Cognitive perspective of L2 learning

Similar to the sociocultural perspective of language learning, the cognitive

perspective did not originate from the field of SLA. It borrows ideas from cognitive theory to explain the phenomenon of language learning. In the cognitive theory domain, there have been a number of theories and models proposed. It would be difficult and unrealistic for this research to present all the theories, however. There are two main groups of cognitive researchers, each holding different positions on how L2 are acquired. I will present one theory/model from each group of researchers in order to reveal the possible influence of the cognitive perspective on textbook design and evaluation. For one group of researchers, learning a L2 requires the same cognitive mechanisms as other human learning activities. ‘Learning’ here does not refer to study and deliberate efforts to learn a new skill, but to the unconscious perception of patterns and knowledge from the environment. This learning process is related to implicit learning mechanisms. For other researchers, however, L2 learning is more explicit and it uses different mechanisms from L1 learning.

Processibility theory (Pienemann, 1998) comes from the first group and Skills Acquisition Theory (DeKeyser, 2007) comes from the other group. These two opposing theories will be reviewed in this section. Following these, two major ideas that have influenced textbook design – noticing and working memory – will be discussed.

The cognitive perspective is important to the current research because a range of major concepts in this field impact on issues in textbook design. In the previous two fields, for example, the reasons why learners acquire some grammar forms earlier than others have not been explained. Theories from the cognitive perspective can provide explanations and guide the design of textbooks in this regard. This

perspective provides a different angle from which to look at language and language learning. The table below shows the structure of this section:

3.1.3.1 Processability Theory

The first theory is Processability Theory (PT), which focuses on implicit knowledge acquisition. Pienemann (1998) claims that in order to understand the process of SLA, a theory of grammar and process should be adopted. This theory aims to explain the process of how learners apply procedural skills to compute linguistic knowledge. The central work of PT is a developmental hierarchy of syntax and morphology. This processability hierarchy is based on Levelt’s (1989) approach to language production and Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 2001). Pienemann (2007) suggests that PT is a universal framework that can predict a learner’s “developmental trajectory” for any L2 (2007, p.138).

Processability hierarchy is presented below. Linguistic knowledge that can be

processed in each hierarchy is shown at each stage (Pienemann, 1998; 2007, p.140): 1) No procedure: Learners only have access to the conceptual structures of

individual words and phrases that are formulated. Syntactic knowledge is missing;

2) Category procedure: At this stage the lexical items have grammatical category, which produces morphological markers for the lexicon. Grammatical information is still missing;

3) None phrase procedure: Learners develop phrasal procedures. They can share the information at phrase level, e.g. within a head and its modifiers. Information over phrases is not possible;

4) Verb phrase procedure: Phrases are assembled into sentences. Each phrase has a clear function within the sentence;

5) Sentence procedure: Learners are able to process the syntactic Cognitive perspective

Processability Theory Skills Acquisition Theory Noticing

information at the level of sentences;

6) Subordinate clause procedure: At this stage, learners are able to use subjunctive in subordinate clauses triggered by the main clause. Later Pienemann et al. (2005) suggested an extended version of PT, which includes more aspects of language generation. It discusses the relationship between argument structure and grammatical structure. Language learners follow an internal hierarchy when developing their grammatical competence. The hierarchy is implicationally ordered, which means that each procedure has to be completed before going into the next one. Learners are not able to generate language unless they are ready for this stage.

The teachability hypothesis is the potential pedagogical implication from

Processability theory, though it was proposed long before PT. The basic principle of the teachability hypothesis is that the effects of teaching are constrained by the development stage of learners (Pienemann, 1984). It is suggested that the stages of acquisition cannot be skipped through formal instruction. Instruction should focus on the structures in the next stage in order to benefit learning (Pienemann, 1998).

According to Pienemann (2007), The teachability hypothesis has been supported by a range of empirical studies. These studies show that formal L2 learners follow the same developmental trajectories as the learners in their natural state, no matter what aspects of language the formal teaching focuses on (Pienemann, 1984; 1989).

Other researchers have proposed similar notions to the teachability hypothesis. Corder (1981) suggests that L2 learners have an internal learning order of the TL. According to this view, learners may not be able to acquire a grammar rule shown later in the internal syllabus if it is taught by the teacher at an earlier stage. In the domain of SLA, there are also studies focusing on the order of acquisition, which have yielded fruitful results. Ellis (1994) summarises that such research often focuses on morpheme studies, such as pronouns, and syntactic structures, e.g. negatives, relative clauses, word order rules, and so on. Judging by the results, studies of acquisition order of syntactic structures had the greatest uniformity and some of them even showed a universal order across different second languages, e.g. research on the initial stage of preverbal negotiation.

Pienemann suggests that the processability hierarchy can be varied because of the TL. As the current research has a focus on TCFL textbooks, a review of research on the acquisition order of syntactic structures in Chinese learning is presented below. Shi (1998) studied the acquisition order of 22 sentence forms, which are all major forms in Chinese that learners need to acquire. Her study made a major step forward in proving the existence of a natural acquisition order in the process of learning Chinese as a L2. Other studies in this area include the acquisition of interrogative questions, complements, shi sentence (to be…), ‘you’ sentence (to have) and so on (Qian, 1997; Shi, 1998; Ding, 2007). The number of studies in this area is not many, however, and no research has been found that links such research with materials design. It is therefore hard to say whether these results can be used as criteria for materials design and evaluation.

In summary, PT and the teachability hypothesis are useful for language teaching because they can provide guidance around the hierarchies in language. The research may not be as convincing for Chinese as it for English, however. In the next section, another model will be presented, which explains language learning in terms of explicit learning.

3.1.3.2 Skill Acquisition Theory

The previous models explored the process of implicit learning. Next, I will explore a theory on the language learning process inherent in explicit learning - Skill

Acquisition Theory. The central idea of Skill Acquisition Theory is that learning a skill follows a developmental path from receiving the initial presentation of new knowledge to using the skills in a fluent, effortless, and highly skilled manner. A set of principles are followed in this development process (DeKeyser, 2007). The skills to which this theory refers are wide-ranging, e.g. cognitive skills and psychomotor skills. DeKeyser (1997; 2001; 2007) first applied Skills Acquisition Theory to L2 learning. There are three developmental stages: declarative, procedural and automatic

(DeKeyser, 2007):

1) Declarative stage: The aim of this stage is to establish new explicit knowledge. Abstract descriptions of the knowledge with some examples

are given in this stage. The storage of knowledge requires usage of working memory, constrained by its limited capacity (The view of working memory from the cognitive perspective will be presented in Section 3.1.3.4). In order to retain the knowledge, learners should pay attention to how it is used.

2) Procedural stage: In this stage, the learners practice the skill by putting the knowledge they learnt into action. Performance can be restructured in this stage. Through repeating activities, learners can reach

proceduralisation. At the same time, the burden of working memory reduces. Proceduralised knowledge is more useful than declarative knowledge; it is no longer necessary for the learners to retrieve pieces of information and assemble them to make a programme for use. The knowledge can be used as a single unit.

3) Automatic stage: Automatisation is achieved in this stage. This enables the usage of proceduralised knowledge more reliably and in a higher speed. It is difficult to make change or eliminate the knowledge that has been automatised because it is outside the control of the learner’s attention in this stage. Progressive stages are found throughout the skill training; firstly, simple skills become automatic, and then more complex ones can be learnt.

Another two key concepts under this theory are ‘power law’ and the restrictions of transference of skills. ‘Power law’ refers to the fact that both reaction time and error rate decrease after practice and improvement slows down sharply before stabilising without reaching an end point (DeKeyser, 2007). Through the development in these three stages, this law can be observed. The other concept relates to the transference of knowledge. It is believed that an automatised skill is so specific that it cannot be transferred into use in another situation, even though the other task is quite similar. Evidence has been found in research about comprehension and production in language learning (DeKeyser, 1997; DeKeyser and Sokalski, 2001).

To conclude, language learning can be either an implicit or explicit process. For textbook design, PT is more useful in informing the arrangement of linguistic elements, while Skills Acquisition Theory can guide the design of exercises. Such

influences will be further discussed in Section 3.4.3. 3.1.3.3 Noticing

In Sections 3.1.3.3 and 3.1.3.4, I will present two cognitive theory concepts that have influenced teaching material design: noticing and working memory. They are both important factors that have been researched extensively in the domain of cognitive language learning. In this section I will concentrate on the main research findings and their implications for textbook design.

‘Noticing’ (or focal awareness, conscious awareness) refers to paying conscious attention to certain forms in the input. Schmidt is a key researcher to have

disseminated the importance of noticing in language learning (Schmidt, 1990; 1994; 2001). Supported by the evidence from his personal diary, Schmidt advocates that noticing is both necessary and sufficient for input to turn into intake. He later revised this view to suggest that noticing is beneficial for learning (Schmidt, 1994).

There are some studies showing that asking students to pay attention to the

connections between language forms and meanings can facilitate language learning (e.g. VanPatten, 2004). In the field of L2 learning, the form-focused approach (Long, 1991; Ellis, 2002), which has been mentioned in the functional view of language learning, suggests that learners should be asked to focus on the meaning of a text, followed by paying attention to the form and function of a certain linguistic feature. This can be done through instruction and/or consciousness-raising.

Since we know that noticing and attention is beneficial for language learning, then how it is allocated? Attention is controlled by central executive functions in the working memory. The characteristic of working memory will be discussed next. 3.1.3.4 Working memory

‘Working memory’ (WM) refers to a mechanism functioning on temporary storage, manipulation, and the maintenance of information during online cognitive tasks such as comprehending and producing language, as well as general learning (Miyake and Shah, 1999, cited in Mitchell et al., 2013). It is commonly believed that WM is used for language comprehension, which is necessary for language learning. WM is

composed of two essential components: ‘short-term memory’ and ‘central executive ability’. The former is used for storing information temporarily (and feeding some information into long-term memory later), and the latter controls the information when the requirement of carrying out complex tasks emerges (summarised by

Williams, 2012). The storage part can encode, store and rehearse information such as phonological and visual spatial information. The mechanisms for doing these are called ‘phonological memory’ and ‘visuo-spatial sketchpad’.

The most prevailing characteristic of WM is its limited capacity and how it controls the allocation of attention. The limited capacity of WM is the main element that could potentially impact materials development. Other studies related to WM include

correlations between general L2 proficiency and measures of WM, the role of WM in online processing of syntactic relations within sentences, phonological memory in WM, and so on. These studies have little connection with current research relevant to this thesis, hence they will not be discussed here.

In Section 3.1, I have reviewed the theories related to L2 learning from three different perspectives: SLA, SCT, and cognitive theory. I aimed to show how much the current research about how a language is learnt is relevant to the research topic, so that their influence on textbook design can be fully explored in later parts of this thesis. Theories about language learning are the foundation for textbook design. In Section 3.2, I will move on to discuss another important factor related to textbook design and use, which is teaching methodology and teachers.