CHAPT E R 4

HUMAN LEARNING
Much to the chagrin of his parents, Ethan decides that he will adopt the mynah bird
that his Aunt Mary picked up at the animal shelter. He has shown an interest in birds
since about the age of three when the same Aunt Mary gave him a bird feeder for
Christmas. He is determined to teach the mynah—he has named her Myra—to talk.
As an Internet-savvy ten-year-old, he Googles some hints on how to train a mynah
to talk, but he’s in a bit of a quandary on exactly what steps to take. Short of offering
psychological counseling to Ethan’s parents, can you help him out?

Ethan’s task isn’t about human learning, but perhaps basic principles of
learning will apply. Let’s offer Ethan the following steps:

1. First, he will need to specify entry behavior—what Myra already “knows.”

What abilities does she have upon which he can build? What are her
drives, needs, motivations, and limitations? Has she ever come close to
mimicking a human?
2. Next, Ethan will need to formulate the goals of his task. What will his
specific objectives be? What words should he start with? How many
words or phrases should he teach Myra?
3. Next, he might want to devise methods of training. Based on what he
determines about entry behavior and goals of the task, the training pro-
cess might have to be “customized.” Where should he begin? Should he
start by putting Myra on his finger and talking to her? Offering a favorite
snack for Myra’s producing anything that sounds like human speech?
What alternatives should he have ready if Myra fails to show any signs of
talking? (This would delight Ethan’s parents.)
4. Finally, Ethan will need some sort of evaluation procedure. How should
he determine whether or not Myra had indeed learned to talk? It would
be a good idea to determine short-term and long-term evaluation mea-
sures. If Myra speaks once today, what will happen tomorrow? Will she
maintain her talking ability?

Already a somewhat simple task has become quite complex, but we’re con-
sidering only a species of bird known to be a “talker.” If we consider human
78
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 79

beings learning a second language, the task is of course much more complex.
Nevertheless, the questions and procedures that apply to you, the language
teacher, are akin to those that applied to Ethan, the mynah trainer. You must
know the person’s entry behavior, specify objectives, devise methods that you
will employ, and design an evaluation procedure. These steps derive from your
conception of how human beings learn, and that is what this chapter is all about.

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
In a classroom situation in which you have been a learner or a
teacher, what are some of the entry behaviors you would count
on among students? What sets of abilities, skills, and/or prior
language learning experience did you have when you first started
learning a foreign language? How would you (as a learner or as
a teacher) capitalize on what learners bring to a language class-
room before the first lesson has even begun?

In turning now to varied theories of how human beings learn, consider once
again the various definitions of learning discussed in Chapter 1. Learning is:

• acquiring or getting of knowledge of a subject or a skill by study, expe-

rience, or instruction
• a relatively permanent change in a behavioral tendency
• the result of reinforced practice.

When we consider such definitions, it is clear that one can understand learning
in many different ways, which is why there are so many different theories,
extended definitions, and schools of thought on the topic of learning.
We’ll now focus on how psychologists have defined learning, specifically
within three broad perspectives: (1) behavioral psychology, (2) cognitive psy-
chology and cognitive linguistics, and (3) social-constructivism. The three posi-
tions illustrate not only some of the history of learning theory, but also some
of the diverse perspectives that form the foundations of varying language
teaching approaches and methods.

BEHAVIORAL PERSPECTIVES
For the first half of the twentieth century, behavioral psychology enjoyed
unprecedented popularity as the ultimate explanation of the processes of
human (and animal) learning. Emphasizing the supremacy of conditioning
paradigms, the crucial role of rewards and punishments, and the scientific
80 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

nature of experimental evidence, behaviorism went virtually unchallenged

until the middle of the twentieth century. Let’s look at some of the highlights
and champions of this perspective.
The best-known classical behaviorist was the Russian psychologist Ivan
Pavlov, who at the turn of the twentieth century conducted numerous classical
conditioning experiments. For Pavlov the learning process consisted of the
formation of associations between stimuli and reflexive responses. Pavlov used
the salivation response (an unconditioned response) to the sight or smell of
food in his now famous experiments with dogs. Through repeated occurrences,
the dog associated the sound of a bell with food until the dog acquired a con-
ditioned response: salivation at the sound of the bell. A previously neutral
stimulus (the sound of the bell) had acquired the power to elicit a response
(salivation) that was originally elicited by another stimulus (the smell of meat).
Drawing on Pavlov’s findings, John Watson (1913) coined the term behav-
iorism, contending that human behavior should be studied objectively,
rejecting nonmeasurable notions of innateness and instinct. He adopted the
classical conditioning theory as the explanation for all learning: By the process
of conditioning, we build an array of stimulus-response connections, and more
complex behaviors are learned by building up series or chains of responses.
Later, E. L. Thorndike (1932) expanded on classical conditioning models by
showing that stimuli that occurred after a behavior had an influence on future
behaviors, known as his Law of Effect. Pavlov’s, Watson’s, and Thorndike’s
emphasis on the study of overt behavior and rigorous adherence to the scientific
method had a tremendous influence on learning theories for decades. Language
teaching practices were likewise influenced by the behavioristic tradition.
Thorndike’s work paved the way for B. F. Skinner, in his seminal publica-
tion, The Behavior of Organisms (1938), to establish himself as one of the
leading behaviorists in the United States. His approach was more appropriately
labeled as neobehaviorism, since he added a unique dimension to behavior-
istic psychology (Anderson & Ausubel, 1965). Pavlov’s classical conditioning
was, according to Skinner, a highly specialized form of learning utilized mainly
by animals with minimal relevance for human conditioning. Skinner called
Pavlovian conditioning respondent conditioning since it was concerned with
behavior that is elicited by a preceding stimulus.
Skinner contended that Pavlov’s respondent conditioning was inferior to
operant conditioning in which one “operates” on the environment. Here, the
importance of a (preceding) stimulus is deemphasized in favor of rewards that
follow desired behavior. For example, we cannot identify a specific stimulus
leading a baby to rise to a standing position or to take a first step; we therefore
need not be concerned about that stimulus, but we should be concerned about
the consequences—the stimuli (rewards) that follow the response. Linguistically,
a child’s attempts to produce language are, in Skinner’s model, operants that
are in turn reinforced by a parent’s responses.
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 81

Skinner defined operants in the learning process as acts (e.g., crying,

walking, speaking) that are emitted with no observable stimulus, and governed
by the consequences they produce. If a baby cries to get a parent’s attention,
and subsequently receives a comforting hug or smile, the emitted response of
crying is reinforced through positive consequences. According to Skinner, if
parents ignore crying (when they are certain that it is operant crying), eventu-
ally the absence of reinforcement will extinguish the behavior—perhaps
Skinner wasn’t a model parent!
According to Skinner, the events or stimuli—the reinforcers—that follow
a response both strengthen behavior and increase the probability of a recur-
rence of that response. Such reinforcers are far stronger aspects of learning
than is mere association of a prior stimulus with a following response, as in the
classical respondent conditioning model. We are governed by the consequences
of our behavior, and therefore Skinner felt we ought, in analyzing human
behavior, to center on the effect of those consequences.

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
Thorndike and Skinner both emphasized the importance of rein-
forcement that occurs after a desired behavior. Teachers in lan-
guage classrooms often offer responses or reinforcement after a
student performs in the foreign language. What kind of responses
have your teachers used to reward your efforts? How would you,
as a teacher, reinforce students’ attempts to produce or compre-
hend language?

What about negative reinforcement? Skinner believed that punishment

“works to the disadvantage of both the punished organism and the punishing
agency” (1953, p. 183). Punishment can be either the withdrawal of a positive
reinforcer (such as food, a hug, or a smile) or the presentation of an aversive
stimulus (say, a harsh reprimand). Skinner felt that in the long run, punishment
does not actually eliminate behavior, but he did concede that mild punishment
may be necessary for temporary suppression of an undesired response (Skinner,
1953). The best method of extinction, said Skinner, is the absence of any rein-
forcement whatsoever.
Skinner was extremely methodical and empirical in his theory of learning,
to the point of being preoccupied with scientific controls. While many of his
experiments were performed on lower animals, his theories had an impact on
our understanding of human learning and on education. His book, The
Technology of Teaching (1968), was a classic in the field of programmed
82 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

instruction. Skinner was convinced that virtually any subject matter could be
taught effectively by a carefully designed program of step-by-step reinforcement.
Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1957) described language as a system of verbal oper-
ants, and his understanding of the role of conditioning led to a whole new era
in educational practices around the middle of the twentieth century.

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
One of the hallmarks of Skinnerian psychology was the emphasis
on the power of an emitted response—one that comes “willingly”
from the learner without an outside stimulus (elicited response)
from the teacher. What kinds of emitted responses have you expe-
rienced in learning or teaching a language? How would a teacher
encourage students to emit if the teacher doesn’t first “tell” the
student what to do or say? What kinds of common language class-
room activities capitalize on setting the stage for emitted responses
by students?

A Skinnerian view of both language and language learning strongly influ-

enced L2 teaching methodology in middle of the century, leading to a heavy
reliance in the classroom on the controlled practice of verbal operants under
carefully designed schedules of reinforcement. The popular Audiolingual
Method, which will be discussed at the end of this chapter, was a prime
example of Skinner’s impact on American language teaching practices in the
decades of the 1950s and 1960s.
There is much in behavioral theory that is true and valuable, but there is
another viewpoint to be considered. We’ve looked at the claim that human
behavior can be predicted and controlled and scientifically studied and vali-
dated. We have not looked at the notion that human behavior is essentially
abstract in nature, composed of such a complex and variable system that most
human learning simply cannot be accurately predicted or controlled. We turn
next to some paradigms that attempted just such a response to behaviorism.

COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES
Cognitive psychology was in many ways a reaction to the inadequacies of
behavioral approaches to human learning. Conditioning paradigms were quite
sufficient for animal training but mostly failed to account for the network of
neurological processes involved in the acquisition of complex skills, the devel-
opment of intelligence, the ability of humans to think logically and abstractly,
and our enigmatic ability to be creative.
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 83

Learning as Meaningful Storage and Retrieval

David Ausubel (1968) was among the first educational cognitive psychologists
to frame a theory of learning that was understandable, practical, and appli-
cable to classrooms and teachers. Simply put, he described human learning as
a meaningful process of relating (associating) new events or items to already
existing cognitive structure (Ausubel, 1965). You might say it’s like hanging
new items onto existing cognitive “pegs.” Ausubel’s (1968) perspective
accounted for the acquisition of new meanings (knowledge), retention, the
organization of knowledge in a hierarchical structure, and the eventual occur-
rence of forgetting.
Meaningful learning is best understood by contrasting it with rote
learning. Ausubel described rote learning as the process of acquiring material
as “discrete and relatively isolated entities” (1968, p. 108) that have little or no
association with existing cognitive structure. Most of us, for example, can learn
a few necessary phone numbers and postal codes by rote without reference to
cognitive hierarchical organization.
On the other hand, meaningful learning, or subsumption, may be
described as a process of relating and anchoring new material to relevant estab-
lished entities in cognitive structure. As new material enters our perceptual
field, it interacts with, and is appropriately subsumed under, a more inclusive
conceptual system. If we think of cognitive structure as a system of building
blocks, then rote learning is the process of acquiring isolated blocks with no
particular relationship to other blocks. Meaningful learning is the process
whereby blocks become an integral part of already established categories or
systematic clusters of blocks. For the sake of a visual picture of the distinction,
consider the graphic representation in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.

Acquisition and Inefficient retention Loss of retention

storage of items because of interfering without repeated
(triangles) as contiguous items conditioning
arbitrary entities

Figure 4.1 Schematic representation of rote learning and retention

84 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

Acquisition and Subsumption Systematic “forgetting”; sub-

storage of items process sumed items are “pruned” in
anchored to an continues favor of a larger, more global
established con- in retention conception, which is, in turn,
ceptual hierarchy related to other items (ABC)
by subsumption in cognitive structure.

Figure 4.2 Schematic representation of meaningful learning and retention (subsumption)

The significance of the distinction between rote and meaningful learning

has tremendous implications for both natural and instructed language acquisi-
tion. Recent linguistic research (Ellis & Collins, 2009) has placed emphasis on
the role of frequency in language acquisition—a role that fits well with behav-
ioral perspectives. But consider the power of meaningfulness (importance,
significance, relatability) in the eventual retention of cognitive items. If you
carelessly run across a crosswalk and narrowly miss getting hit by a car, you
won’t need frequent repetitions of that scare to teach you to be careful. Once
is enough!
Granted, human beings are capable of learning almost any given item
within the so-called “magic seven, plus or minus two” (Miller, 1956) units for
perhaps a few seconds. We can remember an unfamiliar phone number, for
example, long enough to call the number, after which point the phone number
is usually extinguished by interfering factors. Arbitrarily assigned, nonsystem-
atically defined numbers are often difficult to retain. To compensate, we can
resort to what Smith (1975) called “manufacturing meaningfulness” (p. 162),
that is, inventing artificial mnemonic devices to remember a list of items, per-
haps for an upcoming examination.
Long-term memory is a different matter. A meaningfully learned, sub-
sumed item has greater potential for retention. Area codes, postal codes, and
street addresses are sometimes efficiently retained since they bear some
meaningful relationship to the reality of geographical areas or houses on a
street. Names of people are in the same category, but without frequent rein-
forcement, could be forgotten. Faces, events, and relationships are clearly
anchored in multiple neural circuits, and therefore are good examples of
meaningful learning.
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 85

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
Compile a list of a dozen or so different classroom activities or
techniques, e.g., pronunciation drill, grammar explanation, free-
writing exercise, information-gap group work. Then decide, on a
scale of rote to meaningful, from 1 to 10, where the technique falls.
Were all your decisions easy to make? Why or why not?

Systematic Forgetting and Cognitive “Pruning”

Why do we forget things? A behavioral explanation cites infrequency of input,
the cessation of practice, and lack of reinforcement. A cognitive perspective
takes a much broader view, looking at saliency, relevance, emotion, and the
strength of anchoring mental sets that capture a trace of memory. As noted
above, an infrequently occurring but very scary (or delightful or romantic)
event may be indelibly etched in memory.
Once again, Ausubel (1965, 1968) provided a plausible explanation for the
universal nature of forgetting. Since rotely learned material is not substantively
merged into cognitive structure, its retention is influenced primarily by the inter-
fering effects of similar rote material learned immediately before or after the
learning task. The consequence of such effects is referred to as proactive and
retroactive inhibition. In the case of meaningfully learned material, retention
is influenced primarily by the properties of “relevant and cumulatively estab-
lished ideational systems in cognitive structure with which the learning task
interacts” (Ausubel, 1968, p. 108). Compared to this kind of extended interac-
tion, concurrent interfering effects have relatively little influence on meaningful
learning, and retention is quite efficient. Hence, in a face-to-face conversation, a
person’s physical features are commonly retained as part of a meaningful set,
while phone numbers, as isolated unrelatable entities, are easily forgotten.
We cannot say, of course, that meaningfully learned material is never for-
gotten. But in the case of such learning, forgetting takes place in a much more
intentional and systematic manner because it is actually a continuation of the
very process of subsumption by which one learns. Forgetting is really a second
or “obliterative” stage of subsumption, characterized as “memorial reduction to
the least common denominator” (Ausubel, 1963, p. 218). Because it is more
economical and less burdensome to retain a single inclusive concept than to
remember a large number of more specific items, the importance of a specific
item tends to be incorporated, or subsumed, into the generalized meaning of
the larger item. In this obliterative stage of subsumption, the specific items
become progressively less identifiable as entities in their own right until they
are finally no longer available and are said to be forgotten (see Figure 4.2).
86 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

Another way of conceptualizing this second stage of subsumption is in a

horticultural metaphor: cognitive pruning (Brown, 1972). When you prune a
tree, your aim is to eliminate unnecessary clutter and to clear the way for more
growth. Mixing metaphors and switching to the building-block analogy, one
might say that at the outset, a structure made of blocks is seen as a few indi-
vidual blocks, but as the mind begins to give the structure a perceived shape,
some of the single blocks achieve less and less identity in their own right and
become subsumed into the larger structure. Finally, the single blocks are lost
to perception, or “pruned” out, and the total structure is perceived as a single
whole without clearly defined parts.
Examples of pruning abound in the development of concepts. Learning
that a cup of hot coffee, a pan of boiling water, or an iron, for example, can
cause excessive pain is a cognitive process. A small child’s first exposure to
such heat may be either direct contact or a verbal “don’t touch!” or “hot!”
After a number of exposures to such hot things, the child begins to form a
concept of “hotness” by clustering experiences together and forming a gen-
eralization. But as time goes on, the bits and pieces of experience that actu-
ally built the concept are slowly forgotten—pruned—in favor of the general
concept that, in the years that follow, enables the child to avoid burning
fingers on hot objects.
An important aspect of the pruning stage of learning is that systematic
forgetting, or pruning, is not haphazard or chance. Thus by promoting
optimal pruning procedures, we have a potential learning situation that will
produce retention beyond that normally expected under more traditional
theories of forgetting.
Interestingly, pruned items may not actually be obliterated. They may be
difficult to consciously retrieve, but could still be an integral part of “deep”
cognitive structure. The notion of automaticity in SLA may be a case in point.
In the early stages of language learning, certain devices (definitions, paradigms,
illustrations, or rules) are often used to facilitate subsumption. But in the pro-
cess of making language automatic, the devices serve only as “interim” entities,
meaningful at a low level of subsumption, and then they are systematically
pruned out at later stages of language learning.
We might effectively achieve the goal of communicative competence by
removing unnecessary barriers to automaticity. A definition, mnemonic device,
or a paraphrase might be initially facilitative, but as its need is minimized by
larger and more global conceptualizations, it is pruned. For example, a learner
in the early stages of acquisition will perhaps overtly learn the rule for when
and how to use the present perfect tense. That building block enables the
learner to produce past perfect forms correctly and in context, but in later
stages the rule ceases to be explicitly retrieved in favor of the automatic pro-
duction of the correct verb without any recourse to the rule learned earlier.
(More on automaticity in Chapter 9.)
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 87

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
In foreign language classes that you have taken (or taught), what are
some specific devices or “tricks” or rules that you used at an early
stage, and then no longer needed to “remember” at a later stage? Did
you use a mnemonic device, a chart, or an association to recall some
aspect of the language? How would your teaching incorporate such
pruning as your students move from early to late stages?

Research on language attrition has focused on a variety of possible causes

for the loss of second language skills (Lambert & Freed, 1982; Weltens, 1987;
Weltens & Cohen, 1989; Tomiyama, 2000; Montrul, 2002, 2008, 2011). Some
studies have shown that lexical, phonological, or syntactic features may be more
vulnerable than idioms, semantic factors, or discourse elements (Andersen,
1982; Nakuma, 1998). Obler (1982) suggested that “neurolinguistic blocking”
(left-/right-brain functioning) could contribute to forgetting. Other common rea-
sons for language attrition include the following: (1) the strength and conditions
of initial learning, (2) the kind of use that a second language has been put to,
(3) motivational factors (Gardner, 1982), and (4) cultural identity (Priven, 2002).

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
Consider the principle of meaningfulness in learning, and the
corollary that less relevance or relatability means that forgetting
or attrition is likely. What can you do as a learner to help prevent
attrition? What kinds of techniques do you think a teacher could
use to enhance memory in a language classroom?

Attrition is not limited to second language acquisition (Porte, 1999; Isurin,

2000). Native language forgetting can occur in cases of subtractive bilin-
gualism (Siegel, 2003; Montrul, 2008, 2011), when learners rely more and more
on a second language, which eventually replaces their first language. Often
subtractive bilingualism is the result of members of a minority group learning
the language of a majority group because the latter denigrates speakers of the
minority language.
Cognitive psychology provides a strong theoretical basis for the rejection
of conditioning models of practice and repetition in language teaching. In a
meaningful process like second language learning, mindless repetition,
88 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

imitation, and other rote practices in the language classroom should play only
minor short-term roles. Rote learning can be effective on a short-term basis, but
for any long-term retention it fails because of a buildup of interference. A case
in point was the Audiolingual Method, based almost exclusively on a behavioral
theory of conditioning and rote learning. The mechanical “stamping in” of the
language through saturation with little reference to meaning was seriously chal-
lenged by a more broadly based cognitive view (Ausubel, 1964).

Cognitive Linguistics
In the 1980s, the place of language in cognition, along with the development
of linguistic abilities as an integral component of cognition, became a central
focus for linguists and applied linguists. We have already referred to some of
the issues surrounding language and thought, the place of language acquisi-
tion in intellectual development, and cognitive considerations in examining
age and acquisition. Such mergers of psychology and linguistics gave rise not
only to psycholinguistics as a field in its own right, but also to what has come
to be called cognitive linguistics (Evans & Green, 2006; Verspoor & Tyler,
2009; Holme, 2012), with its standard-bearing journal, Cognitive Linguistics,
leading the way in related research.
Generative and nativist traditions in the study of L1 acquisition tended to
view language as independent of cognitive and social functioning. In a math-
ematically based model, the child was thought to possess a deep structure of
syntactic and phonological rules that in turn generated an infinite variety of
strings of language. In contrast, many of today’s linguistic researchers are
highly attuned to the interrelated dynamics of language and cognition. George
Lakoff (1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 2003) was among the vanguard of such
inquiry in examining the rich cognitive and social backdrop of metaphor. Soon,
inspired by linguists like Deborah Tannen (1990, 1996) and Leonard Talmy
(2003), among others, we could no longer look at a child’s or adult’s language
acquisition as simply the computational generation of language divorced from
cognitive, functional, and pragmatic contexts.

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
Metaphor is a pervasive and profound characteristic of human
language. Examples: journey metaphors (“I’m on the road to suc-
cess”); direction metaphors (“Back in 1951 . . .”); war metaphors
(“The Yankees battled the Red Sox”). In a language that you have
learned, think of a few such metaphors that may have posed
some difficulty. What are they? How would you as a teacher help
students to conceptualize them?
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 89

Several themes characterize cognitive linguistic approaches (Croft & Cruse,

2004; Evans & Green, 2006; Robinson & Ellis, 2008):

1. Language is not an autonomous faculty.

2. Syntax is not simply an arbitrary set of rules but rather is interwoven
with conceptualization and knowledge.
3. Language ability cannot be examined without concurrent consideration of
language use.

In the last part of the twentieth century, as studies in L1 and L2 acquisition

continued to probe the place of language in human development, it became
increasingly obvious that language is interconnected with cognitive concepts
such as perception, memory, categorization, meaning, and attention (Robinson &
Ellis, 2008).
Cognitive linguistics was applied to teaching methodology by Holme
(2012), who designed a pedagogical model for the L2 classroom. He incorpo-
rated concepts of “embodiment” (metaphor), the reality of lexicon and grammar,
concept formation, and usage to form cornerstones for understanding class-
room approaches and techniques. It is safe to conclude that cognitive linguis-
tics is not so much a radical new field of inquiry as it is the result of a
coalescence of research findings and the merging of many strands of research,
all of which seek to establish the relationship between language and our com-
plex neural networks.

SOCIAL-CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVES
Another manifestation of increasing sophistication in research on language
acquisition and human learning was the incorporation of social and affective
factors into various theoretical propositions. We have already discussed the
importance of the socio-affective domain in previous chapters, and there is
more to come in Chapters 6 and 7. For now, a discussion of learning theory
would fall short without an examination of what have been called social-
constructivist perspectives. We’ll highlight three iconic figures here to charac-
terize this side of learning: Carl Rogers, Paolo Freire, and Lev Vygotsky.

Carl Rogers
Rogers is not traditionally thought of as a “learning” psychologist, yet his work
had a significant impact on our present understanding of learning, particularly
in educational contexts. His views on humanistic psychology emanated from
his classic work Client-Centered Therapy (1951), an analysis of human
behavior in terms of a “phenomenological” perspective, a perspective in sharp
contrast to his contemporary, Skinner. Rogers saw the “whole person” as a
physical and cognitive, but primarily emotional being. “Fully functioning
90 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

persons,” according to Rogers, live at peace with all of their feelings and reac-
tions; they are able to reach their full potential (Rogers, 1977).
Rogers’s position has important implications for education (Curran, 1972;
Rogers, 1983; O’Hara, 2003) by focusing away from “teaching” and toward
“learning” or, in O’Hara’s (2003) terms, “transformative pedagogy.” The goal of
education is the facilitation of change and learning. Learning how to learn is
more important than being taught something from the “superior” vantage point
of a teacher who unilaterally decides what shall be taught.
Many of our present systems of education, in prescribing curricular goals
and dictating objectives, deny persons both freedom and dignity. What is
needed, according to Rogers, is for teachers to become facilitators of learning,
discarding masks of superiority and omniscience. Teachers also need to have
genuine trust and acceptance of the student as a worthy, valuable individual,
and to keep open lines of communication between student and teacher.
We can see in Rogers’s humanism a radical departure from the scientific
analysis of behavioral psychology and even from strictly cognitive theories.
Rogers was not as concerned about the actual cognitive process of learning
because, he felt, if the context for learning is properly created with due atten-
tion to students’ affective states, then they will learn everything they need to.
Of course, teachers could take the nondirective approach too far, to the
point that valuable time is lost in the process of allowing students to “discover”
facts and principles for themselves. Also, a nonthreatening environment might
become so “warm and fuzzy” that the facilitative tension needed for learning is
absent. There is ample research documenting the positive effects of competi-
tiveness in a classroom, as long as that competitiveness does not damage self-
esteem and hinder motivation to learn (Bailey, 1983).

Paolo Freire
Another giant in educational theory is Brazilian educator Paolo Freire (1970).
Freire vigorously objected to traditional “banking” concepts of education in
which teachers think of their task as one of “filling” students “by making
deposits of information which [they] consider to constitute true knowledge—
deposits which are detached from reality” (1970, p. 62). Instead, Freire argued,
students should be allowed to negotiate learning outcomes, to cooperate with
teachers and other learners in a process of discovery, and to relate everything
they do in school to their reality outside the classroom.
It was the need to help students to engage in this real-world reality that
gave Freire the impetus to pen his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
(1970), which has since inspired millions of teachers worldwide. Education
must be focused on helping students to engage in critical thinking: to look
beneath various canons of knowledge and to question that which they are
simply told to accept unequivocally. Freire wanted all students to become
instruments of their own empowerment, “lifting themselves up by their own
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 91

bootstraps.” While such “liberationist” views of education should be approached

with some caution (Clarke, 1990), learners may nevertheless be empowered to
achieve solutions to real problems in the real world.

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
Rogers and Freire stressed the importance of learner-centered
classrooms where the teacher and learners negotiate learning out-
comes, engage in discovery learning, and relate the course content
to students’ reality outside the classroom. How have you observed
these ideas in action in your own language learning (or teaching)
experience? What kinds of activities emulate such perspectives?

Lev Vygotsky
Russian-born Lev Vygotsky (1962, 1978), author of the seminal 1934 work,
Thought and Language, went almost unnoticed at the time as the limelight
shone on his countryman Pavlov and his behaviorist associates. But in the
latter part of the twentieth century, as the shifting sands of psychological
research paid due attention to sociocultural and affective factors, Vygotsky’s
contributions to human learning were lauded for their unique insights.
For Vygotsky the key to understanding higher forms (beyond simply phys-
ical reflexes) of human mental activity lay in the mediation of symbols, signs,
and language. We comprehend the world around us, perceived events, and
systems of knowledge through symbolic tools of numbers, music, art, and, of
course, language. In Vygotsky’s view, the task for psychology is “to understand
how human social and mental activity is organized through culturally con-
structed artifacts and social relationships” (Lantolf, 2000, p. 80).
Language is not only an instrument for thought, but also, as Vygotsky so
ably emphasized, an ability that develops through social interaction. Language
is primarily a tool for communication with other human beings, and it is this
symbiotic relationship that is a driving force in the development and growth
of cognition. From this sociocultural perspective, a child’s early stages of lan-
guage acquisition are an outgrowth of the process of “meaning-making in col-
laborative activity with other members of a given culture” (Mitchell & Myles,
2004, p. 200).
Interesting, isn’t it, how singularly different the two Russian psychologists
were—Pavlov and Vygotsky? Of course, the latter cut his scholarly teeth on
Pavlov’s behavioral paradigm that dominated early twentieth century thinking,
and saw in that behavioristic perspective a major flaw in the study of human
learning (Vygotsky, 1987).
92 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

The work of Rogers, Freire, and Vygotsky contributed significantly to a

slow but steady redefinition of the educational process in the last twenty years
or so. Educators are increasingly striving to enable learners to understand
themselves and to create optimal environments for social interaction and nego-
tiation of meaning. Teachers as facilitators are providing nurturing contexts for
learners to face real-world issues and to believe in themselves. When teachers
rather programmatically feed students quantities of knowledge, which they
subsequently devour, those teachers foster a climate of “defensive” learning in
which learners—in competition with classmates—try to protect themselves
from failure, criticism, and possibly from punishment.
Ancient Greek philosophers reminded their audiences of the importance
of body, mind, and soul in their inquiry. Likewise, the three major perspectives
that have been described here—behavioral, cognitive, and social construc-
tivist—allow us to put together a comprehensive understanding of human
learning and cognition. A behavioral theory helps us to understand some fun-
damentals of learning for all organisms. Cognitive viewpoints have multiplied
our appreciation of the intricacies of the uniquely human language-thought
connection. And without coming full circle (triangle?) to affectively based socio-
cultural insights, our understanding would not be balanced. An open-minded
twenty-first century view is enriched by considering the benefits and draw-
backs of each side of the age-old Greek triangle.

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
Rogers and Freire stressed the importance of learner-centered
classrooms where the teacher and learners negotiate learning
outcomes, engage in discovery learning, and relate the course
content to students’ reality outside the classroom. How have you
observed these ideas in action in your own language learning (or
teaching) experience?

TABLE 4.1 Perspectives on human learning

Behavioral Cognitive Social-Constructivist
• Conditioning • Language-cognition • Learner autonomy
• Rewards connection • Whole-person
• Stimulus-response • Meaningful learning • Empowerment
connections • Subsumption • Social interaction
• Reinforcement • Systematic forgetting • Language as mediation
• Emphasis: physical • Emphasis: mental • Emphasis: socioaffective
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 93

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN HUMAN LEARNING

Theories of learning do not capture all of the possible general principles of
human learning. In addition to the three theoretical perspectives in the first
part of the chapter, there are a number of concepts, categories, and types of
human learning applicable to SLA.

Types of Learning
Robert Gagné (1965, pp. 58–59) ably demonstrated the importance of identi-
fying a number of universal types of human learning. Let’s take a look at how
these concepts apply to language acquisition research.

1. Signal learning. Attending to something in one’s environment (music,

animal sounds, human voices, etc.), typical of Pavlovian classical condi-
tioning. Linguistic application: human beings notice and attend to
human language.
2. Stimulus–response learning. The learner makes a response to a “dis-
criminated” stimulus, a specific attendance to a single element in one’s
perceptual environment. Linguistic application: Noticing and responding
to specific sounds, words, and nonverbal gestures, and receiving a reward
for the response.
3. Chaining. Learning a chain of two or more stimulus-response connec-
tions. Linguistic application: Stringing several sounds or words together to
attempt to communicate meaning.
4. Verbal association. Attaching meaning to verbal/nonverbal chains.
Linguistic application: Assigning meaning to various verbal stimuli.
“Nonsense” syllables become meaningful for communication.
5. Multiple discrimination. Learning to make different responses to many
varying stimuli, which may resemble each other. Linguistic application:
Noticing differences between/among sounds, words, or phrases that are
similar. For example, minimal pairs (sheep/ship), homonyms (left/left),
and synonyms (maybe/perhaps).
6. Concept learning. Learning to make a common response to a class of
stimuli even though the individual members of that class may differ
widely from each other. Linguistic application: The word “hot” applies to
stoves, candles, and irons; young children learn that four-legged farm
animals are not all “horsies.”
7. Principle learning. Learning a chain of two or more concepts, a cluster
of related concepts. Linguistic application: Verbs in the past tense are
classified into regular and irregular forms, yet both forms express the con-
cept of tense.
8. Problem solving. Previously acquired concepts and principles are com-
bined in a conscious focus on an unresolved or ambiguous set of events.
94 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

Linguistic application: Learning that metaphorical language is not simply

idiosyncratic, but connected to cultural world views and ways of thinking,
thus explaining why a dead person is “gone.” Also, using language to solve
problems, such as information gap exercises in a classroom.

You may notice that the first five types fit easily into a behavioral frame-
work, while the last three are better explained by cognitive or sociocultural
perspectives. Since all eight types of learning are relevant to second language
learning, a cautious implication is that certain lower-level aspects of SLA may
be more effectively treated by behavioral approaches and methods, while cer-
tain higher-order types are more effectively taught by methods derived from
cognitive or sociocultural approaches to learning. Methods of teaching, in rec-
ognizing different levels of learning, need to be consonant with whichever
aspect of language is being taught at a particular time while also recognizing
the interrelatedness of all levels of language learning.

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
Can you add some further SLA examples to each of the eight
types of learning above? What kinds of classroom activities would
be appropriate for teaching each type? So, in #7, how would you
teach regular and irregular verbs? What kinds of learning pro-
cesses would the learner be using?

Transfer and Interference

Human beings approach any new problem by using whatever cognitive struc-
tures they possess to attempt a solution, more technically described as the
interaction of previously learned material with a present learning event. From
the beginning of life, we build a structure of knowledge by the accumulation
of experiences and by the storage of aspects of those experiences in memory.
Each of those billions of neural bytes become associated with other pieces of
our memory, and in the process, some of those connections are bound to
facilitate and some are destined to debilitate. Let’s consider this phenomenon
in terms of three associated concepts in learning: transfer, interference, and
overgeneralization.
Transfer usually refers to the carryover of previous performance or knowl-
edge to subsequent learning. (It can also apply to the effect of a current act of
learning on previously learned material, which is known as retroactive
transfer, but we’ll deal with that in a moment.) Positive transfer occurs when
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 95

the prior knowledge benefits the learning task—that is, when a previous item
is correctly applied to present subject matter. Negative transfer occurs when
previous performance disrupts or inhibits the performance of a second task.
The latter can be referred to as interference, in that previously learned material
conflicts with subsequent material—a previous item is incorrectly transferred
or incorrectly associated with an item to be learned.
A nonlanguage example: Eight-year-old Kaliana has already learned to ride
a bicycle, and now attempts to ride her newly acquired skateboard. She posi-
tively transfers the psychomotor process of keeping her balance on a moving
vehicle. So far, so good. However, she negatively transfers the experience of
steering a front wheel for balance to the skateboard, which results in a skinned
knee. Eventually she learns that steering on a skateboard is accomplished by a
combination of footwork and leaning the body.
The most salient example in SLA is the effect of the first-learned native
language on the second. Many L2 courses warn teachers and students of
the perils of such negative transfer, in fact, the L1 is usually an immediately
noticeable source of error among learners. The saliency of L1-L2 interfer-
ence has been so strong that it was once fashionable to view second lan-
guage learning as exclusively involving overcoming the effects of the native
language (Stockwell, Bowen, & Martin, 1965; Wardhaugh, 1970). Is this a
fair picture?
One’s native language, an obvious set of prior experiences, is frequently
negatively transferred. For example, a French native speaker might say in
English, “I am in New York since January,” a perfectly logical transfer of the
comparable French sentence “Je suis à New York depuis janvier.” Because of
the negative transfer of the French verb form to English, the French system
interfered with production of the correct English form.
However, can we not also claim that the native language of an L2 learner
may be positively transferred? In which case, can the learner benefit from the
facilitating effects of the first language? Consider the above sentence. The
correct one-to-one word order correspondence, personal pronoun, preposi-
tion, and cognate “January” have all been positively transferred from French
to English! A more detailed discussion of the syndrome is provided in
Chapter 8.
Equally significant for educators is the positive transfer of previous L2
experience on subsequent L2 experience, both within and across languages
(Haskell, 2001; Mestre, 2005). Let’s say you studied French in high school and
now you take up Spanish in college. One of the goals of your teacher is to
help you and your classmates to positively transfer various strategies, mind-
sets, linguistic tricks, and cross-cultural knowledge to this newest language.
Even more commonly, suppose you have been learning English as a second
language for a few months now. You are most certainly acquiring pieces of
the language that have a cumulative effect on your current lessons. You could
96 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

claim that you are not only building lexical, syntactic, discourse, and other
abilities, but you are also “getting the hang of it,” as your strategic compe-
tence improves.
A final aspect of positive transfer within a language pertains to the applica-
tion of course content to the “real world” outside of the classroom. English for
Academic Purposes (EAP), for example, helps students to learn English skills
but also to learn the academic “game,” which might be quite new to students
studying English in an English-speaking university and country. Learning con-
ventions of writing, extensive reading, note-taking, listening to lectures, giving
presentations, and taking examinations are all positive side-effects of learning
English ( James, 2006, 2010; DePalma & Ringer, 2011).
Of significant interest for some linguists is the retroactive effect of a
second language on the first. It is not uncommon for those who take up
residence in a foreign country not only to learn the language of their new
home, but also for their native language to be “affected.” This phenomenon is
found among some bilinguals whose home language is the nondominant lan-
guage of their country of residence. Spanish in the United States is an
example (Montrul, 2011). Also, American professionals who spend perhaps a
decade in Japan or Thailand, as a random example, may come back to the
United States with “something funny” about the way they talk, according to
friends and family.

Overgeneralization
In the literature on SLA, interference is almost as frequent a term as overgen-
eralization, which is simply a form of negative transfer. Generalization
involves inferring or deriving a law, rule, or conclusion from the observation
of particular instances. In terms of the previously discussed meaningful
learning, items are subsumed (generalized) under higher-order categories for
meaningful retention. Concept learning for children is the generalization of a
principle from experience with particulars. A child learns that ice cream is
delicious from a few encounters with the cold, sweet taste. Usually very few
encounters are required! The concept of future time, often mediated by lan-
guage, is a generalization from particulars.
In SLA it is customary to refer to overgeneralization as a process that
occurs as the L2 learner acts within the target language, generalizing a partic-
ular rule or item in the L2—irrespective of the L1—beyond legitimate bounds.
We have already observed that children acquiring English as a native language
overgeneralize regular past tense endings (walked, opened) as applicable to all
past tense forms (goed, flied) until they recognize a subset of verbs that belong
in an “irregular” category. L2 learners from all native language backgrounds
overgeneralize within the target language: In English, “John doesn’t can study”
or “He told me when should I get off the train” are common examples. (Again,
more on this in Chapter 8.)
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 97

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
In a language that you have learned, think of instances where you
encountered interference (from your L1) and overgeneralization
(within the L2). Beyond simply informing students of errors and
their sources, how would you help students in a classroom to
overcome the negative effects of interference and overgeneraliza-
tion? What activities or pair work or games could be used?

Transfer

Positive (+) Negative (–)

Overgeneralization Interference
(L1 → L1) (L1 → L2)
(L2 → L2) (L2 → L1)

Figure 4.3 Transfer, overgeneralization, and interference

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Inductive and deductive reasoning are two polar aspects of the generalization
process. In the case of inductive reasoning, one stores a number of specific
instances and induces a general law or rule or conclusion that governs or sub-
sumes the specific instances. Deductive reasoning is a movement from a
generalization to specific instances: A general principle allows a person to
infer specific facts.
L1 learning and natural or untutored SLA involve a largely inductive pro-
cess: Learners must infer certain rules and meanings from all the data around
them. Most of those rules are learned implicitly, without “conscious,” explicit
ability to verbalize them.
Classroom language learning tends to rely—more than it should, no
doubt—on deductive reasoning. Traditional methods overemphasize the use of
deductive reasoning by requiring explicit access to a rule with subsequent
attention to its instances. Much of the evidence in communicative L2 learning
98 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

points to the overall superiority of an inductive approach; however, in the case

of form-focused instruction (see Chapter 9), learners might reap the benefit of
the positive effects of having errors called to their attention.
An interesting extension of the inductive/deductive dichotomy was reported
in Peters’ (1981) case study of a child learning a first language. Peters found that
her subject manifested a number of “Gestalt” characteristics, producing “wholes”
in the form of intonation patterns well before speaking the particular words that
made up the sentences. Peters cited other evidence of Gestalt learning in chil-
dren and concluded that such “sentence learners” (vs. “word learners”) may be
more common than researchers had previously assumed.
In L2 teaching, Wong (1986) capitalized on just such a concept in a discus-
sion of teaching communicative oral production. She advocated explicitly
teaching overall intonation patterns for greetings, yes-no questions, and syllable
stress before learners had tackled their specific syntactic forms. She was one of
the first to advocate the use of kazoos in pronunciation classes so that learners
could more easily hear overall sentence stress and intonation.

LANGUAGE APTITUDE
The discussion so far in this chapter has focused on perception, storage, and
recall. Little has been said about a related and somewhat controversial issue
in SLA, language aptitude. A number of questions emerge:

1. Is there an ability or “talent” that we can call foreign language aptitude?

2. If so, what is it, and is it innate or environmentally nurtured?
3. Is it a distinct ability or is it an aspect of general cognitive abilities?
4. Does aptitude vary by age and by whether learning is implicit or explicit?
5. Can aptitude be reliably measured?
6. If so, do such assessments predict success in learning an L2?

Do certain people have a “knack” for learning foreign languages? Anecdotal

evidence would suggest that some people are indeed able to learn languages
faster and more efficiently than others. One way of looking at such aptitude is
the identification of characteristics of successful language learners. Risk-taking
behavior, memory efficiency, intelligent guessing, willingness to communicate,
low anxiety, and ambiguity tolerance are but a few of the many variables that
have been cited (Rubin & Thompson, 1982; Brown, 1991; Dörnyei & Skehan,
2003; Dörnyei, 2005, 2009; Robinson, 2005). Such factors will be the focus of
the next chapter in this book.
Historically, research on language aptitude has been a roller-coaster ride.
John Carroll’s (Carroll & Sapon, 1959) pioneering work on aptitude, embodied in
the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), began the quest. The MLAT asserted
the predictability of number learning, sound discrimination, pattern discernment,
and memorization for future success in a foreign language. This test, along with
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 99

the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB) (Pimsleur, 1966) and the Defense
Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB) (Peterson & Al-Haik, 1976) were used for
some time in such contexts as Peace Corps volunteer training programs and
military communications courses to help predict successful language learners.
The above-mentioned aptitude tests were initially well received by L2
teachers and administrators, especially in view of their reportedly high correla-
tions with ultimate success in language classrooms. But slowly their popularity
waned, even in the absence of alternative measures of language aptitude (Parry
& Child, 1990; Skehan, 1998). Two factors accounted for the decline. First, even
though the paper-and-pencil tests claimed to measure language aptitude, it
soon became apparent that they more than likely reflected the general intelli-
gence or academic ability of a student in any instructional setting (Skehan,
1989; DeKeyser & Koeth, 2011). At best, they appeared to measure ability to
perform focused, analytical, context-reduced activities that occupy a student in
a traditional language classroom.
They hardly even began to tap into the kinds of learning strategies and
styles that subsequent research (Ehrman, 1990; Oxford, 1990b, 1996; Reid,
1995; Chamot, 2005; Cohen, 1998) showed to be crucial in the acquisition of
communicative competence in context-embedded situations. As we will see in
the next chapter, learners can be successful for a multitude of reasons, many of
which are much more related to focus and determination than to so-called
“native” abilities (Lett & O’Mara, 1990).
Second, how is one to interpret a language aptitude test? Rarely does an
institution have the luxury or capability to test people before they take a for-
eign language in order to counsel certain people out of their decision to do so.
And in cases where an aptitude test might be administered, isn’t such a test
likely to bias both student and teacher? Both are led to believe that they will
be successful or unsuccessful, depending on the aptitude test score, and a self-
fulfilling prophecy is likely to occur. Isn’t it wiser for teachers to be optimistic
for all their students? By monitoring individual differences and abilities,
teachers can steer the student toward strategies that will aid learning and away
from those blocking factors that will hinder the process.
In the decades that followed the flurry of administrations of standardized
aptitude tests, interest declined. But then, in the late 1990s, we saw renewed
efforts to address aptitude factors (Sasaki, 1993a, 1993b; Harley & Hart, 1997).
A new era of aptitude research was launched with Skehan’s (1998) exposure of
the weaknesses of previous aptitude constructs, and his proposal to look at
aptitude from a broader view of SLA that incorporates input processing, induc-
tive language learning, output strategies, and fluency.
The birth of the new millennium witnessed a resurgence of interest language
aptitude (Grigorenko, Sternberg, & Ehrman, 2000; Robinson, 2001, 2002, 2005;
Skehan, 2002; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Ehrman
(2000) proposed an aptitude battery based on Sternberg’s theory of intelligence
(see the next section in this chapter), the CANAL-F test (Cognitive Ability for
100 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

Novelty in Acquisition of Language—Foreign). This battery differed from previous

ones in its involvement of the test taker in a process of learning a simulated lan-
guage embedded in a multifaceted language context. Further, it was dynamic rather
than static in that it measured the ability to learn at the time of taking the test.
Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) followed up on the renewed interest in aptitude
with the suggestion that aptitude may be related to varying processes of SLA. So,
for example, aptitude constructs such as attention and short-term memory could
be relevant for processing input in an L2; phonemic coding ability could contribute
to noticing of phonological patterns; and constructs like inductive learning,
chunking, and retrieval abilities may allow a learner to identify and integrate gram-
matical patterns. Dörnyei and Skehan also cite other research to conclude that
“aptitude is relevant not simply for conventional, explicit, rule-focused teaching
contexts, but also when the learning is implicit [in natural contexts]” (p. 600).
More recently, Robinson (2001, 2002, 2005) and Dörnyei (2005, 2009) sug-
gested that aptitude “has been increasingly seen as too broad an umbrella term,
one that refers to an unspecified mixture of cognitive variables” (Dörnyei, 2009,
pp. 182–183). DeKeyser and Koeth (2011, p. 396) conceded that “there is no
unitary construct of aptitude” and that because it is an encompassing term, one
should simply refer to “aptitudes, in the plural, for learning a second language.”
Robinson (2005) suggested that aptitude is a complex of abilities that include
processing speed, short- and long-term memory, rote memory, planning time,
pragmatic abilities, interactional intelligence, emotional intelligence, and self-
efficacy. Dörnyei (2009) noted that motivation, learning styles, learning strate-
gies, anxiety, and other individual differences in language learners may also be
related to a learner’s eventual success in learning an L2.
Robinson and Dörnyei both appear to agree that none of the above “static or
linear presuppositions” ( Jessner, 2008, p. 270) can be sufficiently singled out as a
trait or measurable factor in aptitude. Instead, we are better served by viewing the
process of SLA as an involvement of dynamic systems theory, “one of com-
plexity, with all parts of the system being interconnected, and of ongoing change
that results from the multiple interacting influences” (Dörnyei, 2009, pp. 103–104).

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
The so-called “knack” for learning a language appears to be an
elusive factor. But if you were to brainstorm some of what you
think are the most important ingredients of language aptitude,
what would your “top 5” factors be? Have you invoked any of
those abilities within you in your foreign language learning?
Using those five factors, how would you, as a teacher, help stu-
dents to capitalize on their “gifts” and to compensate for abilities
they may not appear to have?
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 101

INTELLIGENCE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Intelligence, a construct with multiple definitions and theories, has tradi-
tionally been defined and measured in terms of linguistic and logical-math-
ematical abilities. The notion of IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is based on
several generations of testing of these two domains, stemming from the
early twentieth-century research of Alfred Binet, creator of the famous
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Success in educational institutions and in
life in general has been shown repeatedly to correlate with high IQ scores
(Slavin, 2011).
Does IQ correlate equally well with successful SLA? Will a smart person be
capable of learning a second language successfully because of high intelli-
gence? Not according to a good deal of research and observation over the last
few decades. It appears that our “language learning IQs” involve more than
simply academic “smarts.”
Howard Gardner (1983, 1999, 2006, 2011) was the first psychologist to
help us to see why IQ is too simplistic a concept to account for a whole host
of skills and abilities. Gardner (1983) initially posited seven different intelli-
gences that provided a comprehensive picture of intelligence. He later added
one more intelligence, naturalist (Gardner, 1999, 2004), but has rejected adding
spiritual or moral intelligence, as they fail, in his view, to meet established cri-
teria. Following are Gardner’s eight multiple intelligences:

1. Linguistic
2. Logical-mathematical
3. Musical (the ability to perceive and create pitch and rhythmic patterns)
4. Spatial (the ability to find one’s way around an environment, to form
mental images of reality, and to transform them readily)
5. Bodily-kinesthetic (fine motor movement, athletic prowess)
6. Naturalist (sensitivity to natural objects (plants, animals, clouds))
7. Interpersonal (the ability to understand others, how they feel, what moti-
vates them, how they interact with one another)
8. Intrapersonal intelligence (the ability to see oneself, to develop a sense of
self-identity)

Gardner maintained that by looking only at the first two categories we rule
out a great number of the human being’s mental abilities. And he showed that
our traditional definitions of intelligence are culture-bound. The “sixth sense”
of a hunter in New Guinea or the navigational abilities of a sailor in Micronesia
are not accounted for in Westernized definitions of IQ. His more recent work
(Gardner, 2004, 2006, 2011) has focused on applications of his multiple intel-
ligences theory to daily human interactions as we manipulate our environment
in order to accomplish a variety of purposes.
102 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

In a likewise revolutionary style, Robert Sternberg (1985, 1988) also shook

up the world of traditional intelligence measurement. In his triarchic view of
intelligence, Sternberg proposed three types of “smartness”:

1. Componential ability for analytical thinking

2. Experiential ability to engage in creative thinking, combining disparate
experiences in insightful ways
3. Contextual ability or “street smartness” that enables people to “play the
game” of manipulating their environment (others, situations, institutions,
contexts)

C LASSROOM C ONNECTIONS
Consider Gardner’s eight intelligences and Sternberg’s three fac-
tors. In your experience learning a foreign language, what tech-
niques or activities have you experienced that illustrate these
different components? If you are teaching a language, to what
extent might you help learners to capitalize on strengths and also
to compensate for weaknesses?

Sternberg contended that too much of psychometric theory is obsessed

with mental speed, and therefore dedicated his research to tests that mea-
sure insight, real-life problem solving, “common sense,” getting a wider
picture of things, and other practical tasks that are closely related to success
in the real world. Like Gardner, Sternberg has also recently provided a prac-
tical dimension to his research in publications that demonstrate how prac-
tical and creative intelligence can determine one’s success in life (Sternberg,
1997, 2003, 2007).
Finally, in another effort to remind us of the bias of traditional definitions
and tests of intelligence, Daniel Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence
(Goleman, 1995, 1998; Merlevede, Bridoux, & Vandamme, 2001) is persuasive in
placing emotion, or what might be called EQ (Emotional Quotient), at the seat
of intellectual functioning. The management of even a handful of core
emotions—anger, fear, enjoyment, love, disgust, shame, and others—drives and
controls efficient cognitive processing. Even more to the point, Goleman argued
that “the emotional mind is far quicker than the rational mind, springing into
action without even pausing to consider what it is doing. Its quickness precludes
the deliberate, analytic reflection that is the hallmark of the thinking mind”
(1995, p. 291). Goleman has also more recently followed up with work on social
as well as ecological intelligence, in an effort to apply emotional management
to practical life situations (Goleman, 2006, 2009).
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 103

By expanding our understanding of intelligence, we can more easily dis-

cern a relationship between intelligence and second language learning.
Gardner’s musical intelligence could explain the relative ease that some learners
have in perceiving and producing the intonation patterns of a language. Music
also appears to facilitate learning, as McGinn, Stokes, and Trier (2005) recently
demonstrated. Bodily-kinesthetic modes have already been discussed in con-
nection with the learning of the phonology of a language. Interpersonal intel-
ligence is of obvious importance in the communicative process. (Intrapersonal
factors will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of this book.) One might even
be able to speculate on the extent to which spatial intelligence, especially a
“sense of direction,” may assist the second culture learner in growing comfort-
able in a new environment.
Sternberg’s experiential and contextual abilities cast further light on com-
ponents of the “knack” that some people have for quick, efficient, ostensibly
“effortless” SLA. After all, successful language learners frequently display their
ability to think creatively “outside the box,” and thus grasp some of the dynamic
complexity of SLA. Finally, Goleman’s EQ may be far more important than any
other factor in accounting for second language success both in classrooms and
in untutored contexts. In Chapter 6 we will expand on the central role of the
affective domain in SLA.
Educational institutions have recently been applying multiple intelligence
theory to a variety of school-oriented contexts. Thomas Armstrong (1993, 1994),
for example, focused teachers and learners on “seven ways of being smart,”
capitalizing on all forms of intelligence. In foreign language education,
Christison (1999, 2005) and others have been successfully applying the concept
of multiple intelligences to teaching English as a second or foreign language by
showing how each intelligence relates to certain demands in the classroom.
A Post Script: Some time ago, John Oller suggested, in an eloquent essay,
that language is intelligence. “Language may not be merely a vital link in the
social side of intellectual development, it may be the very foundation of intel-
ligence itself” (1981a, p. 466). According to Oller, arguments from genetics and
neurology suggest “a deep relationship, perhaps even an identity, between
intelligence and language ability” (p. 487). The implications of Oller’s hypoth-
esis for SLA are enticing. Both first and second languages must be closely tied
to meaning in its deepest sense. Effective L2 learning thus links surface forms
of a language with meaningful experiences, as we have already noted in cogni-
tive learning theory. The strength of that link may indeed be a factor in the
complex systems that make up what we call intelligence.

LEARNING THEORIES IN THE CLASSROOM: ALM & CLL

Two language teaching methods emerged in the last century of language
teaching that bear a singular relationship to certain perspectives on learning.
The Audiolingual method, inspired by behavioristic principles, and Community
104 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

Language Learning, a direct attempt to apply Carl Rogers’s theories, are in

stark contrast with each other. We’ll look at these two methods here.

The Audiolingual Method

The outbreak of World War II thrust the United States into a worldwide con-
flict, heightening the need for Americans to become orally proficient in the
languages of both their allies and their enemies. The U.S. military, perceiving
the need for intensive language courses that focused on aural/oral skills,
funded what came to be known as the Army Specialized Training Program
(ASTP), or, more colloquially, the “Army Method.” The Army Method employed
a great deal of oral activity—pronunciation and pattern drills and conversation
practice. Oddly, in a rejection of deductive, explicit grammar teaching and
translation, virtually none of these characteristics of traditional classes found
their way into the method. Soon, spurred by the Army Method’s success in
military language schools, educational institutions began to adopt the new
methodology. In all its variations and adaptations, the Army Method came to
be known in the 1950s as the Audiolingual Method (ALM).
The ALM was firmly grounded in linguistic and psychological theory.
Structural linguists of the 1940s and 1950s had been engaged in what they
claimed was a “scientific descriptive analysis” of various languages, and educa-
tors saw a direct application of such analysis to teaching linguistic patterns
(Fries, 1945). At the same time, behavioral psychologists were advocating con-
ditioning and habit-formation models of learning. The classical and operant
conditioning models described earlier in this chapter provided the perfect ratio-
nale for the mimicry drills and pattern practices so typical of audiolingual meth-
odology. Students were delighted: “Success” could be more overtly experienced
by students as they practiced their dialogs with friends and family in off-hours.
With widespread publication of textbooks and curricula, the ALM enjoyed
a number of years of popularity. But the enthusiasm eventually waned, due in
part to Wilga Rivers’s (1964) eloquent exposure of ALM’s ultimate failure to
teach long-term communicative proficiency. We discovered that language was
not effectively acquired through a process of habit formation and over-learning,
that errors were not necessarily to be avoided at all costs, and that structural
linguistics did not dictate a course syllabus. While the ALM was a valiant
attempt to reap the fruits of language teaching methodologies that had pre-
ceded it, in the end it still fell short. Despite its shortcomings, however, we are
left today with an important vestige of the ALM: the value of quick, fast-paced
drilling routines, even in a communicative classroom.

Community Language Learning

The ALM also lost some of its glamor when the Chomskyan revolution in lin-
guistics turned linguists and language teachers toward the deep structure of
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 105

language and when psychologists began to recognize the fundamentally inter-

personal nature of language learning. Looking at SLA through the combined
lenses of cognitive and affective factors spawned a creative, if somewhat cha-
otic era during which innovative language teaching methods flourished.
Claims for the success of these revolutionary methods—in the eyes of their
proprietary founders and proponents—were often overstated to attract teachers
to weekend workshops and seminars, to new books, tapes, and videos, and, of
course, to getting their learners to reach the zenith of their potential. Such wild
claims of instant satisfaction led Nunan (1989, p. 97) to refer to the methods of
the day as “designer” methods: promises of success, one size fits all!
Despite the marketing blitz over designer methods, they remain an impor-
tant part of our language teaching history, giving us insights into language
learning, remnants of which still enlighten our teaching practices. We’ll look at
one such method here, Community Language Learning (CLL), expressly con-
structed to put Rogers’s theory of learning into action.
In his “Counseling-Learning” model of education, Charles Curran (1972)
was inspired by Rogers’s (1951) view of education in which students and
teacher join together to facilitate learning in a context of valuing and prizing
each individual in the group. In such a surrounding, each person lowers the
defenses that prevent open, interpersonal communication. The anxiety
caused by the educational context is lessened by means of the supportive
community. The teacher’s presence is not perceived as a threat, nor is it the
teacher’s purpose to impose limits and boundaries. Rather, as a “counselor,”
the teacher’s role is to center his or her attention on the clients (the students)
and their needs.
Curran’s model of education was extended to language learning contexts
in the form of Community Language Learning (CLL) (LaForge, 1971). While
particular adaptations of CLL are numerous, the basic methodology was
explicit. Students were encouraged to try anything, just as they might do if they
had just arrived in a foreign country. They had free rein to inductively “emit”
any language forms they wanted to. The teacher could use translation to aid in
refinement of production attempts and in comprehension, or explanation when
solicited by a student. Learners were encouraged but not forced to respond to
one another, always with the supportive role of the teacher to guide them when
needed. The rationale was that students slowly move from dependence (on the
teacher) to independence.
CLL was a valiant attempt to put Carl Rogers’s philosophy into action and
to overcome some of the threatening affective factors in second language
learning. But practical and theoretical problems emerged. The nondirective role
of the counselor-teacher caused a good deal of “trial by error,” much of which
was not productive. While inductive struggling can be an invigorating compo-
nent of L2 learning, days and weeks of floundering can become frustrating.
And, the almost exclusive reliance on translation often resulted in linguistic
mysteries that could have been avoided.
106 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

Despite its weaknesses, CLL offers certain insights to teachers. We are

reminded to lower learners’ anxiety, to create as much of a supportive group
in our classrooms as possible, to allow students to initiate language (up to a
point), and to move learners toward autonomy in preparation for the day
when they no longer have the teacher to guide them. And while we are cer-
tainly offered an example of a method that diverged completely from the
behaviorally inspired ALM, we are also reminded that most effective language
classrooms manifest bits and pieces of many potentially contrasting methods,
and that successful teachers are eclectically judicious in their choice of tasks
for language lessons.

✬ ✬ ✬ ✬ ✬

Remember young Ethan’s mynah training attempt? Unfortunately, he

was not successful in teaching his pet bird to talk. She chirped very loudly,
but never anything that could pass as human speech. Ethan tried all the
training tricks that he picked up off the Internet—the right food, attention,
cage position, etc. He was as diligent and patient as any busy ten-year-old
could be, but with school and soccer and swimming, sometimes Myra was
neglected. Avian specialists say not all mynahs talk, and Myra’s earlier injury
(that placed her in the animal shelter) may have been a factor. Also, the
shelter said that Myra was about six months old when they found her, and
advised she might be too old to learn to talk (a critical period effect?). So,
despite all the good intentions, Ethan and his brother and long-suffering
parents remain the proud owners of a very entertaining and very loud non-
talking mynah!

SUGGESTED READINGS
Dornyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
A comprehensive review of current theories and models of SLA from a
diverse number of psychological perspectives, including applications of
Dynamic Systems Theory and Individual Differences research.
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 25, 46–73.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (ed.),
Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–93).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Both articles offer historical overviews and summaries of developments
in research on language aptitude and review alternatives to earlier views
on language aptitude.
 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning 107

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice.

New York: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of social relationships.
New York: Bantam Books.
Sternberg, R. (2007). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
The evolution of the work of Gardner, Goleman, and Sternberg on
intelligence is manifested in these three practical manuals written for
lay audiences and applied to everyday situations, problems, and
relationships.

LANGUAGE LEARNING EXPERIENCE: JOURNAL ENTRY 4

Note: See Chapter 1 for general guidelines for writing a journal on a previous
or concurrent language learning experience.

• If you had to classify your approach to learning a foreign language,

would it be more Skinnerian, Ausubelian, or Rogersian? Or a combina-
tion of them?
• Sometimes teachers don’t give students opportunities to emit language
in the classroom, and just keep eliciting too much. Sometimes it’s the
other way around. What is your experience? If you feel (or have felt) that
you don’t have enough chances to volunteer to speak, what can (could)
you do to change that pattern?
• Rogers recommended “nondefensive” learning. Do you feel that you are
learning to defend yourself against the teacher’s disapproval, or against
your classmates, or against bad grades? Are your classmates your allies
or competitors?
• Short of actually taking a traditional language aptitude test, how
would you assess your own “knack” for learning languages? Whether
your self-assessment is high or low, what do you think are key com-
ponents of high language aptitude? Can you “learn” some of those
abilities?
• Do any of Gardner’s eight types of intelligence strike you as being cru-
cial to your success in your foreign language? Or how about Sternberg’s
three views of intelligence? Or Goleman’s EQ? Are there any intelligences
that you underutilize? What can you do about that?
• Have you been taught with either Audiolingual techniques (rote rep-
etition and drills) or CLL-like activities (small, supportive groups
that are encouraged to initiate your own utterances), discussed at
the end of the chapter? If so, what is (was) your assessment of their
effectiveness?
108 CHAPTER 4 Human Learning

FOR THE TEACHER: ACTIVITIES (A) & DISCUSSION (D)

Note: For each of the “Classroom Connections” in this chapter, you may wish
to turn them into individual or pair-work discussion questions.

1. (A) Divide the class into small groups. Assign each group one of the
three major perspectives on learning from the first part of the chapter.
Tasks for the groups are to “defend” their particular perspective as the
most insightful or complete. To do so, each group will need to summa-
rize strengths and to anticipate arguments from other groups. Have each
group report findings back to the class and encourage questions or chal-
lenges from the other groups.
2. (A) As a follow-up activity, ask the same groups to formulate an integrated
understanding of human learning by taking the best of all three points of
view. Have them report their thoughts back to the rest of the class.
3. (D) Ask students to reiterate the difference between elicited and emitted
responses. What are some examples of operants that are emitted by the
learner in a foreign language class? And some responses that are elicited?
Specify some of the reinforcers that are present in language classes. How
effective are certain reinforcers?
4. (D) Skinner felt that punishment, or negative reinforcement, was just
another way of calling attention to undesired behavior and therefore
should be avoided. Do you think correction of student errors in a class-
room is negative reinforcement? How can error treatment be given a pos-
itive spin, in Skinnerian terms?
5. (A) Ask pairs to list some activities they consider to be rote and others
that are meaningful in foreign language classes they have taken (or are
teaching). Do some activities fall into a gray area between the two?
Evaluate the effectiveness of all the activities your group has listed. Pairs
will share conclusions with the rest of the class.
6. (A) Divide the class into small groups. Ask each group to look back at
the section on foreign language aptitude and determine what factors they
think should be represented in a comprehensive taxonomy of compo-
nents language aptitude. Use the blackboard to list findings, and to com-
pare various groups’ suggestions with those of other groups.
7. (A) Divide the class, numbers permitting, into as many as eight pairs.
Assign each pair one of Gardner’s eight multiple intelligences. Have
groups brainstorm typical language classroom activities or techniques that
foster their type of intelligence. Ask group representatives to make a list
of their activities on the blackboard. Ask the class to evaluate the lists.