This document summarizes schools of thought in second language learning from the 1940s to 2000s. It describes how behaviorism and structural linguistics were dominant in the 1940s-1950s, focusing only on observable behaviors and language units. In the 1960s, cognitive psychology and transformational-generative linguistics emerged, considering mental processes, meaning, and innate language abilities. Finally, constructivism developed in the 1980s-2000s, emphasizing learners' active role in constructing understanding through individual cognitive processes and social interaction. The document concludes that no single theory can fully explain language learning.

1. Schools of Thought in
Second Language Learning
(1940’s - 2000’s)
Source: Brown, D. Principles of Language
Learning and Teaching. (p.p.9-15)

2. Trends in Linguistics and
Psychology



Psychology

1940’s-1950’s:
Behaviorism/
Neobehaviorism
-1960’s:
Cognitive Psychology


Linguistics
1940’s-1950’s:
Structural Linguistics
-1960’s:
TransformationalGenerative School

3. 1940’s-1950’s

Behaviorism
-It focused only on
publicly observable
behaviors

Structural Linguistics
-Only observable
linguistic behaviors
can be studied.
Language could be
dismantled into small
pieces or units,
described
scientifically,
contrasted, then
added up again to
form the whole.

4. Cont’d
Behaviorism

-Notions such as
intuition, memory,
thinking, or any
mental processes
were ignored.
Structural Linguistics
-Notions such as
meaning or thought
were completely
ignored.

5. Cont’d
Behaviorism
-Learning a behavior:
through conditioning
‘organisms’ to
respond in desired
ways to stimuli --}
Practice/ drilling is
important.
Structural Ling.
-Learning language:
conditioning learners to
make the right
connection between
stimuli and the
desired responses --}
Drilling in the language
classroom was a
dominant method.

6. Cont’d
Behaviorism
-Reinforcement
(Positive or
negative) plays an
important role in
learning.
Structural Ling.
-Positive/ negative
reinforcement play
a significant role in
language learning.

7. The 1960’s - 1980’s
Cognitive Psychology
TransformationalGenerative Linguistics
-Meaning,
-They broke away from
understanding, and
the structuralists’
knowing are
insistence on only
important
studying observable
psychological data.
language
(performance)



8. Cont’d
Cognitive Psychology
-Cognitivists sought to
discover underlying
motivation and
deeper structures of
human behavior.
TransformationalGenerative Linguistics
-Linguistics goes
beyond mere
description of the
surface structure of
language.

9. Cont’d
Cog. Psych.
-Instead of focusing on
the mechanical
stimulus-response
connections,
cognitivists tried to
focus on
psychological
principles of
organization and
functioning.
T-G Linguistics
-Studying competence
reveals the hidden level
of meaning and thought
(deep structure) that
generates the observable
performance.
-learning language:
language is speciesspecific; it is innate:
human beings are born
with the ability to learn
language.

10. The 1980’s – 2000’s


Constructivism
It involves the integration of linguistic,
psychological, and sociological
paradigms.
The active role of the learner is
emphasized.
A. Cognitive constructivism: emphasizes the
role of the learner in constructing his/her
own representation of reality:

11. Constructivism
-Learners must transform complex
information to make it their own.
 A more active role for students in their
learning.
Piaget argues that, “learning is a
developmental process that involves
change, self-generation, and construction,
each building on prior experiences.” (in
Kaufman, 2004).

12. Constructivism


B. Social Constructivism: emphasizes the
importance of social interaction and
cooperative learning in constructing
cognitive and emotional images of reality.
Language learning is a result of thinking
and meaning-making that is “socially
constructed and emerges out of [learners’]
social interactions with the environment.”
(Brown, p. 13)

13. What is the Best Theory?


No single theory is right or wrong all the
way!
“Some truth can be found in every critical
approach to the study of reality.” (Brown,
p. 14)