Language Learning & Acquisition Through The Theoretical Perspectives: Behaviourist, Innatist and Interactionist

In Steven Pinker's view (1995), language acquisition is a major issue in cognitive science, and the ability to communicate in a foreign language is a necessary human characteristic. Having the ability to speak another language will help humans to understand the ideas of others and engage in meaningful relationships. A person's ability to unite or divide may be greatly influenced by the language they hear and read every day. Getting fluent in another language takes time and effort. Early infancy, usually before the age of three, is a critical period for learning one's first language (or "mother tongue"). Learning a first language (L1) is often a result of growing up among individuals who speak the same language. If you have a kid who is old enough to attend school, practically speaking, they will acquire a second language, often known as an L2. A new language acquisition may be more difficult than acquiring one's first language, which is a natural process for most people. Theoretical models such as Behaviourism, Innatism, and Interactionism have been used by a number of scholars to study the phenomenon of language learning and acquisition.

Thesis statement: In this paper, we review the strengths, weaknesses and classroom practises in all theoretical models mentioned above to gain a better understanding of how people learn and acquire a language.

1. BEHAVIOURIST THEORY (CLASSICAL CONDITIONING AND OPERANT CONDITIONING)

In the acquisition and learning language context, the behaviourist theory states that someone acquires oral language from other humans through a process involving imitation, rewards, and practice. The core concept of behaviourist theory is analysed on the basis of human behaviour in observable stimulus-response interactions and their interrelation. According to this theory, when learners correctly mimic the words uttered by others, a stimulus is given in the form of reinforcement or appreciation, which leads to subsequent responses made by them. Thus, language learners eventually learn to differentiate between acceptable and undesirable words through a trial-and-error process in which appropriate words are rewarded with rewards and inappropriate words are not reinforced with appreciation. In this example, behaviourist theory stresses that learning is a process of habit building. Two important central concepts to behavioural theory are classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Conditioning is a learning technique in which a conditioned stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus are matched in order to elicit a conditioned response (lumenlearning, n.d.). Operant conditioning, on the other hand, uses reinforcement or punishment to either increase or decrease the learning process so that the learner is more likely to exhibit the desired behaviour in future (lumenlearning, n.d.).

• STRENGTHS 
  • The strengths that can be highlighted in behaviourism theory would be that in classical conditioning the contribution of behaviourism to education is the concept that it is the teacher's responsibility to create a positive learning environment (Ng'andu et al, 2013). The authors emphasised that teachers’ roles are not only about guiding but by creating a mood that can lead to positivity which will help with learners’ development. A feeling of comfortness may arise within the non-native speaker students which can incline their desire to learn and acquire the language. Nevertheless, the learning environment must alway be controlled by the instructors. A controlled environment can eventually result in a better performance for the learners. In this way, the language acquisition can easily take place as long as the environment is fixed into how the learners can easily acquire a language. Fostering reinforcement undoubtedly has proven to receive great responses in learning. For instance, students who are seeking to learn a new language will undoubtedly engage more in the process as they receive any positive reinforcement from their tutor. 

• WEAKNESSES 
  • Even so, the battle of disagreement of this behaviourism is still going on from years to years. Some of the critics of behaviourism claimed that the ability of a teacher to provide or enforce positive reinforcement to the students might be limited. The critics believed that the teachers may face difficulties in managing reinforcement as there are more students that need to be paid more attention with. Moreover, the criticism also rises up for negative reinforcement, as it was claimed by the critics, by instilling negative reinforcement it can definitely lead students to be more disliked with what the teachers had enforced. According to  Ng'andu et al, 2013, learners could actually strip away their attention and fail to put in more effort in learning. From this, we can see that in language acquisition, it is better to enforce them with praise in which the negative effect can be avoided in language acquisition. Memorisation is also one of the main keys that was highlighted in behaviourism theory, though memorisation can be another tool to grasp the knowledge. However, the critics argued that there could be a small portion of learners who may not be used to the method of memorisation. Therefore, fully depending on the method could actually bring more disadvantages in learning. 

• CLASSROOM PRACTISES 
  • When it comes to how and what students learn, behaviourism takes a fresh look at the role that teachers play. Long-term changes in performance or potential that result from exposure to the environment are known as learning outcomes. Behavioural learning theory emphasises the importance of quantitative and visible performance as well as the role of the surrounding environment. (Beavers et al., 2002, as cited in Wijayanti, 2012). Behaviourism can be applied in the classroom through classical and operant conditioning to increase learning and decrease distracting student behaviour.

• APPLYING CLASSICAL CONDITIONING IN THE CLASSROOM
  • As Millacci (2021) explains in her post on the PositivePsychology.com website that attention-getters and transition notifications can be used in the classroom to demonstrate classical conditioning. Attention-getters such as switching off the lights, rhymes, student callbacks, hand gestures, a bell, or music might be utilised to draw students' attention. Meanwhile, transition notifications such as a bell, gong, chimes, music, or clap may be utilised to alert pupils of a change in class. For instance, a teacher may strike a gong to signal to pupils that it is time to change centres and proceed to the next activity.
• APPLYING OPERANT CONDITIONING IN THE CLASSROOM
  • In operant conditioning, the consequences of a given behaviour influence the chance that the behaviour will be repeated. Reinforcement and punishment are two of the most important concepts in operant conditioning. Using operant conditioning in the classroom may look something like this (Asian University n.d., as cited in Wijayanti, 2012)
    • Reward students using a variety of methods, including instructor approbation (such as praise, smiles and pats on the back), actual reinforcement (such as cookies and stationery), and privileges (such as more time in class) (longer recess time and more time with friends)
    • Be consistent in praising positive behaviour and punishing poor ones.
    • Students should be punished for their behaviour, not for their individual traits.
    • Inform the pupils about the infraction.

2. INNATIST THEORY (KRASHEN’S MONITOR MODEL)

After a series of publications (Krashen, 1977), the Model was further expanded and refined by the author himself in future works. A theory that encompasses all SLA research and practice, according to Krashen in 1985, consists of the following five assumptions. Learners acquire linguistic rules in a logical sequence, according to the Natural Order Hypothesis. Evidence from morpheme studies by Dulay and Burt (1974) shows that certain grammatical forms and structures are learnt early, as Krashen and Terrell (1983) point out. There are two unique approaches to learning a second language under the Acquisition or Learning Theory. In L2 acquisition, students engage in actual conversation, whereas in learning, they are given information about the language. On the other hand, the Monitor Theory proposes that people have two systems for learning a second language: one based on unconscious learning, the other on a deliberate effort (Krashen, 1981: 1). L2 learners are aware of their own learning process and may use this monitor as an editor of their progress in L2. Language acquisition is facilitated by getting understandable information or by interpreting messages, according to the Input Hypothesis. Krashen (1985: 2) explains: “humans acquire language only in one way by understanding messages, or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’.…We move from i, our current level, to i + 1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i +1.” 

• STRENGTHS 
  • According to White (1987), one of the strengths of his theories is how they influence language teaching practice. Since his theory's key contribution was to highlight meaningful classroom communication that prioritised content over form, he is widely regarded as a pioneer in this field (Brown, 2000). The fact that Krashen was able to synthesise information from a variety of sources and develop "an comprehensive and full theory" is meritorious (McLaughlin, 1987, p.58). Even though Krashen has certain weaknesses, Gregg (1984, p.94) says that these defects drive other researchers to dig further into his theory, and this, in turn, leads to the development of new insights and theories based on Krashen's "bold, if brash," findings," thereby advancing SLA research as a whole (Brown, 2000, p.281).
• WEAKNESSES 
  • According to Gregg (1984), the five hypotheses of Krashen’s Monitor Model are marked with a lot of serious flaws such as Excessive claims, an absence of evidence and an invalid theory. According to Brown (2000), it was stated that he thinks the Krashen’s Theory of SLA is distorted and the allegations that were made are exaggerated. It can be observed in Krashen and Terrell's (1983) Natural Approach, which claimed to be the first to promote a language teaching methodology based on SLA theory. Another weakness that is found for this theory is an absence of evidence. According to Lightbown and Spada (2006), McLaughlin (1987) is said to be the first one asked a question relating to the five hypotheses and whether it can be tested by empirical research. It was also stated that Krashen does not provide evidence but just arguing on how certain phenomena can be seen from the other perspective of the theory (McLaughlin, 1987). Last but not least, there are some researchers who are doubting the effectiveness of Krashen’s Monitor Model as a theory.  According to McLaughlin (1987), he made a conclusion that Krashen’s theory failed to meet the criteria as he measured his model against four criteria that are used to evaluate a theory. 
• CLASSROOM PRACTICES 
  • Krashen emphasises the importance of teachers adapting their teaching methods as much as possible to the students. Teachers should consider the degree of difficulty, speed, and selected  interesting content when selecting materials, as well as ensuring that the listening material meets the age and psychological characteristics of students. Acknowledging Stephen Krashen's theory (1988) can help educators develop appropriate instructional teaching strategies and assessments that guide students along a language development continuum, from cognitively undemanding, context-embedded curricula to cognitively demanding, context-reduced curricula.

3. INTERACTIONIST THEORY (MICHAEL LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS AND ZPD)

As highlighted by Vygotsky on the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), language acquisition and learning occur as a result of interactions with other individuals, particularly more competent persons, such as instructors or friends who are more proficient in the language (Nor & AB Rashid, 2018). Meanwhile, in Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis, when native speakers connect with language learners, they alter their language to match the language learners' communication skills and level of comprehension. Language learners also employ their language abilities while communicating with native speakers, and if any messages are sent that are ambiguous, both native speakers and language learners will negotiate the message's meaning (Ratnasari, 2019). 

• STRENGTHS 
  • Sarem, N. S., & Shirzadi, Y. (2014) stated that with Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis, learners will tremendously enhance their knowledge of the language that they ought to learn. The writers basically emphasise the importance of human interaction, it can activate cognitive development to finally produce and modify their existence knowledge of the language. In other words, the interaction between non-native and native speakers is a crucial point for language acquisition to take place. When it comes to the Zone Proximal Development (ZPD) Wertsch, (1984) further explained that the mechanism of adult-children interaction with ZPD can further enhance learners cognitivity by simply having interaction. For instance, the ZPD approach often emphasises that teachers need to always monitor and guide their students until they reach the target level. In regards to that, the writer also stated that such an approach can aid the learners to participate more in ZPD, with that teachers may consistently monitor their learners’ development. 
• WEAKNESSES 
  • Interaction Hypothesis states that language learners negotiate meaning in order to pay attention to the form and process of the information they receive. Only interactionally changed input may effectively help in the teaching and learning of languages (Namaziandost, Rahimi Esfahani, Nasri, & Mirshekaran, 2018; Namaziandost, Abdi Saray, & Rahimi Esfahani, 2018; Wang & Castro, 2010). It is thus crucial to use the Interaction Hypothesis to help improve the communication abilities of language learners Besides, Chaiklin (2003) mentioned that it is unclear in that it does not account precisely for the learners' need, the learners’ capability or learners’ motivational influences. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) also does not explain the process of learners’ development.
• CLASSROOM PRACTICES (ZPD)
  • The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is a term used to define the region between what a student can do on their own and what they can accomplish with adult teaching or with the help of more proficient peers (Billings & Walqui, n.d.). Teachers use the zone of proximal development concept, which states that students should be taught in small steps that build on the skills they already have. This technique is referred to as scaffolding. When the youngster is able to execute all steps on his or her own, the instructor should assist and support him or her. In her HowStuffWork piece, Winkler (2021) explains how a teacher might use the zone of proximal growth in the classroom.
    • To begin, a teacher should find out what background information a student brings to the classroom. By recognising this preexisting knowledge, the instructor may build on it while teaching new topics.
    • Next, the instructor may help pupils build on what they already know in order to achieve their learning objectives. When planning classes, educators should keep the scaffolding process in mind and include guided practice.
    • Finally, instructors may help students relate their new information to their prior knowledge. Maths teachers, for example, may use the same strategy to teach youngsters how to multiply decimals after they've taught them how to divide decimals.
    • Using the zone of proximal development notion, the teacher discovers what a kid already knows, teaches him or her something new to complement it, and then ties this new information to the child's current knowledge, enabling the youngster to absorb the new concept with help.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, each theory has its own unique strengths and shortcomings. People learn spoken language from other humans via imitation, reinforcement, and practice, according to behaviourist theory. An examination of human behaviour in observable stimulus-response interactions and the interrelationships between them is the foundation of this theory. Krashen's Monitor Model is an innatist hypothesis that includes five assumptions that collectively provide a theory that accounts for all SLA occurrences. The author created and updated this model. To wrap up, it incorporates Michael Long's interaction hypothesis as well as the notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). People who are more proficient in a language, such as teachers or close friends who are also fluent in that language, may aid students with language acquisition and learning by engaging them in conversation. When native speakers engage with language learners, they, according to Michael Long's interaction hypothesis, change the way they talk in order to better suit the communication and comprehension needs of the language learners themselves.