increase learning. 3.56 1.459
Highuse 16 Mar / Punishment helps in
performance. 3.90 1.268 Highuse 17 Teacher
should be a strict personality. 3.62 1.329
Highuse 18 Punishment helps in completing
home work in time. Corporal punishment is
required for effective learning English
language. 3.44 1.616 Mediumuse 20 Teacher
accepts your mistakes in English expression.
3.81 1.230 Highuse 21 Corporal punishment
provides ample practice to students for
learning English language. 3.57 1.387
Highuse 22 You feel embarrassed in this
atmosphere. 3.64 1.387 Highuse 23 You are
satisfied this policy of Mar NehPayar. 3.90
1.437 Highuse 24 Corporal punishment
fulfills the requirement of learning English
language. You participate actively in the
class. 4.54 .702 Highuse 26 You consider
English is a tool for better job. 4.45 .894
Highuse 27 You are confident, to express
yourself in speaking English. 4.00 1.141
Highuse 28 Teacher should tolerate the
mistakes. 3.82 1.210 Mediumuse 29 Teacher
should create pleasant environment in
teaching. 4.41 .829 Highuse 30 You feel
punishment creates anxiety. Participants
responses favored the statement that
payar/love serves as motivational force in
learning English language. In this regard, the
results of the present study in learning
English language favor three important
factors. In which motivation, self-confidence,
and anxiety are the factors which help the
learner in learning English language. Krashan
(1981) refers that we may correct ourselves
when we communicate. According to the
nature of the English language, it needs
practical atmosphere of learning. User uses
target language without any stress. Clark
derives theory and expectancy theory of
Vroom (1994) seconds the participants
responses. As Curran (1972) said that, learn
a language in the class room like a counselor
and client relationship. CLL teaching method
favors this research question in learning
English language. Actually all the factors
which are involving in this question are
motivational techniques to enhance the
process in learning English language.
Learners attitude with the help of their tools
gives better result in learning English
language. However, one cannot negate its
effects varies from person to person. It
depends on the instructor to plan these
forces in such a way that learner accept
these motivation tools without inhibition. In
teaching methods and approaches, there is a
capacity to add these two important
motivational tools for getting the desired
objectives. It is a human nature that cannot
work until understand the consequences.
Some type of anxiety is very important for
work. In the beginning child adopts it in
behavior then it reinforces his drives for
getting the objectives. Reward in sense of
payar enhances self-esteem in the learner