The sociocultural approach of language learning
The sociocultural approach of language learning is based on Vygotsky (1981), who investigated the social experience’s role in the development and acquisition of individual knowledge. The emphasis is put on the social context in the process of learning including the impact of social and cultural context on the cognition of the learners as well as how the social environment is linked to the establishment of the higher cognitive process. Vygotsky (1981) emphasize the connection between the social and cultural environment as the learning process. As learners start the learning process before they are in a classroom setting, and learning that is acquired is based on what the learner already knows. This implies that all the necessary cognitive activities are based on social interactions with the cognitive skills and patterns of a learner’s thinking and through a process based on actions that the learner have undertaken within the social institution and backgrounds they grew up in. Interaction can either be denied as intrapersonal whereby the events involves communication and interaction between two people while interpersonal interaction is those that occur in the mind of the individual.
The interactions make a connection between the language and through the process, providing a link for the learning context and learners with the opportunities to improve their language proficiency.
Vygotsky emphasized social interaction, promote the learning process, unlike Piaget’s views that connect biology and development in learning.
Vygotsky (1978) proposed a zone of proximal development defining it as the distance between the actual levels of development of learning through independent problem solving and the potential development levels that are acquired during problems solving with the supervision of adults and interaction with peers. The zone of proximal development acts as a connecting model for high levels of cognitive growth. It provides an explanation on how the learning experience can be structure efficiently, allowing opportunities for improved achievement. The sue of scaffolding as a teaching approach focuses on moving the students into their incompetence translating it to increased competence through socialisation and engagement of activities with an adult or with a peer who have already achieved a particular function.
Mair (2013) indicates that the sociocultural constructivism theory is popular in second language acquisition because it allows for the construction of knowledge and its development with learning achieved interaction with others. Interaction promotes language learning as it encourages acquisition a dimension that is critical in the socialisation process (Saville-Troike, 2006). In understanding how a second or foreign language can be learnt, it is as such critical to understand the social and environmental factors that promote and affect one’s increase in competence in the learning of languages. Jessner (2008) indicates that based on the sociocultural constructivism theory, teachers must give consideration to application of scaffolding the social activities and cultural activities of learners and use them as a source of thinking. The interaction and engagement of teachers and students as well as interaction with peers and colleges in order to achieve language learning.
3.6.3 Second Language Acquisition Theories
Second language acquisition (SLA) is defined as acquiring another language other than one’s native language, which is often referred to as second language (Valdes et al., 2011). Austin (1962) indicate that SLA research focuses on how non-native learners acquire their proficiency in English with most models and theories basing their arguments on the first language acquisition. While a lot of focus has been given to behaviourist and interactionist theories, SLA provides teachers with a way of understanding and acquiring more insights on language learning. Austin (1962) made arguments that studying sentences and words outside the social environment provides little on how communication is undertaken and how it affects the audience. According to Searle (1969), it is not possible to acquire meaning when there is no context of where the communication took place.
Ausubel (1968) made a proposal that effectiveness in learning occur when learners are able to relate the new materials to already existing structure and utilising their knowledge to reorganise their conceptualisation of the ideas. Bonk and Cummings (1998) claimed that when learning takes place, the knowledge is derived from the situational construction made by the learners. Based on these argument, language learning can be concluded and categorised as a social-constructivist perspective. Through the process, learning taken place when the knowledge of the learner is added up from their past experienced and promote through interaction between individuals, groups and peers. There is inactive transfer of knowledge to the new situations as engagement occurs between the social experiences, interaction and knowledge.
As such, constructivist teaching can provide direction for teachers as well as learners on the best approaches to utilise for language learning.
3.6.4 Learning Motivation Theory
Motivation is an important element in second language learning as it provides energy and direction for the learners (Rifai, 2010). Existing evidence on motivation in second language acquisition hold that motivation is both the reason for language learners to acquire second language and also helps in determining the influence it has on the learning of L2 (Zhang and Kim, 2013). Gardner and Lambert (1972) categorised motivation into integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. Integrative motivation is also known as intrinsic motivation and focuses on a desire to language learning enabling communication with the natives of that language as well as identify with them. On the other hand, instrumental motivation also known as intrinsic motivation involves the desire for language learning in order to meet utilitarian goals such as passing an exam or finding employment.
Motivation sources are crucial in learning theory with behaviourist favouring instrumental motivation while the cognitive approach givens focus to integrative motivation. Rifai (2010) holds that integrative motivation is key in promoting second language acquisition as well as sustainability and long term learning while instrumental orientation has limited link to successful second language acquitting (Gardner, 1979). Zhang and Kim (2013) held that integrative motivation was not strongly linked to language learning in the 1980s but in the 1990s, studies revealed that motivation for L2 cannot be limited to the integrative- instrumental motivation categories. Other components and sources of motivation such as desire for knowledge, as a new challenge, academic achievement personal challenge, patriotic or state requirement among others considered to be sources of motivation for L2 learning. As the study aims to review the use of English only and mixed language instruction approaches for the TEFL classroom, the learning motivation is a key element in language learning and may affect the achievement levels of the language learners.
3.6.5 Comprehensive Hypothesis
Comprehensive hypothesis was referred to as input hypothesis and hold that L2 learners must be placed in language environment is meangiful constructed with a high levels of linguistic proficiency available (Krashen, 1982). Despite many books focusing on the use of explicit learning and practice, Krashen (1982) hold that implicit language acquisition from specific input is released in context of establishing and findings conclusion on meaning. It holds that learners acquire language structure beyond their current language proficiency of I in the process of language acquisition and achieve the (I + 1) in language learning (Krashen, 2004). Krashen (1984) claims that language is acquired when the learner understand what others say and are able to read. The pedagogical implication for learning using English Only or Mixed language is based on the classroom practices and teaching methods applied as learning occurs when learners are placed in a situation where there is a higher level of proficiency.
3.6.6 Cummins’ Threshold Hypothesis and Transfer Theory
The threshold hypothesis developed and reviewed by Cummins (1976, 1979, and 2000) is one of the leading theory in evaluating the differences in the academic achievement of students. It argues that learners lose their native language as they shift from L1 to L2 due to the language dominance of English in learning institutions. Further, it argues that the linguistic repertoire and competence acquired by bilingual learners mediate the impacts of the learning experiences in cognitive growth. Cummins (1979, 1981) indicate that literacy, as well as language in bilingual settings, were crucial in the conception of how it results in low ability in both languages. McField and McField, 2014) agree with the argument and indicate that children with low English proficiency will also have low academic achievement, particularly in cases that English only approach is applied. Cummins (1979) further argued that when learners are not native English speakers, they lack the command of the language’s syntactic structures and vocabulary for both languages.
MacSwan (2000) criticizes the threshold hypothesis that some children have limited oral proficiency inL1 when L2 is still developing, a state referred to by Cummins (1979) as ‘semilungualism’. However, the existence of this state is not established empirically with a review of evidence showing that it does not occur in bilingual children (MacSwan and Rolstad, 2010; Wiley and Rolstad, 2014). There are different dimensions of language proficiency that are included in Cummin’s understanding of bilingualism, as indicated in the threshold hypothesis. The current study examines the various elements of language use mentioned by Cummins with attempts made to establish the variability existing among learners and whether these variations are linked to success in learning as proposed by the threshold hypothesis.
Cummins (1981) also proposed the transfer theory in language learning as a complementary theory to the threshold hypothesis. The theory posits the benefit of bilingual education holding that the level of instruction in on language is influenced by its effectiveness in promoting its efficiency with the transfer of this proficiency occurring to the second language depending on the level of exposure to the language being learned both at school and home. Further Cummins (1981) indicate that there also need to be appropriate motivation to learn the language for proficiency to be achieved. Cummins (1981) made a contrast on the viewpoint of common proficiency with a separate proficiency model. The transfer is facilitated when the separate features of the languages translates to a common underlying proficiency allowing for it to be shared. In further expounding on how transfer occur, Cummins (2017) explained that when for instance a dual language program including English and Spanish is implemented, Spanish instruction which facilitates reading, writing and speaking in Spanish no only develops these Spanish skills, but also provides a conceptualization as well as linguistic proficiency linked to the development of literacy for English, the majority language. Krashen (1996) on the other hand, did not focus on the linguistic interdependence hypothesis in expounding on the transfer theory argued that the role transfer plays actors languages. Rather he argued that bilingual instruction leads to reduced achievement differences between the bilingual and monolingual English proficiency children as it allows the English language learners (ELLs) to continue learning while they continue learning English.
Krashen (1996) indicated that learners who were teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) in al all English instruction were able to achieve due to the fact that they had educational resources using them as a de factor bilingual learning. This way, despite not understanding academic instruction in the classroom because of lack of proficiency in English, they were able to acquire L1 support for academic work at home. Westergaard et al., (2017) agree indicating further that being exposed to academic content in L1 enabled the children to have higher proficiency in L2 because of the provision of contextual clues for the learners to make inferences in regards to the meaning of new works, concepts and linguistics structure that were presented in English. Cummins (2017) indicate that there is empirical evidence that indicate that knowledge of literacy and other school subjects is transferred across the learners’ two languages.
MacSwan and Rolstad (2005) critiques the linguistic interdependence hypothesis is the assumption that language and related content are not different. According to Cummins (1981), the surface principles in L1 and L2 have been autotomized while the underlying proficiency involves cognitive demanding communicative activities. Cummin’s model assume that language proficiency includes elements of subject knowledge and this means that proficiency in academic subjects is increased by the use of L1 in providing instructions. Cummins therefore argues that transfer effect is illustrated in bilingualism but the theory is limited in its assumption that content knowledge of other languages which is part of the academic proficiency for learns is common across languages rather than knowledge that is conceptualized depending on the context (MacSwan and Rolstad, 2010).
Based on this, the linguistic interdependence hypothesis means that language that is developed outside the school context is less developed than language utilized in school setting. For instance, Africa American English and other minorities’ characters by low socioeconomic factors is different form the working class and upper class English. This element and agreement of linguistic interdependence hypothesis exposes the theory to criticism similar to those used against threshold hypothesis.
MacSwan and Rolstad (2005) based on this limitation created a framework to transfer theory that differentiated language and conceptual understanding of other subjects. The research drew form neurocognitive evidence in regards to psychological modularity. The neurocognitive research hold that language is cognitively discrete and unique and all learners acquire the language spoken in their community effortless and without systematic instruction with the proficiency to the language shaped and influenced by specific situations that is acquired accidently based on experience (Chomsky, 1995). Curtiss (2013) explains that while language is conceptually linked to conceptual knowledge acquired in school, the knowledge acquired in schools subjects and taught formally is different from linguistic knowledge and as such not part of the learner’s linguistic development. Based on this, transfer is merely a metaphor in referring to the accessibility of conceptual knowledge through number of languages that a learner knows. As transfer occurs through the languages through conceptual learning, learning in schools through L1 helps in the development of conceptual knowledge that is accessible to children as they continue developing their L2 proficiency. MacSwan (2017) argues that development of cognitive underpinnings n transfer theory is similar to the view that multilingual learners have an already existing language systems that is shared and discrete linguistic resources for the learners. Cummins (2017) thus holds that in choosing an instructional approach, languages can either be used together or through the use of code switching transition among others depending on the learning objectives of the teacher.
Therefore, it can be concluded that content knowledge is not linked to one language or the other but rather can be gained and accessed through either of the languages.
3.6.7 Time-on-Task Theory
Rossell and Baker (1996) created and proposed the time on task theory in L2 arguing that the time spent on a task is the key factor influencing the achievement of ELLs. According to the theory, the more time learners spend hearing, speaking as well as studying English, the more their proficiency in L2 will be and this is further linked to higher achievement in the classroom. The task theory posits that the amount spend on learning a subject greatly influences the achievement the learner will make in that subject. The time on task theory as such recommends English only instruction holding that the more time learners spend time studying, listening and writing in English, the better their achievement levels. Porter (1990) advocates for English only instruction in language learning and argue that when all factors are held constant, the more time a learner spends learning a particularly language, the higher their proficiency. Similar to the linguistic interdependence hypothesis, the theory does not different between learning a language and learning academic content in a language. It is important to note that the difference is that linguistics interdependence hypothesis holds that having a common underlying proficiency is a form of repository for some of the school content knowledge while time on task does not hold this viewpoints.
3.6.8 Summary of Theoretical Framework
The theories discussed provides recommendations on the approaches that can be utilized to achieve academic success and language proficiency in English. Behaviorism argue that learning occur through stimulus-response link with habit formed, conditioning occurring as well as reinforcement allowing a error free environment for learning in small and predetermined steps. It implies that presentation of information, feedback as well as questions arouse a response form the learner and positive reinforcement is used for positive performance with repetition allowing for continued learning process. On the other hand, Constructivism makes an argument that learners learn in an active and engaging environment where they interact with the physical as well as social world.
Cognitive constructivism is based on Piaget’s work and hold that individual learning involves knowledge development through experience while sociocultural constructivism is based on L.S Vygotsky and hold that the social context is a critical part of the learning process. While holding different ideologies, cognitive and sociocultural constructivism indicate that link between the environment of the learner and the learning process. Second language acquisition is a theory that holds that the learning of a second language with a basis or point of reference being the language that the learner already has. Learning motivation theory holds that instrumental and integrative motivation provides the drive for learner to learn and acquire a language while comprehension hypothesis hold that L2 learners need to be placed in an environment where there is a higher stage of linguistic knowledge and proficiency prompting the learning process.
Transfer and threshold hypothesis theory recommend the use of bilingual education as a form of instructional strategy. For instance, threshold hypothesis hold that hypothesized intermediate cognitive impact is that it increases overall bilingualism with the result predicated to be achievement of higher achievement in English. Transfer on the other hand hold that bilingual education have an intermediate impact whereby it increases the academic achievement of L1 as learners increase theory proficiency in English with an agreement that this knowledge will be transferred to L2 learning environment. The time on task theory however, recommends children should spend as much time as they can in English whereby the effect will be increased proficiency in English and overall improved academic achievement.
4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Defining L1, L2, L3
L1 is defined as the native language of languages that a speaker has while L2 involves one or more of non-native languages that a speaker has (Hammarberg, 2014). Based on this definition, an individual can have a number of L1s and L2s where he can more than one native language and more than one acquired languages. In explaining L3, it is argued to get a unique case of l2 whereby the third language L3 involves t a non-native language that an individual currently use or being acquired when the individual already has one of more L2 in addition to having more than one L2 (Hammarberg, 2010). For instance, an individual can be monolingual with English their L2 as the theory first non-native language they have acquired while for others, they already have two languages for instance, Spanish and an additional heritage language with English becoming their L3. Bonnet and Siemund (2018) indicate that L3 language acquisition is particular complex than L2 acquisition due to the multilingualism and cross linguistic impacts that are not limited to L1 and L2 but rather involve three languages that influence each other. The complex linguistic system is what causes a division between bilinguals and monolinguals and is stated to cause a difference in the skills development and proficiencies in foreign language acquisition. Jessner (2008) indicate that the metalinguistic awareness involves the ability for a learner to have a focus on the linguistic structure and the ability to switch focus from the structure to wat it means. An individual who has metalinguistic awareness has the ability to make categorisation of words in a speech and switch focus in the functions structure and meaning as well as explain the reason why words have a particularly function. Hammarberg (2010) indicate that there is a positive relationship between language skills in a language acquisition and metalinguistic awareness. Aronin and Jessner (2015) claim that higher achievement recorded for individuals with metalinguistic awareness particularly in reading, grammar writing and speaking. Metalinguistic awareness is not only found in bilinguals and multilinguals but also monolinguals through it only in one language and this it lower when compared to bilinguals and multilinguals.
Role of Transfer in Language Acquisition from L1 and or L2 to L3
Globalization, increased mobility as well as advancement in technology are some of the reasons there is an increase in the learning of more than one language with many individuals learning a second, third and even fourth language in addition to their own native language L1 (Cummins, 2017). Mair (2013) indicate that English is the most studied language as a second or foreign language in this highly multilingual world. The increased demand for learning different language has resulted to a complex situation where monolingual, bilinguals as well as multilinguals are studying foreign languages in mixed groups (Bonnet and Siemund, 2018). Illman and Pietila (2018) agree stating that this is rampant in high school setting whereby monolinguals, bilinguals and multilinguals met in a classroom setting and learn English as a second or foreign language L2. This is because different languages first, second and even third language. For instance, a Monolingual Spanish students may seek to learn English as their L2 in class where English is a L3, L1 and L3 for some of the students. As a consequence, research in language acquisition has become rampart with different researcher focusing on acquiring and learning English as a second and third language in a class with both bilingual, monolingual and multilinguals students.
One of the most common question is whether the language being acquired is a second or third language. Many scholars report that there is evidence differencing between language acquisitions as a second or third language (Krohn, 2017). Aronin and Jessner (2015) argue that there students who are multilinguals have an advantage over monolingual learners when it comes to acquiring an additional language. In contrast, there are studies where bilingualism is presented as disadvantage for the learners. It is however unclear to that extent there can be a claim of multilingual advantage or multilingual disadvantage. Haukas (2015) indicate that language acquisition as well as understanding of a language have multiple dimensions with many factors such as one’s social background, L2 acquisition L3 acquisition among others, need to be put into consideration. There is need to establish and explore the transfer occurring between languages such as L1 and/or L2 in acquiring another language for instance English when compared to L2 English as L2. There is evidence that bilingual learners of English as a foreign language have an advantages over monolingual English learners while some argue that there is no advantage. According to the transfer theory, language constellation occurs whereby language that a learner already knows affects their acquisition of the English language. Based on the learning theories discussed, this can be explored with the role of transfer established.
According to Rothman (2013), transfer involves acquiring influence from existing linguistics proficiency and knowledge on the development and achievement of the target non-native language. For instance, there is transfer on transposing grammatical features whereby the functional features and structure of an already learner language can be transferred to the language currently being acquired. Westergaard et al., (2017) explains the linguistic proximity model argue that transfer experienced can either be positive or negative whereby linguistic proficiency in a learner’s language can influence their performance in the language they are learning positively or in a negative manner. Bilinguals’ advantage over monolinguals
Majority of studies report that there is a link between being bilingual and improved and better performance and achievement in acquiring a foreign language (Agustin-Llach, 2017). However, there are those who do not repot a bilingual advantage. For instance, Hopp (2018) undertook a comparative study of bilinguals in German and Turkish languages and monolinguals speaking German and report no difference in their English proficiency and performance. While Siemund and Lechner (2015) reported a benefit for learners acquiring English in a young bilingual cohort, they did not report this advantage on their older cohort of 16 years of age arguing against the bilingual advantage. Spellerberg (2016) conducted a study analysing bilinguals and monolingual in Denmark and failed to establish bilinguals having a higher levels of metalinguistic awareness. Spellerberg (2016) results indicate that the status of proficiency of a bilingual individual influences the metalinguistic awareness and linked to achievement in their academics. Based on this, metalinguistic awareness positively impacts the academic achievement while higher metalinguistic awareness is not linked to bilingualism or multilingualism. S such, in comparing monolinguals with bilinguals and their associated advantages and cross linguistic impacts of already learned languages, it is critical to consider the type of bilingual learners as this is suggested to influence the outcome. Based on Hopp (2018) and Siemund and Lechner (2015), their results indicate that there are variable that may explain the advantages experienced by learners and not singularly their status of being monolingual, bilingual or multilingual. Groh (2018) for instance suggests that performance of the learners is dependent on the family’s social status whereby their studies concluded that those who attended school in lowly ranked schools performed poorly when compared to those who went to highly ranked schools. In conclusion, evidence suggests that L2 and L3 learners of English language have difference achievement and performance with bilingual learners indicated to have an advantage over their monolingual colleagues due to their application of structural knowledge of the two languages unlike the monolingual who only have proficiency in one. However there are studies that do not support the bilingual advantage over monolingual and argue that there are other factors and variable that influence language acquisition such as school attended, learner’s background, and socioeconomic status among others.