How do you think you are making sense of your language learning? Do you believe it is similar to Pavlov's stimulus-response type learning, Skinner's Operant Conditioning, Roger's Humanistic Psychology or a combination of these theories?
I think ideally my language learning would consist of a combination of Skinner's Operant Conditioning and Roger's Humanistic Psychology. However, my language learning through Livemocha was more Skinner's Operant Conditioning than anything else. Each time I made a mistake, it would immediately tell me I was wrong. However, it did not offer the correct answer. Also, each time I did answer correctly, I received positive reinforcement. In addition, if I did not answer enough questions correctly, then I would have to start all over until I got the right amount of answers. I felt these drill and test activities were very operant conditioning. Also, my recording of speaking in Italian received immediate positive or negative feedback.
When I am learning Spanish through Livemocha, I compare Spanish with English constantly in phonemes, morphemes, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and try to retain the new language systematically while generating grammatical rules intuitively. I believe these processes reflect David Ausubel’s subsumption theory. Also, when I am learning new words, I repeat after the speaker many times in order to be as close to her pronunciation as I can. At the point, my behavior is consistent with Pavlov’s stimulus-response theory. When I am answering the fill-in-the-blanks, I am trying to withdraw the related information to find the right answer. I want to get the 100% result. So I think Skinner’s operant conditioning theory is working at this point. Additionally, although there is no authentic context, I still feel the changes of my emotion when I am encountering different problems.
Therefore, I believe the process that I am going through when I am making sense of language learning on-line is largely consistent with Ausubel’s Subsumption Theory, although Pavlov’s stimulus-response, Skinner’s Operant Conditioning and Roger’s Humanistic Psychology are also in use in some specific tasks.
My current language learning through Livemocha seems to be similar to Skinner’s Operant Conditioning. They tell me a word or a phrase, I read it, I say it, the operants are then my reading and speaking. This is merely rote memorization in order to pass the small tests that Livemocha gives, which is my reinforcer, I like the feeling of achievement when I get 100% on the test. I am learning, but I don’t think it’s the best type of learning, certainly not the type of learning that will stick with me if I ever decide to visit Spain and speak Catalan. Overall, though, I believe that language learning is a mix of all three theories. When a student starts a new language, whether they are already deeply committed or not, there is simply a stimulus response type of learning, you say, they repeat. This helps students build some basic knowledge of the language, but it can only go so far, I would say a few lessons. Next follows Skinner’s Operant Conditioning, now that the student have a base for the language, they may be a little more connected to the language and may now look forward to certain reinforcers like good grades and oral fluency. Once this stage has been reached, then it’s a good time to work with Roger’s Humanistic Psychology. At this point the students are more deeply involved with the language and now they need to freedom to play and have fun with it, to make it their own.
In terms of my language learning experiences through livemocha, I am definitely utilizing Skinner’s operant conditioning. My language experience reflects behaviorism because I hear the new vocabulary word and then repeat it over and over and over again. When asked to create output, I regurgitate back the language I have learned but I do so in a rote manner. I cannot use these words in a sentence, but I can recite the vocabulary list. My learning is isolated, I make no connections to prior knowledge, and I do not use the language for conversation purposes—this is definitely rote learning. Further aligning with Skinner’s theory, my bad behavior (incorrect use of language) is immediately corrected by the computer. On livemocha good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is corrected instantly; just as it would be in operant conditioning. My learning is not meaningful and I am simply repeat and reciting what I have memorized.
However, as a teacher I would like to think that I would create a language learning environment more reflective of Roger’s Humanistic approach. I think interaction is so important in the L2 classroom in order create meaningful learning and authentic experiences. It is for this reason that my learning of Portuguese is not sticking with me because I am not using the language in meaningful ways. Roger’s looks at constructivism in terms of the whole person and social constructing of knowledge. I believe if I was following a more social constructivist means of language learning, I would be more successful and actually learn the language. This way I would be able to take ownership of the knowledge and really be able to use the language. Unfortunately, I am not learning language through livemocha in this way so my learning is not substantial.
I recognize elements if Roger’s Humanistic Psychology in my own ideal pedagogy because to me, creating a comfortable, safe classroom environment is my number one priority when gaining a new class. I usually build my first week of instruction around “getting to know you” type activities meant to highlight the importance of comfortable social interaction. Because this is obviously a value of mine, you might think it would be something I am missing in my current language learning. However, I don’t think creating that kind of environment is nearly as important in an online learning scenario where students rarely (if ever) co-mingle with each other or an instructor. So Roger’s Humanistic Psychology is ruled out.
I think Ausubel (from Ausubel’s Subsumption Thoery) would deem a lot of the learning that I do on livemocha.com to be potentially rote learning. Units are rarely connected or submerged in meaningful connected which is key to Ausubel. Sometimes I am memorizing the term “coin” for one slide and “car” for the next slide. However, according to Ausubel a situation can be meaningful if learners relate what they are learning to what they already know and if the learning task is potentially meaningful. I do try to make the vocabulary stick by applying tricks like mnemonic devices and using positive transfer where applicable (though this is usually transfer from Spanish to Portuguese, because I find the two languages much more related). According to the text, “We can make things meaningful if necessary and we are strongly motivated to do so” (p. 93). Thankfully my interest in learning Portuguese is high so both of these work in favor towards moving my learning from rote to meaningful.
Skinner’s Operant Conditioning focuses on repetition with reward with a foundational belief that “virtually any subject can be taught effectively and successfully by a carefully designed program of step-by-step reinforcement” (p. 90). A skinner classroom would be highly structured. I believe that this is the model that most closely aligns with my livemocha.com learning because there is definitely a clearly defined linear pattern of progression to the units. I follow the same pattern of introduction, review and testing each time. Skinner also believed that punishment works as a disadvantage. There is very little punishment for incorrect responses in the program. If I answer incorrectly, I see a red box around the answer and I am given as many more chances as I’d like to correct the response. No punishment. Lots of repetition. As for reward, I guess the reward in livemocha.com is the ability to move on, the happy green check mark and a high score for many correct answers.
The language learning through Live Mocha reflects a more heavy emphasis on Skinner than on Rogers or Pavlov. The exercises are good examples of behavioristic theory. A correct answer is met with a positive response. An incorrect answer meets with a negative response. There is immediate opportunity to remedy an incorrect response. We are thus conditioned to come up with the correct response. The sequence of the lessons also is reflective of behavioristic theory. The lessons are geared more towards memorization of vocabulary than towards any meaningful communication. A Rogerian theory would be evident if there were opportunities for more genuine conversation. We do not yet have the language to engage in conversation beyond pre-packaged. As of now, we are restricted to pre-packaged sentences and sentence frames
In my personal experience using Livemocha I feel that it's very Skinnerian in its approach to language learning. This behavioral model of operant conditioning is all about the drill, drill, drill method. I see a word, I hear a word, I match the word to a picture. If I get it right, I move on, otherwise I repeat until I get the right answer. I do have to say though that I'm not sure how I'm being rewarded. I don't get praise, I don't get a physical object or anything, and I'm definitely not self rewarding by feeling good about what I just learned. Reality is that I'm not learning much. I remember enough to get through the lesson, but when I return to it for the next lesson after a few days, I've forgotten everything already.
I like to believe that within my classroom, I use more of a humanistic approach to language learning. I feel it's more about the experience of using the language peppered with explicit exercises that really promote growth in a language learner. Having interactive experiences and being able to practice language skills inside and outside of the classroom for a variety of purposes really pushes a learner.
With this particular type of language learning I see myself learning closer to Pavlov's stimulus-response and Skinner's operant conditioning types of learning, rather than Roger's humanistic psychology. I am interacting with a computer and even though individuals are there to comment I don't feel like I have a teacher as a facilitator, but then again maybe that is my own sense of reality. Throughout the lessons I have completed so far I can relate my learning with Pavlov's stimulus-response activites as I follow the directions and prompts being asked of me. I also can see Skinner's operant conditioning present as I answer questions correctly and incorrectly. I feel a sense of pride as I get answers and questions correct. When I answer qusetions and responses incorrectly it is immediatley brought to my attention. So far, that is how I think I am making sense of my language learning.
This particular style of learning for me has been closely compared to Skinners operant conditioning. This behaviorist theory is based on the idea that one produces a response to the correct stimuli or situation, then that response is followed by a reward that will reinforce the response to happen again, which is the conditioning. With livemocha, that exact cycle is occurring. Each question answered is with the hopes of getting it right and moving on to the next question, with the ultimate reward being the feeling of accomplishment you get and moving a step closer to fluency.
Learning first through Live Mocha would be closer to Skinner's operant conditioning and Pavlov's stimulus-response. I follow the instructions provided by the Live Mocha program and if I do just what it asks, I can move on to the next level. In terms of operant-conditioning, there is a focus on error correction with the immediate feedback on what I have gotten wrong. With our society being based on behaviorilist philosphy (behavior-reinforcement), I cannot stand to get even one question wrong so I redo the questions until I have them all correct. I noticed that I myself am not okay with errors when they are pointed out to me through a grade and no feedback because I immediatly want to correct my answer to get 100%.
I have also started using a book to learn Spanish. It is completly out of context and I am learning in an isolated environment without any interaction. I am very far from the Humanistic approach though I believe this is the type of learning I would be most successful in. When I went to Miami with my boyfriend and spent hours listening to his family speak in Spanish and attempted to communicate with them, I started picking up words and understanding more and more. When I am interacting with people in a contextualized setting, my motivation is higher and I feel an urgency in wanting to learn the language to communicate.
The language program I am using, Behind the Wheel Italian I, I believe reflects elements of the Pavlov stimulus/response theory. It is primarily based on on a stimulus, which is a native speaker saying a phrase, and a response, which is me repeating that phrase. Where this approach does not reflect Skinner is in the sense that there is absolutely no form of reinforcement or feedback. This program is really making me desire feedback because I am very self-conscious about whether or not I am saying the right things. I know that I am making errors yet I don't know how to fix them or exactly when they are occuring because I am not receiving immediate nor any feedback. Behaviorism strongly focuses on the learner's ability to eliminate errors through reinforcement and feedback. I am struggling to even identify let alone eliminate my errors and feel I would benefitfrom Skinner's operant conditioning approach more than I am from this vague stimulus/response approach. Furthermore, I know that my learning would be most meaningful if it reflected Roger's humanistic approach. Learning, based on Roger's humanistic psychology, really focuses on student-centered learning with a teacher as a facilitator. I know that this is near impossible in this type of learning program, but most mornings as I drive to work I really wish that the Italian woman on the CD was sitting next to me and having a conversation with me!
For Pavlov the learning process includes association between stimuli and responses. A certain stimuli automatically lead to specific responses. Additionally, Pavlov recommended us to study human behavior objectively and he has rejected the notions of innateness and instinct. He trained his dog to associate the sound of the bell with food until the dog acquiring a conditioned response (salivation). In other words, stimuli (the sound of the bell) had acquired the energy to elicit a response (salivation) that was originally created by previous stimuli (the smell of food). He considers that his classical conditioning theory as the demonstration for all learning. His theory claimed that we learn when we create a chain of responses through the process of stimulus-responses. Furthermore, Thorndike has added another layer to Pavlov theory by highlighting the stimuli that happened after a behavior had an influence on the future behaviors. Thorndike has called this process “Law of Effects”. This finding prepares another psychologist, B.F. Skinner to create new theory.
According to Skinner, the events of stimuli- the reinforcer - that follow a response and that tend to strengthen behavior or increase the likelihood of that response is shaping and controlling human behavior. For skinner reinforcers play a giant role in learning that is just association of a prior stimulus with a following response, as in the classical conditioning theory. For the Skinnerian philosophy we are governed by the consequences of our behavior, and therefore, we should study the effects of those consequences to better our understanding of the human behavior. Skinner’s Theory of Operant Conditioning has focused on the power of reinforcement for long-term learning. In summary, Skinner concluded the importance of stimuli that happen after a desired behavior.
Roger has more of an affected focus than a cognitive one. Therefore, his focus is close to constructivist view of learning. Rogers agrees with Vygotsky about the social and interactive nature of learning. Roger’s perspective in quite contrast to that of Skinner. Rogers focused on whole person as a physical and cognitive but mainly emotional, being. Moreover, Rogers highlighted the internal factors that cause a person to behavior in a certain way. In other word, He studied the development of the individual’s self-concept (an individual’s perception of self in relation to number of factors) and of her or his personal sense of reality. Roger believes that human’s instinct to be exist lead them to adapt and to grow. “Fully function persons,” according to Rogers, live at peace with all of their feelings and reactions; they are able to reach their full potential (Rogers, 1977). Rogers strongly believe that the goal of education is the facilitating of change and learning. “Many of our system deny both person freedom and dignity” brown said. According to Rogers, teachers have to be the facilitators of learning through the establishment of interpersonal relationship with learners. He refuse the idea of superior in which the teacher is the only person to decide what shall be taught. Teachers need to have genuine trust, acceptance and prizing of the other person-the student as a worthy valuable individual. In addition, Rogers deeply focuses on context of learning rather than the actual cognitive process of learning because he strongly believe that if the context of learning is properly created, then human beings will learn everything they need to.
On one hand, my previous learning language experience has been shaped by the power of the reinforcements according to Skinner’s Operant Conditioning and Pavlov's stimulus-response type learning. On the other hand, my recent learning language experience falls into Roger's Humanistic Psychology.
In my current experience of learning Italian through ItalianPod101.com, I feel like I am learning in the fashion of Pavlov's stimulus-response. Through this program, I am not even able to get feedback as to how I am doing. I simply hear the speaker say a phrase and I am conditioned to repeat after them. I am not getting any positive or negative reinforcement, so this would not relate well to Skinner's theory of Operant Conditioning. This is definitely part of the reason as to why I am not really advancing too quickly in this foreign language. Plus, the lack of motivation and opportunities for authentic practice are other obstacles I face. I personally try to incorporate a Humanistic approach in my learning, though it is sometimes difficult in this case. With the very limited Spanish background I have, I am able to make some connections to new Italian words. For example, this week the lesson focused on saying "Quanti anni hai?" or "How old are you?" and I recall that in Spanish, the phrase is similar: "Cuantos anos tienes?" Having this little bit of background knowledge to connect with allows me to construct my knowledge in a more meaningful way, as Ausubel might agree.
I believe these three theories should combine together and that is what I am trying to do with my second language study. Until now, I have finished 6 lessons Japanese study online, I’d say, I still use stimulus-response and operant conditioning in my learning. By listen how the recording pronounce the language, I can imitate with it and practice to answer some simple questions. However, I believe behaviorism can benefit beginner and should be limited use for higher levels students. To learning a language is not only repeating but also using some strategies. By using strategies, we can remember vocabulary and structures effectively. Humanistic psychology can be used in several ways of learning second language. For me, I think it is very effective if I can find some link between the new knowledge and what I had learned. By this kind of method, I can first remember new knowledge clearly and have a review about my old knowledge as well. However, to build these kind of links are not easy. Especially for me, I have totally no Japanese background. So I believe, teachers guide is very necessary to help students build connection.
There is definitely a strong Behaviorist influence on the LiveMocha language lessons I have completed for this class. The lessons are designed to incorporate introduction to language through rote practice, memorization and regurgitation. I believe that this is, although a sometimes boring practice essential to the beginning steps of learning a new language. My favorite part of the lesson is the final portion of each session where I have to read a text comprised of the language studied in the previous phases. I can then listen to myself speaking Spanish and have my speech reviewed by other LiveMocha members. This is a behaviorist approach that I appreciate. Not often are we able to analyze our speech and pronunciation during regular discourse. I always read the text a couple of times through to practice my pronunciation as I believe that the more practice my muscles have at shaping Spanish sounds, the better my accent will improve. Also behaviorist is the rewards system LiveMocha has set up. The funniest thing about this is the bragging rights the course incorporates at the end of each session. "I just got 100 on my Spanish Vocabulary Quiz." Click here to tell your friends. A little built in reward system, that I find entertaining. I do feel that the behaviorist theory is proved in my lesson on Livemocha, because after having a few people correct errors on my written assignments, I am more careful not to make mistakes. As far as meaningful learning through online sessions, I believe that meaningfulness must be construed by the individual learner. If you go through each session not seeing the co-relation between an office building and a car in the plan, then learning is not too meaningful and so to a humanist may not stick, but it is possible to create the connections and meaningfulness within each session by imaging the office building where you had your first professional position or the first car you drove, etc. Meaning can be found in anything if you are creative and willing enough. This is perhaps, what is so appealing about the humanistic approach. Learning language via the computer enables me to imagine conversations that I can have with live people and so connect me to community. As with all else, I believe my learning style via Livemocha applies multiple learning strategies.
During my experience learning Italian on ItalianPod101, I would say that I am making sense of my second language through Pavlov's classic conditioning. The speakers are presenting this by constant repetition of the material. I am able to write on my work sheet that is given but there's no social interaction. There's also no one telling us that we are right or wrong with positive or negative reinforcement. Best case scenario, I would prefer to learn through a combination of Carl Rodgers Humanistic approach and Ausubel's Subsumption Theory, but one of the problems I am facing now is something we argued in class: "how do you construct your own knowledge if there's nothing for you to connect with"? I need to have meaningful learning if I am going to socially construct my own understanding of another language, but right now I have nothing to build off of. I think that I am struggling with Italian because I am lacking background knowledge in this subject.
My language learning is a combination of these theories. I learned the simple conversation through Pavlov's stimulus-response type learning. For example, when my teacher said:” How are you?” I will response with the answer: “ Fine, thank you, and you?” When I was in elementary school, I hate learning English very much. That’s because my English teacher always blamed and punished me when I made mistakes. At that time I was always afraid of having English classes. However, when I went to junior high school, I met my new English teacher who was very nice and friendly. She always had talks with us, and she shared her interests with us. In L2 classroom, she was more likely to be our friend, listing to us and playing with us. I felt relax in her classroom; I started to like having English classes. And the most important thing is that, she always encouraged me when I made mistakes. All the above that I mentioned are related to Skinner's Operant Conditioning, Roger's Humanistic Psychology. So I think my language learning is a mixture of all these theories.
For me, the language learning process is the combination of Skinner’s Operant Conditioning and Roger’s Humanistic Psychology. When I was learning English, a real teacher was always around me and gave me suggestion and correction. Each time I made a mistake the teacher would point it out and correct it for me until I did it in a right way. For the experience on Livemocha, when I was doing the exercise on livemocha, the system won’t let me go to next question until I give a right answer, which is like reinforcement. I also have to do the inductive and deductive reasoning because they don’t teach grammar rules and I have to generate it by myself.
Now when I learn Japanese on Livemocha, I applied Pavlov’s stimulus-response more, which works better for beginners but not for higher-level students. Livemocha only provides routine sentences and dialogues for me to repeat, there is no feedback or reinforce, so Skinner’s Operant Conditioning have not shown evidence in my Japanese learning. Rogers’s humanistic psychology involves in my foreign language learning, even though it is not in when I learned on Livemocha, it was when I learned English in school. After years of English learning, teachers taught and modeled me how to learn a foreign language. So when I found Livemocha could only provide me stimulus-response pedagogy, which I knew was not enough for foreign language learning, I decided to apply another Japanese textbook as a support. And I tried to relate Japanese words, phrases and grammar to Chinese and English to make my language study more meaningful, rather than merely learning by rote. I also tried to communicate with other Japanese learners to have interactive activities, however the positive outcome is hard to find because of my limited Japanese proficiency, that I could hardly have a meaningful conversation. In my Japanese learning, the lack of motivation, of facilitation from teachers and of authentic language practices are all reasons why my Japanese learning improves slowly.
I would like to think I am learning Portuguese by using the 3 models mentioned above as I believe in a balanced approach of learning language in which we use the theories strategically to fit our student’s needs. However, in this particular setting I believe my learning is much more inclined towards Skinner’s Operant Conditioning where I am handed a concept and then am “drilled” with the objective of learning the word or concept. The award in this case proceeds after successfully responding to the words I am sent to another level awarding my ability to complete the exercises.
I believe my learning on livemocha.com is most like Skinner’s Operant Conditioning. Skinner’s operant theory maintains that language can be learned through conditioning of behavior. Through experimentation, Skinner found that behaviors were dependent upon what happens after a response. I found this to be very much in line with my language learning so far. On livemocha.com, I receive positive reinforcement when I get an answer correct. This positive reinforcement is a check mark or a “congratulations!” at the end of a lesson or unit. The reward for answering questions right is the ability to proceed with other lessons and units. A Skinnerian approach is very focused on drill after drill after drill, which is parallel to my language learning experience on livemocha.com. Lessons consists of a large amount of rote memorization and the repetition of new vocabulary or grammar rules to achieve clear understanding.
Though I am indeed finding that I am learning, I do not think I am maximizing my learning through livemocha.com’s strategies. I find that I would prefer Roger’s humanistic approach to an operant conditioning approach. A humanistic approach consists of an interactive experience with constant conversation and discussion. As a learner and soon to be teacher I find Roger’s approach to be most in line with my beliefs. Like Roger, I believe interaction is key to understanding language and content. Roger also believes that the meaning of behavior is essentially personal and subjective, which I am completely an advocate of.
From studying Spanish on Livemocha I have experienced a combination of a few theories we have learned in class. First of all, Pavlov’s stimulus response theory is very prevalent because of all the repeating and memorization of Spanish vocabulary and sentences on Livemocha. When you get the answer wrong you are punished and cannot move on until you get the correct answer. The reward for the learner is the satisfaction of getting the correct answers which correlates with Skinners Operant conditioning. After finishing a lesson, I am encouraged to share my score with friends via Facebook, E-mail and Twitter. I also find myself using David Ausbel’s Subsumption Theory. I am constantly using my prior knowledge to connect with new Spanish grammar and vocabulary. I consistently engage in transfer from L2 to L1. Unfortunately, I see very little of Roger’s Humanistic Psychology in my online learning. I have not met anyone on Livemocha and there is no group work. I know in my classes Roger’s theory plays a prevalent role. Providing time to really get to know your students and for them to get to know you creates a successful learning atmosphere. At Livemocha there are teachers that will help you, but you must use extra tokens to pay for them. I am unsure about how much of a connection you can build with an online teacher.
The theories related to my language learning begin with Roger's Humanistic learning approach. First, I realize I am motivated and determined to learn Chinese for several reasons. The main reason I am learning Chinese Language at this point is because it is a class assignment, and I hope to do well in the class. I also want to understand the challenges of second language learners, so I can relate and accommodate as a future ESOL teacher. In the bigger scheme of things though, I am interested challenging my mind through learning a complex language. I have worked with and am friends with many Chinese people. Learning Chinese is a conscious self-satisfying pursuit. Motivation to challenge myself and succeed give me a positive emotional response which helps me to assimilate, accommodate, and adapt Chinese into my brain. I think Roger's theory is a little under-rated, especially with respect to adult learners. Roger discusses two types of learning: experiential and cognitive. Cognitive is what kids do when they go to school and learn academic knowledge, he calls this meaningless. Experiential learning he calls significant because he believes the learning addresses the needs and wants of the learner. For me I "need" to learn a second language and "want" to learn Chinese. Roger's believes learning is facilitated when 1) students want to learn 2) they understand the purpose for the learning 3) they have the resources to learn, 4) can balance the struggle of accommodating and adapting to new knowledge (sometimes its stressful when you can't get over a hurdle in learning, but consciously you know the challenge can be overcome, 5) can share their challenges with others. His theory is that a teacher should facilitate learning. One of his main principles is that significant learning occurs when what is being taught is important or relevant to the student. As a teacher making the core content relative to a child's life can sometimes seem the biggest challenge, this is why it is important to carefully evaluate the curriculum. As for other theories related to language learning, my current method of learning is through a Pavlovian style of stimulus response, however my grasp of the material is a conscious, self-driven choice. Thus far in my lesson have been using audio lessons on my ipod using the Pimsleur Method (audio-lingual). But it is a oneway lesson. There is no instructor to help with pronunciation/word correction, and although the lesson asks "are you listening to the pronunciation?" there is no one to tell me if I sound like what I hear. When I am through with each lesson, I teach myself the way my lessons teach me. I ask myself the same questions and repeat accordingly. In this way I can say the model of learning is through operant conditioning, the reinforcer for me come from the way I feel as I know I am repeating the correct answer. I feel great knowing I have some Chinese language in my brain that I can share with my Chinese friends, and impress others as I say a few Chinese phrases. Another positive reinforcer is when I speak with my Chinese friends, they can confirm I am learning Chinese phrases.
I think ideally my language learning would consist of a combination of Skinner's Operant Conditioning and Roger's Humanistic Psychology. However, my language learning through Livemocha was more Skinner's Operant Conditioning than anything else. Each time I made a mistake, it would immediately tell me I was wrong. However, it did not offer the correct answer. Also, each time I did answer correctly, I received positive reinforcement. In addition, if I did not answer enough questions correctly, then I would have to start all over until I got the right amount of answers. I felt these drill and test activities were very operant conditioning. Also, my recording of speaking in Italian received immediate positive or negative feedback.
ReplyDeleteWhen I am learning Spanish through Livemocha, I compare Spanish with English constantly in phonemes, morphemes, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and try to retain the new language systematically while generating grammatical rules intuitively. I believe these processes reflect David Ausubel’s subsumption theory. Also, when I am learning new words, I repeat after the speaker many times in order to be as close to her pronunciation as I can. At the point, my behavior is consistent with Pavlov’s stimulus-response theory. When I am answering the fill-in-the-blanks, I am trying to withdraw the related information to find the right answer. I want to get the 100% result. So I think Skinner’s operant conditioning theory is working at this point. Additionally, although there is no authentic context, I still feel the changes of my emotion when I am encountering different problems.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I believe the process that I am going through when I am making sense of language learning on-line is largely consistent with Ausubel’s Subsumption Theory, although Pavlov’s stimulus-response, Skinner’s Operant Conditioning and Roger’s Humanistic Psychology are also in use in some specific tasks.
My current language learning through Livemocha seems to be similar to Skinner’s Operant Conditioning. They tell me a word or a phrase, I read it, I say it, the operants are then my reading and speaking. This is merely rote memorization in order to pass the small tests that Livemocha gives, which is my reinforcer, I like the feeling of achievement when I get 100% on the test. I am learning, but I don’t think it’s the best type of learning, certainly not the type of learning that will stick with me if I ever decide to visit Spain and speak Catalan. Overall, though, I believe that language learning is a mix of all three theories. When a student starts a new language, whether they are already deeply committed or not, there is simply a stimulus response type of learning, you say, they repeat. This helps students build some basic knowledge of the language, but it can only go so far, I would say a few lessons. Next follows Skinner’s Operant Conditioning, now that the student have a base for the language, they may be a little more connected to the language and may now look forward to certain reinforcers like good grades and oral fluency. Once this stage has been reached, then it’s a good time to work with Roger’s Humanistic Psychology. At this point the students are more deeply involved with the language and now they need to freedom to play and have fun with it, to make it their own.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of my language learning experiences through livemocha, I am definitely utilizing Skinner’s operant conditioning. My language experience reflects behaviorism because I hear the new vocabulary word and then repeat it over and over and over again. When asked to create output, I regurgitate back the language I have learned but I do so in a rote manner. I cannot use these words in a sentence, but I can recite the vocabulary list. My learning is isolated, I make no connections to prior knowledge, and I do not use the language for conversation purposes—this is definitely rote learning. Further aligning with Skinner’s theory, my bad behavior (incorrect use of language) is immediately corrected by the computer. On livemocha good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is corrected instantly; just as it would be in operant conditioning. My learning is not meaningful and I am simply repeat and reciting what I have memorized.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as a teacher I would like to think that I would create a language learning environment more reflective of Roger’s Humanistic approach. I think interaction is so important in the L2 classroom in order create meaningful learning and authentic experiences. It is for this reason that my learning of Portuguese is not sticking with me because I am not using the language in meaningful ways. Roger’s looks at constructivism in terms of the whole person and social constructing of knowledge. I believe if I was following a more social constructivist means of language learning, I would be more successful and actually learn the language. This way I would be able to take ownership of the knowledge and really be able to use the language. Unfortunately, I am not learning language through livemocha in this way so my learning is not substantial.
I recognize elements if Roger’s Humanistic Psychology in my own ideal pedagogy because to me, creating a comfortable, safe classroom environment is my number one priority when gaining a new class. I usually build my first week of instruction around “getting to know you” type activities meant to highlight the importance of comfortable social interaction. Because this is obviously a value of mine, you might think it would be something I am missing in my current language learning. However, I don’t think creating that kind of environment is nearly as important in an online learning scenario where students rarely (if ever) co-mingle with each other or an instructor. So Roger’s Humanistic Psychology is ruled out.
ReplyDeleteI think Ausubel (from Ausubel’s Subsumption Thoery) would deem a lot of the learning that I do on livemocha.com to be potentially rote learning. Units are rarely connected or submerged in meaningful connected which is key to Ausubel. Sometimes I am memorizing the term “coin” for one slide and “car” for the next slide. However, according to Ausubel a situation can be meaningful if learners relate what they are learning to what they already know and if the learning task is potentially meaningful. I do try to make the vocabulary stick by applying tricks like mnemonic devices and using positive transfer where applicable (though this is usually transfer from Spanish to Portuguese, because I find the two languages much more related). According to the text, “We can make things meaningful if necessary and we are strongly motivated to do so” (p. 93). Thankfully my interest in learning Portuguese is high so both of these work in favor towards moving my learning from rote to meaningful.
Skinner’s Operant Conditioning focuses on repetition with reward with a foundational belief that “virtually any subject can be taught effectively and successfully by a carefully designed program of step-by-step reinforcement” (p. 90). A skinner classroom would be highly structured. I believe that this is the model that most closely aligns with my livemocha.com learning because there is definitely a clearly defined linear pattern of progression to the units. I follow the same pattern of introduction, review and testing each time. Skinner also believed that punishment works as a disadvantage. There is very little punishment for incorrect responses in the program. If I answer incorrectly, I see a red box around the answer and I am given as many more chances as I’d like to correct the response. No punishment. Lots of repetition. As for reward, I guess the reward in livemocha.com is the ability to move on, the happy green check mark and a high score for many correct answers.
The language learning through Live Mocha reflects a more heavy emphasis on Skinner than on Rogers or Pavlov. The exercises are good examples of behavioristic theory. A correct answer is met with a positive response. An incorrect answer meets with a negative response. There is immediate opportunity to remedy an incorrect response. We are thus conditioned to come up with the correct response. The sequence of the lessons also is reflective of behavioristic theory. The lessons are geared more towards memorization of vocabulary than towards any meaningful communication. A Rogerian theory would be evident if there were opportunities for more genuine conversation. We do not yet have the language to engage in conversation beyond pre-packaged. As of now, we are restricted to pre-packaged sentences and sentence frames
ReplyDeleteIn my personal experience using Livemocha I feel that it's very Skinnerian in its approach to language learning. This behavioral model of operant conditioning is all about the drill, drill, drill method. I see a word, I hear a word, I match the word to a picture. If I get it right, I move on, otherwise I repeat until I get the right answer. I do have to say though that I'm not sure how I'm being rewarded. I don't get praise, I don't get a physical object or anything, and I'm definitely not self rewarding by feeling good about what I just learned. Reality is that I'm not learning much. I remember enough to get through the lesson, but when I return to it for the next lesson after a few days, I've forgotten everything already.
ReplyDeleteI like to believe that within my classroom, I use more of a humanistic approach to language learning. I feel it's more about the experience of using the language peppered with explicit exercises that really promote growth in a language learner. Having interactive experiences and being able to practice language skills inside and outside of the classroom for a variety of purposes really pushes a learner.
With this particular type of language learning I see myself learning closer to Pavlov's stimulus-response and Skinner's operant conditioning types of learning, rather than Roger's humanistic psychology. I am interacting with a computer and even though individuals are there to comment I don't feel like I have a teacher as a facilitator, but then again maybe that is my own sense of reality. Throughout the lessons I have completed so far I can relate my learning with Pavlov's stimulus-response activites as I follow the directions and prompts being asked of me. I also can see Skinner's operant conditioning present as I answer questions correctly and incorrectly. I feel a sense of pride as I get answers and questions correct. When I answer qusetions and responses incorrectly it is immediatley brought to my attention. So far, that is how I think I am making sense of my language learning.
ReplyDeleteThis particular style of learning for me has been closely compared to Skinners operant conditioning. This behaviorist theory is based on the idea that one produces a response to the correct stimuli or situation, then that response is followed by a reward that will reinforce the response to happen again, which is the conditioning. With livemocha, that exact cycle is occurring. Each question answered is with the hopes of getting it right and moving on to the next question, with the ultimate reward being the feeling of accomplishment you get and moving a step closer to fluency.
ReplyDeleteThis is Ilana...
ReplyDeleteLearning first through Live Mocha would be closer to Skinner's operant conditioning and Pavlov's stimulus-response. I follow the instructions provided by the Live Mocha program and if I do just what it asks, I can move on to the next level. In terms of operant-conditioning, there is a focus on error correction with the immediate feedback on what I have gotten wrong. With our society being based on behaviorilist philosphy (behavior-reinforcement), I cannot stand to get even one question wrong so I redo the questions until I have them all correct. I noticed that I myself am not okay with errors when they are pointed out to me through a grade and no feedback because I immediatly want to correct my answer to get 100%.
I have also started using a book to learn Spanish. It is completly out of context and I am learning in an isolated environment without any interaction. I am very far from the Humanistic approach though I believe this is the type of learning I would be most successful in. When I went to Miami with my boyfriend and spent hours listening to his family speak in Spanish and attempted to communicate with them, I started picking up words and understanding more and more. When I am interacting with people in a contextualized setting, my motivation is higher and I feel an urgency in wanting to learn the language to communicate.
The language program I am using, Behind the Wheel Italian I, I believe reflects elements of the Pavlov stimulus/response theory. It is primarily based on on a stimulus, which is a native speaker saying a phrase, and a response, which is me repeating that phrase. Where this approach does not reflect Skinner is in the sense that there is absolutely no form of reinforcement or feedback. This program is really making me desire feedback because I am very self-conscious about whether or not I am saying the right things. I know that I am making errors yet I don't know how to fix them or exactly when they are occuring because I am not receiving immediate nor any feedback. Behaviorism strongly focuses on the learner's ability to eliminate errors through reinforcement and feedback. I am struggling to even identify let alone eliminate my errors and feel I would benefitfrom Skinner's operant conditioning approach more than I am from this vague stimulus/response approach. Furthermore, I know that my learning would be most meaningful if it reflected Roger's humanistic approach. Learning, based on Roger's humanistic psychology, really focuses on student-centered learning with a teacher as a facilitator. I know that this is near impossible in this type of learning program, but most mornings as I drive to work I really wish that the Italian woman on the CD was sitting next to me and having a conversation with me!
ReplyDeleteFor Pavlov the learning process includes association between stimuli and responses. A certain stimuli automatically lead to specific responses. Additionally, Pavlov recommended us to study human behavior objectively and he has rejected the notions of innateness and instinct. He trained his dog to associate the sound of the bell with food until the dog acquiring a conditioned response (salivation).
ReplyDeleteIn other words, stimuli (the sound of the bell) had acquired the energy to elicit a response (salivation) that was originally created by previous stimuli (the smell of food). He considers that his classical conditioning theory as the demonstration for all learning. His theory claimed that we learn when we create a chain of responses through the process of stimulus-responses. Furthermore, Thorndike has added another layer to Pavlov theory by highlighting the stimuli that happened after a behavior had an influence on the future behaviors. Thorndike has called this process “Law of Effects”. This finding prepares another psychologist, B.F. Skinner to create new theory.
According to Skinner, the events of stimuli- the reinforcer - that follow a response and that tend to strengthen behavior or increase the likelihood of that response is shaping and controlling human behavior. For skinner reinforcers play a giant role in learning that is just association of a prior stimulus with a following response, as in the classical conditioning theory. For the Skinnerian philosophy we are governed by the consequences of our behavior, and therefore, we should study the effects of those consequences to better our understanding of the human behavior. Skinner’s Theory of Operant Conditioning has focused on the power of reinforcement for long-term learning. In summary, Skinner concluded the importance of stimuli that happen after a desired behavior.
Roger has more of an affected focus than a cognitive one. Therefore, his focus is close to constructivist view of learning. Rogers agrees with Vygotsky about the social and interactive nature of learning. Roger’s perspective in quite contrast to that of Skinner. Rogers focused on whole person as a physical and cognitive but mainly emotional, being. Moreover, Rogers highlighted the internal factors that cause a person to behavior in a certain way. In other word, He studied the development of the individual’s self-concept (an individual’s perception of self in relation to number of factors) and of her or his personal sense of reality. Roger believes that human’s instinct to be exist lead them to adapt and to grow. “Fully function persons,” according to Rogers, live at peace with all of their feelings and reactions; they are able to reach their full potential (Rogers, 1977).
Rogers strongly believe that the goal of education is the facilitating of change and learning.
“Many of our system deny both person freedom and dignity” brown said. According to Rogers, teachers have to be the facilitators of learning through the establishment of interpersonal relationship with learners. He refuse the idea of superior in which the teacher is the only person to decide what shall be taught. Teachers need to have genuine trust, acceptance and prizing of the other person-the student as a worthy valuable individual. In addition, Rogers deeply focuses on context of learning rather than the actual cognitive process of learning because he strongly believe that if the context of learning is properly created, then human beings will learn everything they need to.
On one hand, my previous learning language experience has been shaped by the power of the reinforcements according to Skinner’s Operant Conditioning and Pavlov's stimulus-response type learning. On the other hand, my recent learning language experience falls into Roger's Humanistic Psychology.
In my current experience of learning Italian through ItalianPod101.com, I feel like I am learning in the fashion of Pavlov's stimulus-response. Through this program, I am not even able to get feedback as to how I am doing. I simply hear the speaker say a phrase and I am conditioned to repeat after them. I am not getting any positive or negative reinforcement, so this would not relate well to Skinner's theory of Operant Conditioning. This is definitely part of the reason as to why I am not really advancing too quickly in this foreign language. Plus, the lack of motivation and opportunities for authentic practice are other obstacles I face.
ReplyDeleteI personally try to incorporate a Humanistic approach in my learning, though it is sometimes difficult in this case. With the very limited Spanish background I have, I am able to make some connections to new Italian words. For example, this week the lesson focused on saying "Quanti anni hai?" or "How old are you?" and I recall that in Spanish, the phrase is similar: "Cuantos anos tienes?" Having this little bit of background knowledge to connect with allows me to construct my knowledge in a more meaningful way, as Ausubel might agree.
I believe these three theories should combine together and that is what I am trying to do with my second language study. Until now, I have finished 6 lessons Japanese study online, I’d say, I still use stimulus-response and operant conditioning in my learning. By listen how the recording pronounce the language, I can imitate with it and practice to answer some simple questions. However, I believe behaviorism can benefit beginner and should be limited use for higher levels students. To learning a language is not only repeating but also using some strategies. By using strategies, we can remember vocabulary and structures effectively. Humanistic psychology can be used in several ways of learning second language. For me, I think it is very effective if I can find some link between the new knowledge and what I had learned. By this kind of method, I can first remember new knowledge clearly and have a review about my old knowledge as well. However, to build these kind of links are not easy. Especially for me, I have totally no Japanese background. So I believe, teachers guide is very necessary to help students build connection.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a strong Behaviorist influence on the LiveMocha language lessons I have completed for this class. The lessons are designed to incorporate introduction to language through rote practice, memorization and regurgitation. I believe that this is, although a sometimes boring practice essential to the beginning steps of learning a new language. My favorite part of the lesson is the final portion of each session where I have to read a text comprised of the language studied in the previous phases. I can then listen to myself speaking Spanish and have my speech reviewed by other LiveMocha members. This is a behaviorist approach that I appreciate. Not often are we able to analyze our speech and pronunciation during regular discourse. I always read the text a couple of times through to practice my pronunciation as I believe that the more practice my muscles have at shaping Spanish sounds, the better my accent will improve. Also behaviorist is the rewards system LiveMocha has set up. The funniest thing about this is the bragging rights the course incorporates at the end of each session. "I just got 100 on my Spanish Vocabulary Quiz." Click here to tell your friends. A little built in reward system, that I find entertaining. I do feel that the behaviorist theory is proved in my lesson on Livemocha, because after having a few people correct errors on my written assignments, I am more careful not to make mistakes. As far as meaningful learning through online sessions, I believe that meaningfulness must be construed by the individual learner. If you go through each session not seeing the co-relation between an office building and a car in the plan, then learning is not too meaningful and so to a humanist may not stick, but it is possible to create the connections and meaningfulness within each session by imaging the office building where you had your first professional position or the first car you drove, etc. Meaning can be found in anything if you are creative and willing enough. This is perhaps, what is so appealing about the humanistic approach. Learning language via the computer enables me to imagine conversations that I can have with live people and so connect me to community. As with all else, I believe my learning style via Livemocha applies multiple learning strategies.
ReplyDeleteDuring my experience learning Italian on ItalianPod101, I would say that I am making sense of my second language through Pavlov's classic conditioning. The speakers are presenting this by constant repetition of the material. I am able to write on my work sheet that is given but there's no social interaction. There's also no one telling us that we are right or wrong with positive or negative reinforcement. Best case scenario, I would prefer to learn through a combination of Carl Rodgers Humanistic approach and Ausubel's Subsumption Theory, but one of the problems I am facing now is something we argued in class: "how do you construct your own knowledge if there's nothing for you to connect with"? I need to have meaningful learning if I am going to socially construct my own understanding of another language, but right now I have nothing to build off of. I think that I am struggling with Italian because I am lacking background knowledge in this subject.
ReplyDeleteMy language learning is a combination of these theories. I learned the simple conversation through Pavlov's stimulus-response type learning. For example, when my teacher said:” How are you?” I will response with the answer: “ Fine, thank you, and you?” When I was in elementary school, I hate learning English very much. That’s because my English teacher always blamed and punished me when I made mistakes. At that time I was always afraid of having English classes. However, when I went to junior high school, I met my new English teacher who was very nice and friendly. She always had talks with us, and she shared her interests with us. In L2 classroom, she was more likely to be our friend, listing to us and playing with us. I felt relax in her classroom; I started to like having English classes. And the most important thing is that, she always encouraged me when I made mistakes. All the above that I mentioned are related to Skinner's Operant Conditioning, Roger's Humanistic Psychology. So I think my language learning is a mixture of all these theories.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the language learning process is the combination of Skinner’s Operant Conditioning and Roger’s Humanistic Psychology. When I was learning English, a real teacher was always around me and gave me suggestion and correction. Each time I made a mistake the teacher would point it out and correct it for me until I did it in a right way.
ReplyDeleteFor the experience on Livemocha, when I was doing the exercise on livemocha, the system won’t let me go to next question until I give a right answer, which is like reinforcement. I also have to do the inductive and deductive reasoning because they don’t teach grammar rules and I have to generate it by myself.
Now when I learn Japanese on Livemocha, I applied Pavlov’s stimulus-response more, which works better for beginners but not for higher-level students. Livemocha only provides routine sentences and dialogues for me to repeat, there is no feedback or reinforce, so Skinner’s Operant Conditioning have not shown evidence in my Japanese learning. Rogers’s humanistic psychology involves in my foreign language learning, even though it is not in when I learned on Livemocha, it was when I learned English in school. After years of English learning, teachers taught and modeled me how to learn a foreign language. So when I found Livemocha could only provide me stimulus-response pedagogy, which I knew was not enough for foreign language learning, I decided to apply another Japanese textbook as a support. And I tried to relate Japanese words, phrases and grammar to Chinese and English to make my language study more meaningful, rather than merely learning by rote. I also tried to communicate with other Japanese learners to have interactive activities, however the positive outcome is hard to find because of my limited Japanese proficiency, that I could hardly have a meaningful conversation. In my Japanese learning, the lack of motivation, of facilitation from teachers and of authentic language practices are all reasons why my Japanese learning improves slowly.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think I am learning Portuguese by using the 3 models mentioned above as I believe in a balanced approach of learning language in which we use the theories strategically to fit our student’s needs. However, in this particular setting I believe my learning is much more inclined towards Skinner’s Operant Conditioning where I am handed a concept and then am “drilled” with the objective of learning the word or concept. The award in this case proceeds after successfully responding to the words I am sent to another level awarding my ability to complete the exercises.
ReplyDeleteI believe my learning on livemocha.com is most like Skinner’s Operant Conditioning. Skinner’s operant theory maintains that language can be learned through conditioning of behavior. Through experimentation, Skinner found that behaviors were dependent upon what happens after a response. I found this to be very much in line with my language learning so far. On livemocha.com, I receive positive reinforcement when I get an answer correct. This positive reinforcement is a check mark or a “congratulations!” at the end of a lesson or unit. The reward for answering questions right is the ability to proceed with other lessons and units. A Skinnerian approach is very focused on drill after drill after drill, which is parallel to my language learning experience on livemocha.com. Lessons consists of a large amount of rote memorization and the repetition of new vocabulary or grammar rules to achieve clear understanding.
ReplyDeleteThough I am indeed finding that I am learning, I do not think I am maximizing my learning through livemocha.com’s strategies. I find that I would prefer Roger’s humanistic approach to an operant conditioning approach. A humanistic approach consists of an interactive experience with constant conversation and discussion. As a learner and soon to be teacher I find Roger’s approach to be most in line with my beliefs. Like Roger, I believe interaction is key to understanding language and content. Roger also believes that the meaning of behavior is essentially personal and subjective, which I am completely an advocate of.
From studying Spanish on Livemocha I have experienced a combination of a few theories we have learned in class. First of all, Pavlov’s stimulus response theory is very prevalent because of all the repeating and memorization of Spanish vocabulary and sentences on Livemocha. When you get the answer wrong you are punished and cannot move on until you get the correct answer. The reward for the learner is the satisfaction of getting the correct answers which correlates with Skinners Operant conditioning. After finishing a lesson, I am encouraged to share my score with friends via Facebook, E-mail and Twitter. I also find myself using David Ausbel’s Subsumption Theory. I am constantly using my prior knowledge to connect with new Spanish grammar and vocabulary. I consistently engage in transfer from L2 to L1.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I see very little of Roger’s Humanistic Psychology in my online learning. I have not met anyone on Livemocha and there is no group work. I know in my classes Roger’s theory plays a prevalent role. Providing time to really get to know your students and for them to get to know you creates a successful learning atmosphere. At Livemocha there are teachers that will help you, but you must use extra tokens to pay for them. I am unsure about how much of a connection you can build with an online teacher.
The theories related to my language learning begin with Roger's Humanistic learning approach. First, I realize I am motivated and determined to learn Chinese for several reasons. The main reason I am learning Chinese Language at this point is because it is a class assignment, and I hope to do well in the class. I also want to understand the challenges of second language learners, so I can relate and accommodate as a future ESOL teacher. In the bigger scheme of things though, I am interested challenging my mind through learning a complex language. I have worked with and am friends with many Chinese people. Learning Chinese is a conscious self-satisfying pursuit. Motivation to challenge myself and succeed give me a positive emotional response which helps me to assimilate, accommodate, and adapt Chinese into my brain. I think Roger's theory is a little under-rated, especially with respect to adult learners. Roger discusses two types of learning: experiential and cognitive. Cognitive is what kids do when they go to school and learn academic knowledge, he calls this meaningless. Experiential learning he calls significant because he believes the learning addresses the needs and wants of the learner. For me I "need" to learn a second language and "want" to learn Chinese. Roger's believes learning is facilitated when 1) students want to learn 2) they understand the purpose for the learning 3) they have the resources to learn, 4) can balance the struggle of accommodating and adapting to new knowledge (sometimes its stressful when you can't get over a hurdle in learning, but consciously you know the challenge can be overcome, 5) can share their challenges with others. His theory is that a teacher should facilitate learning. One of his main principles is that significant learning occurs when what is being taught is important or relevant to the student. As a teacher making the core content relative to a child's life can sometimes seem the biggest challenge, this is why it is important to carefully evaluate the curriculum.
ReplyDeleteAs for other theories related to language learning, my current method of learning is through a Pavlovian style of stimulus response, however my grasp of the material is a conscious, self-driven choice.
Thus far in my lesson have been using audio lessons on my ipod using the Pimsleur Method (audio-lingual). But it is a oneway lesson. There is no instructor to help with pronunciation/word correction, and although the lesson asks "are you listening to the pronunciation?" there is no one to tell me if I sound like what I hear. When I am through with each lesson, I teach myself the way my lessons teach me. I ask myself the same questions and repeat accordingly. In this way I can say the model of learning is through operant conditioning, the reinforcer for me come from the way I feel as I know I am repeating the correct answer. I feel great knowing I have some Chinese language in my brain that I can share with my Chinese friends, and impress others as I say a few Chinese phrases. Another positive reinforcer is when I speak with my Chinese friends, they can confirm I am learning Chinese phrases.