How to Learn a Language Apart from Rote Memorization - Research Paper Example

Learning By Rote Is Not Enough Learning a new language may be a challenge for most people. Several processes are involved. Some think that learning new words to improve vocabulary entails only rote memorization and if one’s memory skills are good, it would be easy to learn a second language. However, it takes much more than just plain memorization to be proficient in a second language. This essay will discuss how one learns a second language effectively apart from rote memorization of the foreign words. Nowadays, learning languages apart from one’s native tongue is becoming a necessary skill in order to survive globalization. Even young children get exposed to more languages at an early age due to the encouragement of multicultural education. However, several issues have come up regarding linguistic diversity. Educators need to investigate and understand these issues so that they can better design second language learning strategies to implement in their multicultural classes. Various theories have been conceptualized on language learning. According to the behaviorist view propagated by Skinner, an individual is reinforced (positively or negatively) for responses to various stimuli, hence, the external environment plays a great part in the formation of behaviors. By administering positive reinforcement such as praising or smiling when a desired behavior (language learning) occurs and administering negative reinforcement such as scolding or correcting when an undesired behavior occurs, one is assumed to encourage the desired behavior and make it more likely that that behavior will recur (Lindfors, 1987). Hence, language is learned with the mechanism of rewards and punishments. For example, if one is able to memorize words and their vocabulary meaning, then he gets rewarded with a high grade. On the other hand, if he fails to memorize the words, then he fails the test. A major criticism of the Skinnerian theory of language is that it is primarily a psychology of the production of language rather than of the reception of language. It talks about how people learn to produce language but it says little about how people learn to understand it (Carroll, 1962). Lightbrown & Spada (2006) agree that language learners do not simply internalize a great list of imitated and memorized sentences” (p.183). They need to learn ways on how others will be able to understand them better. According to Ausubel’s Cognitive Learning theory, meaningful processes of associating new information to already known concepts bring about learning. Ausubel contrasts rote learning from meaningful learning in that rote learning is the acquisition of material as “discrete and relatively isolated entities that are relatable to cognitive structure only in an arbitrary and verbatim fashion, not permitting the establishment of meaningful relationships” (Ausubel, 1968, as qtd in Brown, 1987, p.65). On the other hand, meaningful learning is a process that relates and establishes new information learned to relevant past knowledge and experiences. “Ausubel’s theory of learning has important implications for second language learning and teaching. Too much rote activity, at the expense of meaningful communication in language classes, could stifle the learning process.” (Brown, 1987, p.69). According to Lev Vygotsky, social interaction stimulated by speech is essential for language development. He also mentions that a supportive interactive environment can help the child to reach a higher level of knowledge and performance compared to what might be reached through his or her ability to improve independently (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.23). Lightbrown & Spada (2006) contend that people obtain control and reorganize their thinking processes during mediation as what they learn is internalized during social interactions. This follows Vygotsky’s theory that people learn through socialization because of interaction and collaboration with other speakers. Taking together Skinner’s, Ausubel’s and Vygotsky’s theories, it can be summarized that language is learned through reinforcing successful imitations of language that is meaningful for the learner and enhanced in social interactions. Otto (2010) differentiates language acquisition and language learning as thus: in language acquisition, one learns language unconsciously in a natural way because he needs to understand meaning. On the other hand, in language learning, one consciously learns rules in formal instruction in learning a language. Emphasis here is on the form of the language. Cummins (1986) mentioned the BICS or the Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills and the CALP or the Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency as two tools in second language learning. Baker (2006) explained that students engage in BICS when they communicate with contextual supports and props such as face-to face “context embedded” situations where they read the other person’s non-verbal gestures, hand movements and sounds to support verbal communication. On the other hand, CALP happens in “context reduced” situations requiring higher order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis or evaluation. This is usually encountered in more academic learning and communication where language is “disembedded” (Baker, 2006). Swain & Lapkin (2000) conclude in their study that the first language is by default, a tool used by students to learn their second language. Collaborating with other students in tasks for learning a second language, students try to make sense of the requirements and content of the task, focusing their attention on language form vocabulary use and overall organization, then turn to their native language to process and discuss before finally getting back to completing the task. Swain and Lapkin point out that without the use of their native language, they might not be able to accomplish the task effectively or it might not be accomplished at all. They argue that the insistence of not being allowed to access their first language in a linguistically and cognitively complex task of decoding a second language task would deprive them of an important cognitive tool. They stress that bilingual programs that allow for the development and maintenance of the first language while learning the second language are successful in both goals. Various teaching methodologies on second language learning have evolved. Some of these methods are the Direct Method, the Grammar-Translation method, the Audio-Lingual method, the Community Language Learning method, Total Physical Response Method and the Communicative Approach. Each method has its own adaptation of the theories in its application. In the Direct Method, it is theorized that second language learning should be more like first language learning – plenty of active, verbal interactions, spontaneous language use and no translations between first and second languages. It is also not concerned with analysis of grammatical rules (Brown, 1987) although correct pronunciation and grammar should be exhibited. The use of pictures and objects as learning aids are available so that learners can easily associate English words directly with what is familiar to them. Larsen-Freeman (1986) adds that the teacher should demonstrate and not explain or translate, because students should make a direct association between the target language (English) and meaning. This helps students learn to think in the target language, as they acquire vocabulary by using full sentences rather than memorizing word lists. The Grammar-Translation method otherwise known as the Classical method because it is used in learning classical languages such as Greek or Latin, on the other hand, uses the mother tongue to learn a second language. It is as if the second language was the subject matter, and is explained and studied using the native language of the learners. The goal is for learners to be able to translate one language to another, and not necessarily to be able to communicate spontaneously in the second language. It does not aim to develop fluency. The students read foreign text line by line and translate them, often processing it in their first language. The teacher draws attention to a specific grammar rule and then gives drills pertaining to this isolated rule. The Audiolingual method (ALM) was designed to be unlike the grammar translation approach and aims for the learner to actually speak the language. It suggests that the learning of a foreign language should be the same as the acquisition of the native language whereby rules of language need not be memorized, as these will be induced from much practice with the foreign language. However, the ALM is firmly grounded in linguistic and psychological theory, mostly behavioristic ones by Skinner. Conditioning and habit-formation models of learning are incorporated with mimicry drills and pattern practices of ALM (Brown, 1987). The rules of transformations in grammar cannot be explained by this theory. It likewise could not provide for the role of memory, of “private behavior”, of intuition and of many other phenomena recognized but not directly accessible to public observation. Teachers avoid allowing the beginning learners to speak the language freely as they will be prone to make errors, and such errors could become habits, so for ALM practitioners, it is better to prevent such bad habits from starting. Thus, they believe in the rule of “Getting it right from the beginning.” Lyster & Ranta (n.d.), however, welcome feedback from teachers when students commit errors. They claim that it depends on their pre-negotiations. Feedback-uptake sequences engage the students more actively when they have negotiated that they need to correct a form in the language and know that they may be provided signals to assist them of the correction of the mistaken form. Providing feedback as part of a negotiated sequence, however is possible only when the learners already possess an adequate level of proficiency in the second language. Of course corrections from the teacher should be nonthreatening and potentially useful in making the students think deeper in learning the task at hand. Community Language Learning approach is based on a counseling learning approach developed by Charles A. Curran, whose philosophy is anchored on Rogerian humanist principles (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). It is a learner-centered approach, with the learner mostly taking the upper hand in learning phrases and sentences in a foreign language which serve his needs. A group sits in a circle, and one by one, clients (learners) speaks in their native tongue and the counselor (teacher) translates it in the second language. The client is asked to repeat the translation. Each client takes his turn at what seems to grow as a conversation based on their interests. As the “counseling” progresses, the clients rely less on the counselor as they gain more proficiency in the second language. Eventually, they become independent second language speakers. The Total Physical Response method is reminiscent of first language acquisition. Like very young children learning their first language, students are asked to merely listen and learn before applying what they have learned in speaking the second language. The teacher gives out physical commands in the foreign language and responds by acting it out with the students. Eventually, the students who are assumed to have understood the commands in the foreign language, will be asked to speak in the second language themselves by giving out commands to their classmates. The Communicative Approach, trains students to use the target language as a medium of communication, instead of just a focus of study. From its name, students are encouraged to communicate with each other in a foreign language on a variety of topics. Games and other forms of learning are used to elicit interest. Errors are tolerated and seen as part of the learning process. It is believed that the age of an individual is an important variable in learning a second language. Younger children may receive information better, however, it is still in the quality of delivery of such information that determines its learning. Among the available strategies in teaching and learning a foreign language, those that focus on both content and language are the most effective. Students are more motivated to learn another language if they find the content interesting to them, and the teaching approach more exciting to engage their prolonged attention and retention of concepts. This means that as long as the strategy to teach the language is effective and engaging, it does not really matter what age the learner is. Content-Based Instruction There is a growing consensus that language can be more quickly and effectively learned if it is taught in context (Herrero, 2005), which is done by shifting the focus of instruction from the learning of language per se to the learning of language through the study of subject matter (Stryker & Leaver, 1997). Among the available strategies in teaching and learning a foreign language, it has been found that those that focus on both content and language as the most effective. Students are more motivated to learn another language if they find the content interesting to them, and the teaching approach more exciting to engage their prolonged attention and retention of concepts. This is consistent with the theory of Ausubel, emphasizing meaning in learning a second language. Stroller (2004) defines Content-based Instruction (CBI) as a range of approaches in second language learning that fosters the integration of language and content. The link between the two is very strong, as language becomes a medium to learn content while content is the resource for learning the language. That is why in some ESL classes, the use of one’s home language is necessary when trying to understand content in the foreign language learned. Herrero (2005) agrees that in learning a new language, shifting emphasis from the instruction of learning the language to learning its content is an effective and quick way to learn the language. The European Commission endorses Content-based instruction as a perfect way to progress in the learning of a foreign language. This is a credible endorsement coming from the multi-cultural and multi-lingual configuration of the European Commission. CBI is now a prominent feature of the educational systems in Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Argentina, Spain, and the North American region led by the US and Canada (Duenas, 2002), which all share the need for greater proficiency in English. The spread of such proficiency in European countries, for example, is much-needed because it would spare EC large amounts of money and effort that it expends on translation and interpretation to make member countries understand each other. For this reason, EC has helped develop the so-called Euroclic network, a forum for projects and proposals in language learning that integrates grammar and content (European Commission, n.d.) According to Curtain and Pesola (1994), ". . . in content-related instruction, the foreign language teacher uses concepts from the regular curriculum to enrich the program with academic content . . . The curriculum content is chosen to provide a vehicle for language learning and to reinforce the academic skills needed by the students" (p. 35). Several reasons may be argued in the incorporation of content in learning a second language. Firstly, content is rich in opportunities to develop knowledge that can be interesting and relevant in different subject areas. Secondly, students have the opportunity to apply new skills learned in terms of language functions as they practice the new language in understanding, discussing and reading and writing about the lessons. Still another reason is that students become more motivated when content is included in the lesson rather than merely learning the language. Finally, teachers are able to use various teaching and learning strategies in teaching the second language if content is incorporated in the lessons. CBI meets goals for both learning language and content and does not sacrifice linguistic skills for focusing on content knowledge (Stoller, 2004). CBI is designed to impart knowledge on both language and subject matter. According to Stryker & Leaver (1997), this is a holistic approach to foreign language education that is “at once a philosophical orientation, a methodical system, and a syllabus designed for a single purpose or a framework for an entire program of instruction.” Previous experience in foreign language classrooms shows that a CBI approach in teaching enhances students’ motivation, accelerate the acquisition of language proficiency, broaden their cross-cultural knowledge and make language learning a more enjoyable and fulfilling experience (Stryker & Leaver, 1997). Modern-day educators find parallels between second language learning and learning how to play a musical instrument (Met, 1991). One cannot learn to do this activity by mastering the musical notes and symbols but by actually playing the instrument and practicing constantly until he gets it right. In this analogy, the musical notes represent language and its structure, while the activity of actually playing the instrument stands for the content of language. Thus, the music teacher who limits his instruction to musical keys and scales will be like the ESL instructor who teaches her students by immersing themselves in the study of grammar and sentence structures without practical application of the learning. Neither instructional method would be beneficial for their students. Linguistic, strategic and cultural objectives of the content-based lesson need to be clearly set in the design of the lesson plan. Since students are expected to improve on their second language skills to enable them to understand the culture of the origin of such language, teachers suggest the following to ESL teachers (Crandall, 1999): 1. studying the target language very well 2. focusing on their students’ knowledge and discourse structures of the language with academic text. 3. knowing what works and developing the students’ learning strategies 4. using integrated units to focus on the whole language. 5. developing skills in the language with a variety of texts and activities related to the content being studied. 6. focusing on the development of tasks, themes and topics because both academic concepts and language skills should be simultaneously taken into account. According to Stoller (2004), courses taught through the CBI method present students with themes that are related to academic concepts so they can learn the language they need depending on “the weighing of different curricular elements.” The “content” in CBI often refers to authentic texts that are simply snatches of real-life events presented to an ESL class to illustrate the meaning of a study word or phrase and bring it down to earth (Nagata, 1995). For example, the class takes up the old English saying: “birds of the same feather flock together.” In the language-focused instruction, the students will be taught what birds and feathers are by showing relevant pictures. The dictionary meaning of the words “together” and “flocks” may also be given extensively, such that the adverb together will be explained as the act of forming into one and the intransitive verb flocks is to join a crowd. According to Mohan (1986), ESL instruction in this manner does not guarantee learning retention inasmuch as the knowledge gained from the process is not related to real-life objects familiar with the students. The prospect for learning improves when the instructor uses content-based ESL instruction by “giving life” to the study text (Crandall, 1987). A suggested CBI method in discussing the above phrase is by bringing to class at least two live birds of the same species and explaining the literal meaning of the saying, that is, birds of the same species often live and fly in a flock because of a natural instinct. The instructor can then proceed to dig deeper into the figurative substance of the adage. This way, the instruction sinks into the minds of students (Kern, 2002). The most persuasive argument for the advantages of CBI was offered by Herrero (2005), who studied the outcome of a content-and-language ESL course among Spanish-speaking students at the University of Costa Rica. After one semester of the course, an aptitude test conducted on the participants found that 5 of the 12 students graded before hand as poor or fair moved up to the good or very good category. The forum provided in the content-based ESL classes for students to discuss their problems and concerns with the content course enables students to make sense of their assignments together and demystifies academic learning, whereas non-linked ESL students had to cope individually with difficulties encountered in the content courses. In addition, because students in regular ESL classes did not take the same content courses or have the same schedules, they parted immediately after the ESL class, thus making socializing with each other very difficult if not completely impossible. They were not organized to participate in campus activities or field trips as the students in the content-linked program are. Support services were available, but often students were not aware of them. There were some students who had been enrolled in college for several semesters, but still did not know whom to approach when they encountered difficulties in studies or experienced personal problems (Song, 2005). There is no single formula for the integration of content in second language studies, but several models are being used worldwide. Duenas (2002) offers some options: sheltered and adjunct content courses, studies that are theme- and area-based as well as the so-called Language for Special Purposes, Collaborative Strategic Reading, Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction and Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum. It should be noted that sheltered content courses are described by the teaching of a specialist in the content to a group of second language learners or native speakers who have had no previous encounter with either the specialist or the content he or she teaches. The purpose of this approach is for more intensified content instruction (Duenas, 2002). Theme-based instruction, on the other hand, is so called because it focuses on topics chosen according to students’ needs and interests, while adjunct courses are specially designed language studies in which one instructor concentrates on content and another on language skills but using academic content as framework of a contextual learning process. As for Language for Special Purposes, it is an advanced regular academic course on specific disciplines such as history, economics or psychology that intends to advance language competence by developing receptive and productive skills. Herrero (2005) observes in all integrated models, the subject matter, authentic language and texts always include content and learning activities appropriate to the needs of specific groups of students. It is clear that in studying a second language, both language and content need to be able to accommodate all of the cognitive, social and linguistic demands of the educational system striving for relevance. Students become engaged when real-life events and situations are integrated with the learning of a new language. They also become more enthusiastic that is why learning is more efficient and productive. It is assumed that they will easily get bored if learning is limited to language instruction only as it greatly takes away their interest, enjoyment and sense of fulfillment. Its direct outcome is slower and less effective learning of the language, In other words, ESL students will acquire such a well-balanced knowledge if teaching and learning are organized around content or information rather than around forms, functions and situations or skills. There is an increasing body of empirical evidence showing that use of content-based instruction expands the students’ conceptual knowledge base while learning the target language through meaningful activities. The most productive teaching method is to provide students with multiple literacy building activities that includes traditional forms of print covering a variety of subjects, technological skills and electronic media, experiential learning and opportunities for reflection, which all support and enhance their learning in and out of the classroom. These are all non-static aspects of learning, which interact and overlap to make a dynamic context through which the students become more literate on many levels. Gaining proficiency in a second language or two is very fulfilling to the learner. By then, he could point out which particular strategies were effective in getting him to that successful point. However, if he does not get to consistently practice the language, then it becomes demoted to a mere feather in his cap. The skill should find expression in his practical life, to communicate with others, bridge gaps of understanding instead of wedging differences in others. The door of unlimited possibilities opens for him and he is off to more adventures with all the languages he knows as his reliable tools. The numerous issues on second language learning, especially English, only prove that it is creating much impact on the development of children from diverse cultures. More and more people consider its advantages and possible disadvantages. Such amount of attention is worth it because people think up of ways on how to maximize its benefits. Learning another language apart from one’s native language helps children be ready to be highly competent in an increasingly globalized world. However, although they become bilingual, it should not be forgotten that they also become bicultural, and learning of one language and the culture that goes with it does not mean forgetting their original one. Teachers should take into consideration that their non-English speaking students should learn English in both its context and language elements so the students gain a better understanding and appreciation of the English language. Schools and teachers can and should design programs to appropriately address and include diversity as an asset which may be used in the preparation of all students for citizenship in a diversified global world. This emphasizes the point that teachers need to be equipped with skills in accommodating and adjusting to the needs of children from various cultures. Global education is defined as “education that develops the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are the basis for decision-making and participation in a world characterized by cultural pluralism, interconnectedness and international economic competition (Merryfield, 1995, p. 1). Usually, when schools and teachers do not seriously consider foreign students their native culture, these children feel unaccepted and unworthy to belong to their classes, hence display inappropriate behavior. They become lost in terms of academic achievement and develop insecurities about their skin color, ethnic characteristics or language accents. Such embarrassment develops stress or anxiety during class. The students’ family may likewise seem withdrawn or non-participative in their children’s schooling and feel the same sense of not belonging to the new culture they have joined. In view of this, culturally-relevant teaching must be learned by teachers. Such teaching takes into consideration the cultural background of the students at all times. It also keeps in mind cultural aspects in all interactions with students on both personal and educational levels. (Edwards & Kuhlman, 2007). Students’ cultures, languages and experiences need to be acknowledged, valued and used as important sources of their education because they deserve the best that society can give them. This involves teachers learning about students’ backgrounds and personal experiences to use as tools to make connections with these students. Some strategies that teachers can employ are the inclusion of the various histories, contributions, perspectives and concerns relevant to the diverse backgrounds of students (The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, n.d.). Incorporating these in the curriculum makes learning meaningful to these students. Multicultural education using literature from various cultures engages such children in reading and writing and makes them eager to learn the social or cultural contributions made by various groups of people. Going back to the main topic of rote-learning’s effectiveness in learning a second language, this paper has provided enough arguments to say that it is not enough. If rote-learning is the only strategy employed by second language teachers, then it is just like using “parroting” techniques which are not exactly challenging for learners. More than being able to memorize foreign words, understanding the language well and being able to use it appropriately to benefit the learner in his own life context should be the goal of second language teaching and learning. References Ausubel, D. A. (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Brown, H. D. (1987) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 2nd Ed. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th Edition). Clevedon, England, Buffalo, N.Y.: Multilingual Matters. Carroll, J.B. (1962) The Critical Need in the Study of Language. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 13, No. 3, Annual Meeting, Chicago, (Oct., 1962), pp. 23-26. . Crandall, J. (ed) (1987) ESL through Content-Area Instruction, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: a framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review 56(1). Curtain, H. & Pesola, C.A.B. (1994) Languages and children: Making the match, Foreign language instruction for an early start grades K-8., White Plains, NY: Longman. Duenas, M. (2002) A Description of Prototype Models for Content-Based Language Instruction in Higher Education, Department of English Studies, University of Murcia. Edwards, S. & Kuhlman, W. (2007) Culturally Responsive Teaching: Do We Walk Our Talk?, Multicultural Education, Summer 2007 European Commission (2011) An Excellent Way of Making Progress in a Foreign Language, Retrieved on 05 May, 2012 from http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/language/home.html Herrero, A. H. (2005) Content-Based Instruction in an English Oral Communication Course at the University of Costa Rica, Actual Investigations in Education, Vol.5, No. 4 Kern, R.G. (2002) “Literacy as a New Organizing Principle for Foreign Language Education.” In Reading Between the Lines, New Heaven: Yale University Press Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Inc. Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2006) How Languages Are Learned. New York: Oxford University Press Lindfors, J.W. (1987) Children’s Language and Learning, 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall, Inc. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (n.d.) Corrective Feedback And Learner Uptake. SSLA, 20, 37–66. Merryfield, M. M. (1995) “Institutionalizing cross-cultural experiences and international expertise in teacher education: The development and potential of a global education PDS network”, Journal of Teacher Education, 46(1), 1-9 Met, M.J.L. (1991) Learning Language through Content, Learning Content Through Language. Foreign Language Annals 24 (4). Mohan, B. (1986) Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Nagata, H. (1995) Testing Oral Ability: 1LR am ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interviews. JALT Applied Materials 12 Otto, B. (2010) Language development in early childhood. (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Song, B. (2005) Content-Based ESL Instruction: Long-term Effects and Outcomes, The American University: Elsevier Ltd. Stoller, E. (2004) Promoting the acquisition of knowledge in a content course,In J. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Content-based instruction in higher education settings (pp. 109-123). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Stryker, S.N. & Leaver, B.L. (1997) Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000) Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4,3 pp. 251– 274 The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements. (n.d.). “Cultural and linguistic differences: What teachers should know”. Retrieved on 06 May, 2012 from Read More