Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Language Develpment Theory

Throughout the study of education and learning processes, humans have divided the language development theory into different categories. It is difficult to say which one is the best, but as a teacher it is necessary to understand the different perspectives. That’s one of the reasons why there is still a lot of research and studies focused on language development. As an immigrant in this country, I feel like the Social Interaction theory fits the best to my experiences. Interacting with other students who are native speakers helped me a lot to improve my English language skills. Of course, at school I was instructed through more of the Connectionist theory. “Connectionist model consists of a set of processing elements, called nodes, and the interconnections among those nodes.” For example, Spanish and ESL classes required a lot of repetition in order to gain understanding and new vocabulary. This is similar to our experience when we were a baby. We learned words by listening to others and each time they repeated a word, we would learn how to use and pronounce that word better. Like the saying goes, “practice makes perfect.” While reading Hoff, chapter one, I realized that there are other theories which could be used effectively in the classroom, for instance, Generativist, Constructivist, and Behaviorist.


The Generativist theory states that all human can learn equally. It also explains how humans are capable of learning naturally like a built-in ability. This means that we don’t need to strain ourselves over learning about something as one can absorb information and use it naturally. For instance, when students are writing short passages in Spanish, they can partner with other students and correct each other’s grammar. The Constructivist theory says that “language (or any form of knowledge) is constructed by the child using inborn mental equipment but operating on information provided by the environment.” To me this means, anyone can learn almost anything, but it is the environment or classroom that facilitates learning. For example, after reading or watching a movie in Spanish, students can sit in a circle and have a question and answer session in order to discuss and understand each other points of view. This theory is often used in today’s classroom and involves interacting directly with the environment. This theory also states that the environment can teach any student. For example, as a Spanish teacher I can create environments where students can interact with each other by speaking the language in order to practice naturally, and be able to learn Spanish from the environment or naturally occurring instances like dialogue or conversation. Lastly, there is the Behaviorist theory. This theory focuses on certain reinforcements according to the behavior of the student. For example, positive reinforcement is really important to create a healthy learning environment and can be used to motivate our students. As a result, students will want to learn more in order to receive the incentives as part of the reinforcement. However, it’s possible that some students feel that reinforcement doesn’t always work since students are only working for a prize. “Because the behaviorists' notion of the endpoint of development was wrong, the behaviorist theory of achieving that endpoint is inadequate as a theory of language acquisition”. As a good teacher I feel like sometimes I should be giving some reinforcement to motivate students, but trying different methods to see their effectiveness is our job. In the classroom, giving too many stickers or candies everyday can condition students to get used to the idea of receiving awards for every activity or task they accomplish. However, if the instructor provides reinforcement only when it is needed or earned, students may try a little harder to work for the prize that is not so easy to get.

As a Spanish and Technology major, I believe in my field the best theories that apply are Constructivist and Social Interaction. In these classrooms, usually teachers create an environment where students can learn naturally and interact with other in order to learn and scaffold. At the same time, as an educator, it is hard to say which one of these theories is the best for all students although all of these theories are proved and can make sense in different situations. As an intentional teacher, we need to study our students by using these theories in order to serve them the best. Understanding how our students learn can help us improve in our job as guides. Since every student is different, we need to apply different methods to teach every student in the classroom.

2 comments:

  1. Dani,

    I like that you have reasearched something close to your own experience. Knowing that you have had to learn English as a second language provides more strength to this argument. I must say that you have researched well; you state that you feel you learned the language best by talking with others. Personally, I must agree with this, because like the saying says, "Practice makes perfect." I believe your experience fits into the Connectivisit theory. It is helpful that you have defined this theory; however, I find it most significant that you have provided an example of how it works. I studied abroad, and luckily, I lived with a host family that ONLY spoke Italian. This forced me to practice, and I found that this was truly the only way to learn the language.

    You continue to describe that all of these theories are useful in proving that "all humans can learn equally," yet, we as teachers have been taught to differentiate according to different strengths. So, do all humans learn equally? I do not believe so, but I believe we can all learn, but through different methods and at different paces. As teachers, we must be sure to interact and reinforce constantly, while assessing. We need to reinforce that practice is important, but it is not the ONLY concept in learning.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This was really interesting, Dani. Behaviorism is powerful, but I share your reluctance. Extrinsic reward systems have shown to work when the rewards are present, but fail when those rewards are removed. Creating unpredictable reward schedules is better, like winning at a casino, but the best possible is the intrinsic reward. the self satisfaction someone gets when they experience success. Behaviorism leaves me cold, even thought there is significance to what they uncovered. Give me social constructivism any day.

    ReplyDelete