Acquisition and participation: two metaphors are better than one. (Language Teaching & Learning).

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the use of metaphors to describe language learning and how they may assist and hinder our understanding of the language learning process. It aims to show how the most established metaphor for learning, acquisition, is now complemented by the increasingly frequent use of a new metaphor, participation. Using both metaphors, the paper presents an analysis of the strategies used by learners of English preparing for external examinations on a self-directed basis. Practical examples of both acquisition and participation lead to the conclusion that more than one metaphor can increase the level of insight into language learning.

Introduction

The question of how far language influences thought is one which has not yet been resolved. While the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis -- that language determines thought-- has been largely rejected as too extreme, the link between language and thought, including weaker forms of the hypothesis, remains of interest to researchers in linguistics and other fields including cultural psychology (e.g. Bruner, 1996) and Neuro-Linguistic Programming (e.g. O'Connor and Seymour, 1995). The acceptance of any link between the language we use to describe things and activities and how we understand them, suggests it is imperative that the description of learning itself receives careful attention. This paper is concerned with the use of metaphors to describe language learning and how they may assist and hinder our understanding of the language learning process. It aims to show how the most established metaphor for learning, acquisition, is now complemented by the increasingly frequent use of a new metaphor, participation. Using both metaphors, the paper presents an analysis of the strategies used by learners of English preparing for external examinations on a self-directed basis. Practical examples of both acquisition and participation lead to the conclusion that more than one metaphor can increase the level of insight into language learning.

Acquisition and Participation

Language learning reflects the trend in education in general where the dominant metaphor for learning in recent decades has been one of acquisition, as acknowledged by Sfard (1998). The acquisition metaphor (AM) suggests that knowledge is a commodity to be acquired by individual learners. Other words associated with the acquisition metaphor include facts, ideas, content, accumulate and construct. However, Sfard also points out that an alternative metaphor for learning, participation (PM), has recently been receiving increasing attention in educational literature. By replacing knowledge with knowing and having/possessing knowledge with doing, PM can be viewed `as a process of becoming a member of a certain community'. While Sfard insists that acquisition and participation are not simply new terms for the two extremes of the individual V social axis, it is clear that PM is closest to the neo-Vygotskian socio-cultural theory of learning, as promoted by Wertsch (1985), Rogoff (1995) and Abbott and Ryan (2000), and, specifically in relation to language learning, the contributors to Lantolf (2000). It therefore reflects a Cultural/Situated view of mind (see Bredo, 1994; Bruner 1996). AM, however, spans the two views of mind, Situated when knowledge is viewed as a construction and Computational when knowledge is viewed as transmission.

In language learning the acquisition metaphor has been particularly prevalent, most noticeably in the generally accepted description of language learning as second language acquisition (SLA). The acceptance of this term is evident in the titles of such benchmarking works as Larsen-Freeman and Long's An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research (1991) and Ellis's The Study of Second Language Acquisition (1994). However, as Ellis (ibid) points out, there is no agreed definition of `acquisition'. Two decades ago Krashen differentiated between language acquisition as a subconscious process, `very similar to the process children use in acquiring first and second languages' (Krashen, 1988) and conscious language learning where error correction and the presentation of explicit rules are important. However, as the term acquisition became more widely used, Krashen's definition has not been supported by other researchers, including Ellis, who more commonly view acquisition as synonymous with language learning, thereby matching more closely the use of the term in education in general. Indeed, the term acquisition is now so commonly used that learners, teachers and researchers may not even notice that it is a metaphor, a danger highlighted by both Sfard (1998) and, in relation to language learning specifically, Donato (2000).

The participation metaphor, however, offers further and complementary insights as it "makes visible aspects of second language learning that the acquisition metaphor leaves behind" (Pavlenko and Lantolf, 2000). Indeed, PM seems particularly appropriate in the field of language learning where becoming a participant in the community of speakers of the target language is the natural goal of almost all language learners. This is not to suggest that PM offers a new methodology for language learning/teaching. After all, current SLA theory already promotes the active use of the language as the best means of gaining communicative competence, particularly through engagement with the environment of the target language and participation with the community of language experts. PM may increase the interest in the a sociocultural theory of language learning but, at minimum, offers a new view-point for examining what we do. However, PM should not be viewed as a replacement for the more established metaphor. In highlighting the participation metaphor, both Sfard (1998) and Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) emphasise that it would be incorrect to view one metaphor as more important than the other, rather AM and PM should be seen as complementary.

Background to Study A recent study carried out at the University of Limerick Language Centre focused on how learners prepared for English language examinations on a self-directed learning basis. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of the examination itself and of self-directed learning on the candidates' learning. The target group therefore consisted of non-native speakers of English who were preparing for the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) which was scheduled for May 2000. The TOEIC is a profiling test which tests reading and listening only. There is no official syllabus for the TOEIC and, according to TOEIC's own literature, it tests the candidate's general language level without requiring any specialised preparation. TOEIC attracts over one million candidates per annum (TOEIC's own publicity), offering considerable criterion-related validity. Originally designed for Japanese learners, it could be argued that the test displays cultural bias towards an analytical leaning style believed to be common amongst Japanese learners (see, for example, Call, 1998).

As there are insufficient numbers to form a class of TOEIC candidates at the Language Centre, the policy of the Centre is to facilitate individual students preparing for the TOEIC through self-directed learning by providing them with the option of using the facilities of the University's Self-Access Area. The Self-Access Area contains a wide range of language learning materials including some self-study packages specifically designed for TOEIC preparation. The learners may therefore avail of what Bruner (1996) terms interaction with a "vicarious" teacher.

Methodology

As learners individually controlled when and where they prepared for the examination, their actual learning was not observable. Data was therefore collected from custom-designed questionnaires and follow up interviews with examinees. Interviews with the staff at the University's Self-Access Area provided a degree of triangulation. The whole study provided considerable data but this paper is limited to an analysis of a subsection of the data. The next section of this paper reports on some initial findings from interviews with two of the students, Student A and Student B. These case studies have been analysed with both AM and PM in mind.

Case Studies

There were many similarities in the profiles of the two Japanese women in their mid-twenties who are described below as Student A and Student B. Both learners had attempted the TOEIC on more than three prior occasions in Japan and were therefore familiar with the structure of the test. Both were at least partially motivated by the popularity of the test in Japan and the usefulness of a good TOEIC score in their home job market. Both students had a good level of English; Student A was an upper-intermediate student and Student B's level was advanced. At the time of the study both had been resident in Ireland for more than six months for the purposes of learning English but neither of them was enrolled in a formal language course while preparing for the test. They were therefore free to choose their own language learning and examination preparation strategies. The interviews with Students A and B revealed striking differences in their approaches to preparing for the test and the effect of the test itself on their learning.

Student A

The interview with Student A revealed that she had made extensive use of the University's Self-Access Area so that, on the surface, she appeared a self-sufficient, "mind-in-the-head" (Cobb, 1999) learner, engaging in individualised "constructive activity" (Von Glasersfeld, in Cobb ibid) and capable of using the self-directed environment offered by the University's Self-Access Area to her advantage. However, when interviewed, it became clear that she was engaging more in self-instruction, i.e. simply using learning materials outside a classroom, rather than genuine self-directed learning. Despite the fact that she claimed to enjoy learning English through her environment (e.g. "television, reading, talking to Irish people"), she had chosen to prepare for the examination in the same way as when in Japan, i.e. doing self-study practice tests for several hours each day in the Self-Access Area and using other self-study materials which she had brought from Japan. Her learning was therefore dictated by texts and her prior learning experience, offering her very little real control over her learning.

Student A explained that having taken the examination before did not inform what she learned the next time because she remembered nothing of the content of the actual examination afterwards. This rules out the benefits of feedback normally associated with formative assessment, including the identification of the most appropriate strategies to attain the learning goals the next time. There was therefore no evidence that preparing for or repeating the test had contributed to the development of Student A's metacognitive skills. Furthermore, while she had accepted recommendations for self-study packages from other candidates, she rejected the idea of collaborative learning as a means of preparing for the examination: "I want to do what I want ... and the way I want."

Student A's learning provides an excellent example of the acquisition metaphor. It is significant that the examination preparation had caused her to actually reduce her level of participation in the community of English speakers in favour of acquiring the grammar and vocabulary she deemed necessary for achieving a high score in the examination. In her view, the best examination preparation strategy was the accumulation of knowledge on an individual basis. The acquisition metaphor she reflects is revealed in her choice of language, e.g. "revising words and rules". However, it was also clear that Student A is capable of learning through participation when not involved in examination preparation and was likely to return to more active participation in the English-speaking community as soon as the examination was over. Her learning pattern and exclusive adoption of the acquisition metaphor should therefore not be viewed as permanent. The fact that her learning strategies are not fixed is an argument in favour of awareness of more than one metaphor for learning.

Student B

By contrast, Student B presents an example of a learner who learns best through active participation in a community of practice. She has made no change to her behaviour or the activities in which she engages in preparation for the examination. Not only was she not receiving formal instruction, but she had not used any learning materials specific to the TOEIC either at the University's Self-Access Area or elsewhere. Instead, she highlighted her aim of full participation in the English-speaking community through interaction with native speakers, watching television, listening to radio and reading in English and viewed this as an effective way to prepare for the examination. By not narrowing her learning to suit the test -- one of the dangers of external summative tests- , she was using the TOEIC as the examining body intend (TOEIC publicity material), i.e. to measure the improvement in her English since the last time she had taken the test. She also displayed a further tendency towards learning as social in her view that the introduction of a TOEIC preparation classes would allow for collaboration and learners scaffolding one another's learning, "students gathering together and doing some kind of practice together". Even when considering the prospect of a class, the metaphor for learning which she is using and expressing is that of participation as opposed to thinking of the class as a means of acquiring knowledge from an expert teacher.

While Student B expresses a high degree of satisfaction with the TOEIC as a test, it is significant that the test itself does not measure the type of learning in which she is engaging, learning through participation in the English-speaking community. There would therefore seem to be a mismatch between the test which reflects AM and the learning in which Student B is engaged. The potential for such a mismatch is noted by Donato (2000) who claims that evidence for an individual's learning through participation is to be found in his/her `growing and widening activity in a community carried out through shared practices of discourse with expert participants'. He sees this as contrasting with the independent evidence required with AM which is often gathered in a post or delayed post-test. The TOEIC provides a good example of the latter.

Conclusion

This paper set out to use the two metaphors, acquisition and participation, to investigate the learning strategies employed by students preparing for an international examination, TOEIC, on a self-directed basis. The case studies presented above with their descriptions of the contrasting learning strategies of two learners working towards one learning goal, provide practical examples of both the acquisition and the participation metaphors at work in a specific language learning situation. Rather than replacing AM, PM allows greater insight into the language learning process than the use of just one metaphor. There are a number of reasons for keeping researchers, teachers and learners to be aware of the existence of both metaphors. Awareness of both metaphors should encourage all three groups to aim at improving language learning by ensuring that both acquisition and participation are integrated into the learning experiences and assessment of all language learners.

It is clear that there is a need for further research to determine the full benefit of having two metaphors to describe our view/s of learning. In the course of the research for this paper, it was apparent to this writer that two dualities, self-directed learning V collaborative learning and constructivism V socio-culturalism, would provide the frameworks for further investigation of the significance of AM and PM. Is it too soon to presume that self-directed learning and constructivism reflect AM and that PM is linked exclusively to collaborative learning and socio-culturalism?

Bibliography 

Abbott, J. and T. Ryan (2000), The Unfinished Revolution: Learning, Human Behaviour, Community and Political Paradox, Stafford: Network Educational Press.

Bredo, E. (1994), `Reconstructing Educational Psychology', Educational Psychologist, 29(1), pp.23-45.

Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Call, J. (1998) `Expanding the learning styles of Japanese analytic learners' in Reid, J.M. (ed.), Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Cobb, P. (1999) `Where is the Mind?', in Murphy, P. (ed.) Learners, Learning and Assessment, London: Paul Chapman/Open University.

Donato, R. (2000) `Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom', in Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994), The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1988) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Lantolf, J. P. ed. (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and M. Long (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research, London: Longman.

O'Connor, J. and J. Seymour (1995) Introducing NLP: Psychological Skills for Understanding and Influencing People, (Revised Edition), London: Thorsons.

Pavlenko, A. and J. P. Lantolf (2000) `Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves, in Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1995) `Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship', in Wertsch, J. V. et al. Sociocultural Studies of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sfard, A. (1998) `On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one', Educational Researcher, 27 (2), pp. 4-13.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985) Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., P. del Rio, A. Alvarez (ed.s) (1995) Sociocultural Studies of Mind, Cambridgee: Cambridge University Press

Caroline Graham, University of Limerick, Ireland

Caroline is a lecturer in English as a foreign language. She is also the Director of Studies of the University's Language Centre.