Antecedents to the Cognitive Approach
The Reaction Against the Audio-Lingual Approach
Influences from Psychology
Influences from Linguistics
Processing Thought to Language
Resulting Theories of Language and Learning
Implications for Language Teaching Cognitive Psychology Transformational-Generative Linguistics Processing Thought to Language
Basic Tenets of the Cognitive Approach
Basic Characteristics of a Cognitive Class
Cognitive Teaching
Cognitive Textbooks Comprehension Exercises
Application Activities Proceding Through the Text Classroom Procedures
Introduction of New Material Exercises
Application Activities
Research on Cognitive Approaches to Second-Language Learning
In The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language the meaning of cognition is given as "the mental process or faculty by which knowledge is acquired." There are several basic characteristics of cognition. First, cognition is a process. Second, this process is mental. Third, this process is purposive. Fourth, by implication this process is internal. And fifth, by implication this process is ultimately under the control of the learner, even if one is coerced into learning by external pressures. Thus, the term cognitive processes refers to the individual's internal mental operations, whether they be nothing more than "day dreaming" or as involved as the manipulation of abstract symbolic concepts to solve some complex problem. Cognitive processes may involve conscious attention to some point the teacher is making, conscious reorganization of material to understand better the concepts being learned, or conscious attempts to recall previously learned information. They may be momentary, such as the instantaneous flash of revelation experienced by Einstein which led to the theory of relativity, or they may endure for long periods of time as in the case of the patient young suitor who spends hours, days, and even months making plans for capturing the affection of his chosen lady.
In cognitive theory the mind is viewed as an active agent in the thinkinglearning process. As such, it is a mentalistic, dynamic theory. Mouly (1973) states that the cognitive process is best represented by a dynamic system such as a whirlpool or a hurricane. Knowledge is acquired, not implanted by the teacher. In this sense there are no passive learners. By definition, conscious learning requires active mental participation on the part of the learner. Given this cognitive view of learning, the conception of language gains additional dimensions. First, the individual becomes an active participant in the language acquisition process. Afterwards, the mind continues to be engaged actively in the production of language, i.e., the mind can create needed language combinations for specific occasions.
A substantial segment of the second-language teaching profession subscribes to cognitive approaches to second-language teaching. In order to understand the cognitive position, the practicing teacher and the prospective teacher should be acquainted with second-language teaching prior to the development of audio-lingual techniques, audio-lingual theory and teaching, the reaction against audio-lingual theory and teaching, and the new directions that
132 Part One: Theory
have been taken by cognitive psychologists and transformational-generative linguists. These recent cognitive theories are more complex than their predecessors, and they accord the individual a central role in learning in general and in the acquisition and use of language in particular.
In both learning and language, the emphasis is on the internal, mental processes of the individuals and their contributions to what they learn and how they use what they have learned. The purpose of this present chapter is to outline the basic principles of cognition related to learning and language and to examine how these theories may be adapted to second-language teaching and learning.
The original enthusiasm with which second-language teachers in general embraced the audio-lingual approach subsided in the latter half of the sixties. As Hanzeli (1967, p. 42) described the situation in 1967 at the annual meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, ". . . Our craft has been stagnating for the last five or six years, and there are signs that the audio-lingual method, approved by the majority of American applied linguists, has been losing momentum." Bolinger's (1968, p. 30) description was even more graphic: "If an applied linguist of the mid-1950s had gone to sleep in his cave, say around 1956, and awakened yesterday, the sight that greeted him would have sent him hurrying back to his dreams. Virtually every tenet that he had proclaimed in his heyday would have been returned to him upside down. . . ." Since these two addresses, the reaction against the audio-lingual approach seems to have increased rather than diminished.
This rejection of principles previously accepted with little or no questioning has occurred in psychology, in linguistics, and in second-language teaching itself. The new movements in psychology and linguistics are discussed later in this chapter. The focus of attention in this section is limited to criticisms that practitioners have had of audio-lingual teaching. In general, the major complaints have been as follows:
1. Claims that "New Key," i.e., audio-lingual, procedures would produce bilingual graduates are not being realized.
2. Reliance upon only the ear in beginning language work may hinder some students who are more eye oriented.
3. Teachers find it impossible to eliminate English from the classroom; nor do they feel that such a practice is desirable.
4. Avoiding any discussion of grammar until the structure has been overlearned is time-consuming and frustrating to the students.
5. The continuous repetition required for overlearning is monotonous to the students and places considerable physical strain upon the teacher (Childers, 1964).
6. Students want to know what they are learning and why.
7. Eliminating the native language from the students' minds is impossible.
Unfortunately, the criticism of audio-lingual procedures has created considerable disagreement within the profession. For example, Gefen (1967, p. 192) represents many teachers who reject the heavy reliance on conditioning- type exercises:
. . . Many linguistically oriented drills are deadly dull and so intent on avoiding the distractions which a meaningful content to the pattern might offer that the learner sees little or no connection between these boring exercises and that promise of wider cultural horizons or of communicative facility which originally motivated his learning. ... In general, one might list the results of the "audio-lingual" or "fundamental skills" schools' over-indulgence in pattern practice as (1) the neglect of other language-learning techniques, (2) the loss of motivation and interest through overlearning, and (3) the disregard for meaningful contexts.
In such circumstances, the learner may utter the pattern perfectly, substitute in exactly the right slot and yet not understand a word. He will complete the course without a mistake and still not know the language— performance without competence, or not even performance. There will be no interference by the mother-tongue, but none by the thought processes either! Graduates of the "new school" will suffer from the same faults as the traditionalists: knowing the patterns (where the traditionalists know the paradigms) but not knowing the language.
Other writers, such as del Olmo (1968, pp. 19, 22), defend audio-lingual teaching, saying that such criticism ". . . fails to do justice to enlightened audio-lingual practitioners." In their opinion, ". . . The critical scrutiny audio-lingualism is being subjected to stems from new developments in psychology and linguistics rather than from mere awareness of wrong practices and poor results."
Behavioristic psychology views all learning as a process of acquiring new behaviors through conditioning and reinforcement. The basic factors in conditioning behavior are the stimuli and reinforcements that determine which reponses are learned. The mind is a tabula rasa upon which are stamped associations between stimuli and responses. Such a conception of learning is an external, mechanistic viewpoint. The process is external in that forces and/or factors outside the learner determine the stimuli and reinforce selected responses to a predetermined level of proficiency. It is mechanistic in that the process of choosing and reinforcing stimuli is a mechanical process. Mouly (1973, p. 38) quotes Hebb as saying, "Psychology's only hope of remaining scientific is to assume man is basically a mechanism." He adds that behavioristic, mechanistic theory is best represented by a "physical machine with parts, gears, and levers." And it is appropriate to add that the machine is controlled
134 Part One: Theory
by the operator, not by the machine itself. It was on the basis of this conception of learning that early audio-linguists claimed that intelligence was an unimportant factor in language learning.
Cognitive psychology, however, does not accept the behavioristic point or view. The term cognition implies mental activity, mental processes. Cognitive psychologists emphasize the role of the mind in acquiring new information. They say that learning is controlled basically by individuals and not by their surroundings. Cognitive theory stresses perception of experiences and organization of knowledge. The mind is not a passive plastic glob to be molded by environmental forces, but an active and determining agent in the acquisition and storage of knowledge. Such a viewpoint of learning is considered to be mentalistic.
The emphasis in psychology prior to behavioristic theories was mentalistic. Gestalt psychological theories, which are considered to be mentalistic, were recognized even during the years dominated by behaviorism. The newer cognitive theories are also mentalistic interpretations of learning. However, present cognitive theory should not be confused with earlier formulations based on "mental faculties" interpretations of learning, on scientific introspection, or on insightful behavior of animals. Cognitive psychology is a relatively new development.
One of the leading cognitive psychologists is Ausubel. The discussion here is based on ideas set forth in his book, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (1968). In the introduction to this book he says, "Some kinds of learning, such as rote learning and motor learning, are considered so inconsequential a part of school learning as to warrant no systematic treatment in a textbook on educational psychology. . . . And still other kinds of learning, for example, animal learning, conditioning, instrumental learning, and simple discrimination learning, are considered irrelevant for most learning tasks in school, despite the fact that wildly extrapolated findings in these areas quite commonly pad the learning chapters of many educational psychology textbooks." Later in his preliminary remarks he decries ". . . the prevailing tendency, over the past three or more decades, for educational psychologists to extrapolate findings from animal, rote, and perceptual-motor learning experiments. . . ." (pp. viii, ix).
In h is discussion Ausubel states that there are two types of learning: rote learning and meaningful learning. Based on student activity during the learning process, he also makes a distinction between reception learning and discovery learning. He points out that either reception learning or discovery learning may be meaningful, or either may be rote. It is not true that discovery learning is always meaningful and reception learning is always rote. The crucial factor in determining whether learning is rote or meaningful is the manner in which the material is learned. Rote learning is a process in which the material is
learned arbitrarily and verbatim. Material learned in a meaningful way is acquired in a nonarbitrary and a nonverbatim fashion.
The key concept in Ausubel's cognitive theories of learning is that learning must be meaningful. The learner must understand what is to be learned. In fact, Ausubel (1968, p. 61) makes the statement that, 'The acquisition of large bodies of knowledge is simply impossible in the absence of meaningful learning." The primary responsibility of the teacher, then, is to assist his students in learning meaningfully. As Ausubel (1968, p. 89) maintains, "A central task of pedagogy, therefore, is to develop ways of facilitating an active variety of reception learning characterized by an independent and critical approach to the understanding of subject matter." The implication of the preceding quotes is that learning must involve active mental processes in order to be meaningful and that only through meaningful learning can students acquire significant amounts of knowledge.
In School Learning: An Introduction to Educational Psychology, Ausubel and Robinson (1969, p. 51) explain the concept of meaningful learning as depending on three factors. First, they maintain that the most important factor influencing learning is the "quantity, clarity, and organization of the learner's present knowledge . . . which consists of facts, concepts, propositions, theories, and raw perceptual data." This collection of knowledge constitutes the learner's cognitive structure. The second important factor in influencing learning is the extent to which new information being received or considered is relatable to the learner's existing cognitive structure. Third, the learners must approach the learning task with the intention of relating it in a meaningful way to what they already know. In short, meaningful learning takes place when the learners comprehend the material; can relate it to their present knowledge system in a nonarbitrary, nonverbatim manner; and consciously intend to integrate the material being learned into their own cognitive structure.
To summarize the discussion to this point, cognitive psychologists maintain that the mind processes information to be learned. In order for this processing to be maximally efficient, the material must be meaningful. The mind is not a computer. It does not simply absorb information in bits and pieces that it never forgets. The indications are that it organizes the material into meaningful chunks, which it relates to information already contained in the individual's cognitive structure. This material is then stored for future use. The fact that meaningful relationships enhance learning does not imply that rote learning is impossible, but that it is less efficient and less productive.(The schema on page 136 represent graphically what happens when the individual meets a learning situation.
Meaningful learning then, involves the integration of newly learned material into the learner's cognitive network. As the figures indicate, material that has been organized into meaningful units is more easily learned. Such
Figure 6.1: Schema showing the knowledge bits that can be associated with an existing concept are accepted and "subsumed" to enlarge and strengthen this concept (meaningful learning). Nonsubsumable knowledge bits are not accepted by the learner or are learned independently (rote learning).
Learner
Input
Knowledge
"Bits"
Source: (Novak, 1970, p. 778). Used by permission.
material also is more easily retained for longer periods of time. Too, it is much more valuable to the learner since the possibilities for application to new learning tasks and to acquiring new knowledge are much greater.
Figure 6.2: Schema showing that appropriate knowledge sequences can serve as "organizers" to facilitate subsequent meaningful learning.
Learner
Input
Knowledge
"Bits"
In 1957 Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, and in 1959 he reviewed Skinner's Verbal Behavior. These two publications have had a tremendous impact upon the conceptions regarding what language is and how language is learned. In both his works, Chomsky argues forcefully and logically that language is more complex than it had originally been considered. He, in effect, rejects prior behavioristic theories concerning both language and language learning as being too elementary and simplistic and adopts a mentalistic, rationalist view of learning and language closely related to the basic premises of cognitive psychologists.
Chomsky's ideas gave rise to a new school of linguistics. Those holding to this "new" branch of linguistics are usually referred to as transformational, generative, or transformational-generative (T-G) linguists. The name derives from the transformational-generative conception of language upon which their theories are based. Although many linguists do not accept the explanations given by T-G linguists, their theories have risen to a position of prominence since they were first proposed. In fact, after a review of the' literature, Di Pietro (1968, p. 19) concluded, "The transformational-generative theory of linguistics continued its rapid development in 1968, with published works by its developers far outnumbering those of its adversaries."
Currently the transformationalists are primarily concerned with developing additional theoretical insights. The field is new and promising. As Di Pietro (1968, p. 19) states: ". . . The transformational-generative theory is far more productive than any alternative yet suggested." And Saporta (1966, p. 88) feels that ". . . there seems to be little question that the recent investigations by Noam Chomsky and others on the nature of language and grammar provide the most coherent view thus far proposed. . . ."
Green (1972) summarizes the innovations in the field of linguistics since 1965, saying that most of the new developments have grown out of Chomsky's conception of the goals that linguistic theory should seek to achieve. Although there is little disagreement with regard to aims, some controversies have arisen with regard to ways and means of achieving these objectives. The first is a proposal by Fillmore in 1968 that the study of case is a more productive approach to comprehending the basic relationships in deep structure than the more typical subject-verb organization. 1 Case categories, such as agentive, instrumental, and dative can be used to explain the difference between sentences such as John broke the window , and A hammer broke the window. In both sentences the subject is clear, but based on that analysis the
138 Part One: Theory
relationships within the sentences are not clear. Fillmore handles this problem by saying that John is agentive and that hammer is instrumental. Case grammar is not a major departure from the theories proposed by Chomsky. However, the second innovation, generative semantics, does differ somewhat from Chomsky's formulation. Chomsky holds that meaning resides in syntactical relationships and is expressed in semantic and phonological components. Those linguists adopting the generative-semantic viewpoint maintain that meaning resides in the semantic elements of language and is expressed in syntactical and phonological components.
Under the influence of Chomksy and his followers, the science of linguistics has taken on a new dimension. The objective in descriptive linguistics is to describe the language. The purpose of transformational- generative linguistics is more than a description; it is an understanding of the total language process. Ohmann (1969, p. 31) explains T-C objectives as follows:
But in addition to describing the facts of language, a generative grammar tries to explain them; in this it differs from grammars of other kinds. To explain the facts of language is to link a description of them to what we know about human mental capacities. So a generative grammar is actually a theory of a particular language—more precisely, a theory of the knowledge that any fluent speaker has of that language. Herein is another sharp difference between generative and other grammars; what a generative grammar describes and explains is not merely the linguistic "output" of speakers but their understanding of language. In brief, a grammar of this sort attempts to describe part of human mentality. In the view of generative grammarians, grammar is a part of human psychology.
T-C linguists, then, hope to delve into the very basic elements of the human mind and thought processes through the study of language. They feel that language and mental processes are inextricably related and therefore must be studied together. In fact, in a more recent book, Language and Mind, 1968, Chomsky views the study of language as being a part of the larger context of cognitive psychology.
One of the basic characteristics of T-G linguists has been the emphasis that they have placed on syntax. As they have sought to understand language more completely, they have focused their attention not on streams of sounds but on the syntactical arrangement of words. The problem has been to determine how the component parts of language are put together. They have been interested, for example, in what determines the order in which words are placed in context to express meaning.
As early as 1957, Chomsky rejected the view that sentences are composed of strings of words formed in an ordered sequence from beginning to end.
Instead of explaining sentence structure on the basis of mathematical processes, he turned to rules, to the grammar of the language. In doing so, he initiated a return to the importance of rules in the study of languages.
In T-G theory, a grammar must be able to "generate" all sentences, but only those sentences that are acceptable to a native speaker. 2 At the same time, a grammar must be finite. Otherwise, no human would be able to acquire the system necessary for understanding and speaking a language.
From this view of grammar and study subsequent to its delineation by Chomsky, the following important concepts have emerged:
1. The use of language is controlled by rules. In other words, the speakers' knowledge of a language is based on a finite set of rules, which they activate in order to understand and to produce an infinite variety of language.
2. Language is infinitely varied. Native speakers are continually creating new utterances which they have never heard previously. To illustrate the complexity of language, Ohmann (1969, pp. 31-32) gives as an example the results of asking twenty-five native speakers to describe a drawing of a tourist waiting outside a telephone booth for a bear, who is inside, to finish using the phone. All the descriptions were different, yet contained basically the same information. A computer analysis of the varied descriptions revealed that they contained sufficient linguistic data for . . 19.8 billion sentences, all describing just one situation." He adds, "When one reflects that the number of seconds in a century is only 3.2 billion, it is clear that no speaker has heard, read, or spoken more than a tiny fraction of the sentences he could speak or understand, and that no one learns English by learning any particular sentences of English.
3. The view of language as being infinitely varied leads to another basic concept of the transformationalists. Since native speakers cannot possibly say everything they could say, a distinction must be made between that which they say and that which they know how to say. They refer to the ability as competence and to the expression of that ability as performance. In their opinion, competence is achieved prior to performance. It is a
prerequisite to and a basis for the performance, i.e., the productive expression of the native speaker. Chomsky's contention is that the linguist and psychologist must first understand the native speaker's competence before they can begin to undertake the problem of explaining performance. In studying competence, the generative linguist asks native speakers to distinguish between those sentences that are grammatical and those that are ungrammatical. For example, the following sentence, Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, is immediately recognized by a speaker of English as being grammatical, although little meaning can be attached to it. Scrambling the words to read, Furiously sleep ideas green colorless, renders the sentence ungrammatical as well as nonmeaningful. However, the same order of grammatical forms in the sentence, Friendly young dogs seem harmless, is grammatical and meaningful (Lenneberg, 1967, pp. 273-74).
4. The analysis of sentences and their grammaticalness leads to the formation of another basic concept, that of surface structure and deep structure. Surface structure is what we hear and read; yet meaning is connected with the deep structure of a sentence. Although on the surface the structure of the two sentences John is easy to please, and John is eager to please, is identical, anyone who speaks English immediately knows that the meaning is different. In the first, the meaning is that it is easy to please John. In the second, John is eager to please someone else. Ohmann has described three abilities that a native speaker possesses. First, he is able to derive different meanings from sentences that are exactly the same. For example, the native speaker knows / had three books stolen, may mean either / had three books stolen from me, I had three books stolen for me, or / had three books stolen when someone interrupted my burgalarizing. Second, he is able to detect differences in sentences that seem to be the same. For example, a speaker of English is aware of the difference between The cow was found by the stream, and The cow was found by the farmer. Third, he is able to see similarities in sentences that do not look the same. For example, he understands that The cow was found by the farmer, and The farmer found the cow express the same idea (Ohmann, 1969, p. 32).
5. The problem of explaining the existence of deep and surface structure is solved by utilizing two types of grammar rules. The first, generative rules, are applied to explain the formation of base sentences such as The students write the exercises. This, of course, is a typical sentence consisting of a subject, a verb, and a direct object. Rules of transformation are then applied to account for the transformation of these sentences into additional, more complex, but related sentences. An example often given is that of the passive voice. The conversion of the base sentence to The exercises are
written by the students, is explained on the basis of rules of transformation. The same types of rules are employed to explain the fact that native speakers have the ability to recognize deep structure meanings even though they hear or see only the surface structure.
6. T-C linguists disagree as to whether meaning resides in semantics or in syntactical structure. However, they do tend to agree that the meaning, i.e., the deep structure, does originate with one or the other and that the total communication is then developed through the other two components of language, either semantics or syntax plus phonology.
7. The fact that children learning their mother tongue hear only surface speech, yet learn deep structure poses another problem. How do they learn something to which they have not been exposed? The answer given by transformationalists is that all humans are born with an innate capacity to learn languages. This ability is universal.
8. Another universal, according to transformational theory, is grammar itself. The hypothesis is made that there are certain basic elements of grammar that are common to all languages. In other words, although the model is not that provided by Latin grammar, the concept of a universal grammar is now accepted by the transformationalists.
Although little is known for sure about the process of going from thought to language, cognitive psychologists and transformational-generative linguists accept the existence of this process. If they are right and if the goal in second-language learning is to attain a level of proficiency at which learners can convert their thoughts into the second language, more information regarding this process needs to be acquired and more activities in which second-language learners participate in this process need to be provided.
In an insightful essay dealing with this topic, Vigotsky (1961) describes thought as a subword process carried out at the sense level. External speech does not coincide with inner speech. When one talks to a good friend, a great deal of abbreviation is possible due to the close bonds that exist between the two people. Speaking to someone who is not so close requires more words to convey exact meaning. Oral communication with someone who has a distinctly different background would require even more words. Writing does not have the advantages of intonation patterns, facial expressions, and hand signals, and, therefore, requires an even more precise and complete use of words. The point is that the farther one goes from thought the more complete use of word descriptions of thought is necessary.
Thoughts, then, are a series of sense impressions, and the conversion of thoughts to language is a process of going from thoughts consisting of sense images through inner speech to external speech consisting of words more or less concise depending upon the person to whom one is talking. The next question is, "What is the stimulus for thoughts?" Vigotsky's answer is that they arise out of our desire and needs. Vigotsky (1961, p. 533) summarizes his discussion as follows:
Thought and words do not coincide. Thought, unlike speech, does not consist of separate words. If I want to communicate the thought that today I saw a barefooted boy in a blue shirt running down the street, I do not see everything concerning that separately: the boy, the shirt, its blue color, his running, the absence of shoes. I see all this in oneact of thinking, but in transferring it into speech I put it in separate words. A speaker very often unfolds one and the same thought in the course of several minutes. In his mind the thought is there simultaneously, but in speech it has to be developed successively. A thought can be compared to a cloud which sheds a shower of words. Thought fails to coincide not only with words but also with the meanings of words in which it is expressed, yet the way from thought to words leads through meaning. In our speech there is always hidden thought, an "under-text."
We now have to take the final step in the analysis of the inner planes of thinking-in-words. Thought is not the last instance in this whole process. Thought itself is not born out of another thought—but out of the sphere of motivation which comprises our desires and needs, our interests and emotions. Behind thought stands the affective and volitional tendency. It alone can give an answer to the last "why" in the analysis of thinking. If thought may be compared to a cloud shedding a rain of words—the motivation of thought might be compared to wind which sets the clouds in motion. A true and full understanding of another person's thought becomes possible only when we understand its real affective- volitional basis.
Thinking-in-words appeared as a complex dynamic whole in which the relation between words and thought revealed itself as a development and transition from one plane to another. ... In the actual thinking-inwords the development takes place in the opposite direction—from the motive which brings forth a thought, to the formation of this thought, to its materialization in inner speech—then in the meanings of external words, and finally—in words.
New theories of learning have shifted away from the conditioning models of the behaviorists. Cognitive psychologists do not accept the results of experiments with animal behavior as valid models for human learning. Instead, they
have turned to neurophysiological and information-processing models as a basis for trying to understand the learning process. They are attempting to go beyond earlier solutions to problems regarding learning. In the words of Harper et al. (1964, p. v), ". . . Another stage of development is essential, consisting of a more systematic and vigorous attack on the thought processes." The behavioristic definition of learning stressed behavior; the cognitive definition stresses the role of the mind in processing the information acquired. A cognitive definition of learning is similar to the following: Learning is the perception, acquisition, organization, and storage of knowledge in such a way that it becomes an active part of the individual's cognitive structure. In this view of learning, the central component in the learning process is the learner, not the agent in the environment controlling the stimuli and the reinforcers.
This same trend away from behavioristic definitions of learning is equally apparent with regard to language. Recent theoretical models reflect a conception of language that is much more complex than that accepted by behavioristic psychology and structural linguistics. In Language Teaching: Broader Contexts (1966, p. 44), Chomsky, one of the prime movers in more recent linguistic studies, says, . . It seems to me impossible to accept the view that linguistic behavior is a matter of habit, that it is slowly acquired by reinforcement, association, and generalization. . . Just as cognitive definitions of learning stress mental processes so, too, do cognitive definitions of language. The definition of language as conditioned verbal responses to previously met stimuli does not seem adequate to explain the infinitely vast repertoire of a native speaker. Language is now considered to be creative, rule-governed behavior. As is true in the cognitive definition of learning, this definition of language assigns the central role to the learner.
Neither cognitive psychologists nor transformational-generative linguists are interested in second-language pedagogy as such. Their chief concern lies in the realm of learning and language in general. In fact, the generative linguists maintain that at the present state of knowledge they have nothing to say to the second-language teacher. Ausubel does discuss language teaching from an overall point of view, but he offers no outline of classroom techniques nor practical classroom applications of his theories. Perhaps th :<r situation is a healthy one. After all, theory and practice should complement each other, and the teachers are the ones who should concern themselves with the application
of theory to the classroom instead of expecting to be told by the linguists and the psychologists how they should teach.
Cognitive interpretations of learning assign a central and dominant role to the mental processes that are subject to the individual's control. The individual's knowledge does not consist of conditioned behavior but of assimilated information within her cognitive resources that makes her behavior possible and controls it. Rote learning and motor learning are considered to be relatively unimportant in the explanation of basic and higher mental activity. The extrapolation of learning outcomes from animal to human subjects is rejected.
The role of the teacher is to recognize the importance of the students' mental assets and mental activity in learning. In the final analysis, learning resides within the learner. The teacher's task is to organize the material being presented in such a manner that what is to be learned will be meaningful to the learner. To do this, he is obligated to consider the students' existing cognitive structure. What do they already know? What information do they bring with them to the learning situation? His next obligation is to try to couch the material in such a fashion and in such a context that the learners can relate the content to their existing fund of knowledge. The new information, if learning is to be meaningful, must be relatable by the students to their past knowledge and experience. By his teaching and testing procedures, the teacher should demonstrate to the students that he does not expect rote learning in order to return a verbatim regurgitation of the material. In addition, he should encourage an active, questioning attitude on the part of the students, which helps them to understand and relate what is being learned to what they already know. Periodic application sessions in which the students are expected to demonstrate an ability to recall what they have learned and to "use" it are basic to insuring that the information is functional and can be utilized to further additional learning or to solve problems.
Although T-G linguists disclaim any insights into second-language teaching itself, language teachers would do well to consider some of their ideas, such as the following:
1. Teaching all the sentences and expressions that students may need to know is impossible. Language is too complex and too varied to anticipate all the varied situations that may be encountered at some time in the future.
2. Since the whole of language cannot be taught, the teacher should concentrate on teaching the students the system that makes language production possible. Language competence precedes language performance. Before asking the students to perform, the teacher should establish the basic foundation or foundations that make performance possible.
3. Using language implies combining the building blocks of language in novel ways as new situations arise. Therefore, the teacher should provide opportunities for the students to create language as they seek to function in language-demanding situations. In order for the resultant expressions of language to be creative, the opportunities must be linguistically unique as far as the students are concerned. For example, preparing a dialog may provide practice in the creative recombination of language.
4. Teachers should keep in mind that language consists of both competence and performance as they direct the learning sequences in their classes. They should not forget to provide for the establishment of a system and subsequent opportunities to invoke that system.
5. The teacher needs to be attentive to this distinction between generative and transformational rules as she plans her teaching activities. As soon as the students can form basic sentences involving the material being learned, she should initiate additional exercises in which they practice the many variations and transformations possible. They must learn that with only a small amount of linguistic data they can create hundreds of sentences. Such insight is not automatic, and the teacher bears a great deal of the responsibility for seeing that it does take place.
6. The grammar of a language does contain elements that are universal. At present, linguists are concentrating their efforts on determining just what these universal are. If they succeed in their task, their conclusions will be most helpful to textbook writers and to teachers. (Hopefully, they will be able to ascertain additional similarities of forms and structures that perceptive teachers have not already determined on the basis of their own experience!) Until that time arrives, teachers should remember that there are common structures in the first and second languages, and they should focus upon these similarities as a means of utilizing the grammatical knowledge that the students have of their own language in order to facilitate their learning of the second language.
7. The stress placed on phonology, semantics, and syntax may well vary depending upon whether one accepts Chomsky's theories or the tenets of generative semantics. Those holding to Chomsky's conception of language will stress syntax with semantics and phonology playing secondary roles, while those favoring the generative-semantic viewpoint will place primary emphasis on semantics as the basic building block of language learning.
Although highly speculative, Vigotsky's (1961) postulated model of thinking and speaking, which he readily admits may be only one of several procedures the individual has of going from thought to a linguistic manifestation of that thought, is acceptably logical and corresponds quite closely to the introspective experience of most, if not all, language speakers. His interpretation of the thought to language process implies the following:
1. Productive language skills , i.e., speaking and writing, develop from thoughts through inner speech to the external expression of these thoughts in words. The receptive language skills , i.e., listening and reading, are the reverse of the productive.
2. Second-language learners must be given opportunities to participate in this type of process if they are to be expected to develop "real" language skills.
3. Language originates out of some need or desire. The second-language teacher, then, must be concerned not only with the learners' ability to communicate; she must also be concerned with their willingness and desire to communicate. The establishment of some reason to communicate and of an atmosphere in which communication is encouraged, expected, and rewarded is also necessary. Second-language teachers should attempt to avoid conducting classes in which the students with the greatest skills at the communicative competence level do not receive the best grades. They should attempt to avoid conducting a class in which the determining factor in course grades is rote memory, whether it be of dialogs and pattern drills or of verb paradigms and grammar rules. Such a class will certainly not encourage students to concentrate on linguistic expression of thoughts.
BASIC TENETS OF THE COGNITIVE APPROACH
Cognitive theory supports the thesis that learning in general and language learning in particular are internal, mental operations controlled by the individual. The second-language learner is seen as consciously acquiring competence in a meaningful manner as a necessary prerequisite in the acquisition of the performance skills. The teacher assists learning but does not assume full responsibility for it. Following are some basic tenets of the cognitive approach to second-language learning and teaching:
1. The goal is to develop in the students the same types of abilities possessed by native speakers. The goal is the same as that proposed by audio-lingual
theorists, but the conception of what language is differs. The objective according to cognitive proponents is to develop the students' ability to the point at which they have a minimum control over the rules that allow native speakers to create the language necessary to communicate. That is, they should reach the point at which they can formulate their own replies to previously unmet language situations.
2. In developing the students' language ability, the teacher proceeds from competence to performance. First, he must establish in the students' cognitive structure the necessary prerequisites that enable the students to perform. That is, they must know the rules of the language before being asked to apply those rules. The foundation comes first. This base is made up of the grammar of the language.
3. As soon as the students comprehend the underlying structure, they must be required to perform. Since language is basically a creative activity, they need to activate their competence in order to create the specific utterances required. Textual materials and the teacher introduce situations that promote the creative use of language. 1 * 3 The primary concern is that the students have active practice in going from thought to performance by means of competence.
4. The infinitely varied and innovative nature of language necessitates teaching of the language rule system, not language per se. Attention to and acquisition of the basic aspects of the language system cannot be omitted. Otherwise, what does the second-language learner have to guide him as he creates the language needed to express his thoughts? However, this language system must be learned not as an endless series of abstract rules and exceptions to these rules but as a functional system which can be applied to communicative contexts.
5. Learning should be meaningful. The students should understand at all times what they are being asked to do. They should understand what they are saying, writing, reading, and hearing. New material should be organized to relate to knowledge that the students already have about their own language, the second language learned to that point in the course, and their concepts about the world about them. Since not all students rely on the same senses to learn, the teacher should appeal to both the eye and the ear through written and oral exercises in order to teach the language.
Classroom procedures based on cognitive theories of learning emphasize understanding rather than habit formation. The task of the teacher in a cognitive classroom is to facilitate student acquisition, organization, and storage of knowledge rather than to develop automatic, nonthoughtful responses through reinforcement procedures. The goal of the teacher in such a classroom is to expand the students' ability to create meaningful replies to any given circumstance rather than to emit a conditioned response. 4 The teacher recognizes a hierarchy of tasks in developing language skills. In preparing to lead the students from initial presentation of new material through to the use of that material in communicative contexts, she selects appropriate activities and arranges them in a sequential order of increasing difficulty, each nearer the goal of "real" language usage than the preceding one.
The students should always be aware of what they are learning. All learning is to be meaningful. In order to foster student comprehension, the teacher presents all new structures and concepts in such a way as to maximize student understanding of functional patterns and relationships in the language. In these introductions she does the following:
1. Builds on what the students already know.
2. Helps the students relate new material to themselves, their life experiences, and their previous knowledge.
3. Avoids rote learning (except perhaps in the case of vocabulary).
4. Uses graphic and schematic procedures to clarify relationships.
5. Utilizes both written and spoken language in order to appeal to as many senses as possible.
6. Attempts to select the most appropriate teaching-learning situation for the students involved.
7. Employs the first-language, visuals, or demonstrations as a base from which to build conceptualization of meaning and form in the second language.
8. Uses inductive, deductive, or discovery-learning procedures as the situation warrants.
9. Distinguishes between the various backgrounds and potentials of each student.
10. Stresses the functional use of grammatical patterns, not abstract rules per se.
11. Attends to student attitudes as well as to comprehension of content.
4 The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Professor Gilbert Jarvis, of the Department of Modern Language Education at Ohio State University, in preparing the following lists.
12. Gives students a chance to queston and practice.
As the students progress in acquiring the necessary competence, they should:
1. Realize that using a language involves combining component elements.
2. Know the building blocks of any sentence or phrase being studied as well as the total meaning.
3. Be conscious of which structure is being studied and comprehend its relationship to the other parts of the utterance.
4. Practice with exercises that force them at first to make conscious selections of appropriate forms and to choose between and/or among related structures.
5. Attempt to relate the various components of language to each other.
As the students progress in acquiring the necessary performance skills, they should:
1. Be given opportunities to go from language to thought either by listening or reading and from thought to language either by speaking or writing.
2. Be given both assistance and encouragement as they participate in these processes.
This outline of classroom procedures and guidelines designed to implement cognitive interpretations of learning and language can only point out indicated directions. The psychologist and the linguist can do little more than give general guidelines to second-language teachers. It is the teacher herself, not the psychologist or the linguist, who is responsible for the adaptation of theory to practice. Theory without practice is incomplete, but so, too, is practice without the support of theory.
Cognitive teaching is a direct application in the classroom of the classroom procedures previously outlined in this chapter. In cognitive teaching, the major emphasis is placed on meaningful learning, meaningful practice, and expression of meaning. In the following sections, attention is focused on textbooks containing cognitive exercises and activities, on organizing the material in a cognitive text, and on procedures used to teach cognitive materials.
The materials in a cognitive textbook are sequenced in such a manner that the learner progresses from comprehension to a state of competence and then to a level of functional performance skills. In addition, the materials are so
vowels
consonants
arranged that the learner is first exposed to the parts to be learned and then to the total communicative picture. Throughout the text, the emphasis is on meaningful learning and meaningful practice and application activities. If all four skills are to be stressed in the course (and all four are considered to be complementary in the learning process), each is coordinated in the course sequence and activities to reinforce acquisition of competence and performance in each of the other skills.
Comprehension The most important task of the writer of a cognitive text is to present the material, whether it be some phonological, semantic, or syntactical aspect of the language system or culture, in such a way that the second- language learner can comprehend the concepts involved. The author may attempt to address his material to (1) a given level of knowledge, or he may attempt to (2) teach all the information needed to understand the concept being presented. The most common approach, which is often difficult for the learner to comprehend given the diversity obviously present in any class larger than one, is the former. The burden for the selection and preparation of meaningful presentations is the responsibility of the teacher. An excellent example of the latter approach is Spanish for Communication by Bull et al. (1972). Using a frame format, the authors present all the information the students need to know in a self-teaching approach to the comprehension of the language system. They begin by establishing comprehension of the English system and then relate it to the Spanish. For example, the forms of the singular indefinite articles are presented as follows:
Forms of the articles and plurals
1 The sounds represented by the letters a, e, i, o, and u are called (a) consonants (b) vowels.
2 All the other letters, such as p, c, b, g, m, etc., stand for sounds which are called~~~v~.
3 All English words must begin either with a vowel or a consonant sound. This tells us when we must use a or an , the two forms of the indefinite article. Look at these two columns of words and notice the sound with
a pen | an apple |
a book | an eagle |
a cow | an iceberg |
a girl | an ocean |
a man | an umbrella |
The indefinite article form a goes with words which begin with a sound; an goes with words which begin with a_sound.
a goes with consonant sounds; an with vowel sounds. (When a consonant letter is not spoken, you use an: an hour.)
4 Do a and an, in a pen and an apple, have different meanings?
no (Two forms having the same function may have the same meaning.)
5 Spanish, like English, has two forms of the indefinite article. You have already learned them. They are un and una. But Spanish is just the opposite of English. The last sound of a word (with very few exceptions) tells the Spanish speaker when to use un or una. Look at these two columns of words and notice the last sound of each noun.
un libro una mesa
un rodeo una silla
un santo una casa
The indefinite article form un goes with nouns which end in the vowel
-- ; una goes with nouns ending in the vowel-
un with o; una with a (The few exceptions have to be memorized.) 5
Mueller and Niedzielski in Pratique de la Grammaire: Basic French, Second Edition (1974) also base their arrangement of materials on the establishment of initial comprehension of structure prior to practice. First, they acquaint the student with the related English concepts and patterns. This introduction is followed by a complete explanation with examples of the French concepts and patterns. The students then complete a self-checking test of their comprehension before proceeding to pattern drills or application exercises, depending upon how much practice they need to acquire a functional mastery of the structure.
Exercises Cognitive exercises differ from audio-lingual drills. The purpose of a drill is to condition automatic responses into the learner's repertoire of verbal S-R connections. The purpose of a cognitive exercise is the comprehension of forms, the conscious learning of forms, and the conscious selection of forms to fit the context. The following are selected examples of cognitive type exercises:
STRUCTURE SIGNALS
The learner demonstrates comprehension without actually manipulating language forms.
Listen to the following sentences. After each sentence write M if the adjective you hear is masculine or F if the adjective you hear is feminine:
s Bull et al. (1972, p. 20). Reprinted by permission.
1. je suis grand.
2. Je suis fran^aise.
3. Vous £tes americain?
4. Tu es petit.
5. Je suis americain.
9. Vous etes grand. 10. Je suis fran^aise. 6
6. Je suis petite.
7. Tu es fran^ais.
8. Tu es grande.
PRODUCTION OF FORMS
At the next step the learner either chooses or gives the form required in the sentence.
a. Complete the following sentences with the appropriate reflexive pronoun to agree with the subject and the verb: myself, yourself, himself, herself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves
1. He hurt_4. John, did you hurt _?
2. They see ___5. We treat ----„-
3. I cut-6. She dressed----
b. Complete the following sentences with the correct form of the verb given in parentheses.
1. (to hurt oneself) Did she _?
2. (to free oneself) Can they_?
3. (to see oneself) No, we did not_
4. (to dress oneself) Yes, you can_
5. (to treat oneself) Yes, I often_
6. (to fool oneself) No, he never_
ESTABLISHING A CONTEXT OR SITUATION
The student's response will reveal whether or not he comprehends the concept and whether or not he can choose the correct form or forms to demonstrate the proper language usage. The first exercise checks the distinction between the formal and the familiar forms of address in Spanish.
Ask the indicated questions in Spanish.
1. You are talking with your teacher, and you want to know where he is
from. You ask. i _?
2. You are talking with your friend, and you want to know where she is
from. You ask. t _?
3. You are talking with your friend Maria, and you want to know if she is
from Madrid. You ask. t _?
4. You are talking with Mr. Sanchez, and you want to know whether he
is Mexican. You ask. t _ ?
Cognitive Theory and Teaching
Answer the following questions by using the information in parentheses together with the appropriate preposition from the list below. NOTE: There is only one sensible answer to each question.
ausser gegenuber seit
bei mit zu
1. Wohin mochten Sie denn, Fraulein? (das neue Kunstmuseum)
2. Geht Frau Kohler allein einkaufen? (nein; ihre kleine Tochter)
3. Wo wohnt der Amerikaner? (die nette Frau Moller)
4. Wo ist Georgs BLiro? (das neue Theater)
5. Seid ihr schon lange hier? (ja; der erste Januar)
6. Wer weiss die Antwort? (Max; keiner) 7
" REALISTIC " PRACTICE
A step closer to "real" language skills is the type of exercise Stevick (1971) refers to as "realistic" practice. This is a simple communicative exchange used to practice grammatical structure.
Question-answer patterns of verbs:
1. Are you a student?
2. Am I a student?
3. Are we students?
4. Is he a student?
Yes, I am a student.
No, you are not a student. Yes, you are students.
Yes, he is a student.
Practice of idiomatic expressions:
1. Wan a comer?
2. Was a abrirlo?
3. Wan ustedes a comer?
4. Wa a salir?
No, acaban de comer. No, acabo de abrirlo.
No, acabamos de comer. No, acaba de salir.
Table captionA grammar point, there, practiced in a conversational exchange:
Je vais au magasin. | J'y vais avec vous. |
I'm going to the store. | I'm going with you. |
Vous n'y etes pas alle hier? | Non, je n'y suis pas alle. |
Didn't you go there yesterday? | No, 1 didn't (go there). |
je vais a I'ecole.
Vous n'y etes pas alle hier?
Je rentre a la maison.
Vous n'y etes pas rentre hier?
J'y vais avec vous.
Non je n'y suis pas alle.
J'y rentre avec vous.
Non, je n'y suis pas rentre.
7 Excerpt from an exercise to appear in Deutsch: Stimme und Bild (Chicago: Rand McNally). In preparation. Used by permission.
154 Part One: Theory
Je reste a I'hotel.
Vous n'y £tes pas reste hier?
J'y reste avec vous.
Non, je n'y suis pas reste.
Je travaille a I'usine.
Vous n'y avez pas travaille hier?
J'y travaille avec vous.
Non, je n'y ai pas travaille. 8
Since cognitive exercises are not designed to trigger automatic, nonthoughtful responses and therefore do not require immediate reinforcement, they can be completed in independent study situations. The correct answers can be included in the text itself, as in the case of Spanish for Communication and Basic French , or the correct answers can be supplied during the following class period either by the students themselves or by the teacher. One advantage of employing cognitive exercises is that given a successful meaningful learning preparation more class time is freed for application activities.
Application activities The final portion of the chapter or unit in the text is designed to provide the students with opportunities for incorporating what they have learned into a communicative whole. Students should be asked to participate in activities in which the material they have been working with plus previously learned vocabulary and grammar is combined into listening comprehension and/or reading passages. The purpose of these activities is to provide practice in utilizing consciously acquired competence in receiving oral or written messages. At the same time, the learners should have the opportunity to produce messages intended to communicate their thoughts to someone else.
Most textbooks provide for performance in reading, but often they do not provide sufficient practice at the performance level in listening comprehension. Also, there should be sufficient time for speaking and writing during the language-learning sequence. Written language can be completed independently, but class time should be spent on speaking in the second language. In the more recent texts, authors and publishers are attempting to include more ideas for getting the students to participate in activities in which they practice the productive language skills at the communicative level. Following are some examples of types of activities that stimulate production of oral and/or written language:
1. Answering questions over reading or listening comprehension passages.
2. Asking and/or answering personalized questions.
3. Completing sentences to give one's own opinion or feelings: i.e., I like (don't like) television because. ... I like (don't like) exams because. . . .
4. Describing pictures.
5. Interviewing, demonstrating, explaining.
In all these activities the learners should be converting their thoughts into the second language. They should be using their acquired competence to generate the language needed. Needless to say, as the beginners create language appropriate to the situation with an interim grammar that does not correspond exactly to the second-language grammar, their utterances will never be masterpieces of expression, and in fact they will often contain inaccuracies. This period, according to cognitive theories of learning and language learning, cannot be avoided. Indeed, it is a necessary preliminary to the development of second-language skills. In fact it is this very process of hypothesis testing that the learner uses to reach the native grammar level.
In addition to preparing presentations of concepts that are consistent with the students' previous knowledge and providing practice manipulating and choosing appropriate forms in cognitive exercises, the author and/or teacher needs to demonstrate the applicability of these concepts in contexts that the students can relate to their present and past life experiences. For example, can they relate to what they are reading or to what they are doing with the language? Have they ever had any experiences similar to those taking place in the dialog or the reading? Is the vocabulary related to concepts that are important to their life and interests? Are the materials interesting in their own right, or are they presented merely to use the grammar and vocabulary in the unit? Two factors are involved in the relatability of content to the learner. The first, the ability to relate to the materials, is cognitive; the second, the set to learn the materials and to integrate them into the cognitive structure, is affective. Both are quite obviously closely interrelated.