Overloading on cognitive load theory in SLA

This is a response to a John Sweller article in 2017 on applying cognitive load theory to language teaching.

Geary and the interface hypothesis

I want to first discuss cognitive developmental and evolutionary psychologist David Geary’s, 2007,  two types of knowledge since Sweller invokes Geary to assert a critical division or discontinuity between child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition.

Geary’s first type of knowledge (or abilities/domains/cognition, Geary uses these terms interchangeably) has evolved over human evolutionary time and is labelled primary knowledge. Such knowledge (such as your first language) is said to be fast and implicit. Geary’s second type of knowledge develops due to cultural reasons and is slower and explicit. Geary uses reading as an example of secondary type of knowledge. I have dropped the label biological as I think it is unhelpful for the present discussion.

We could see a parallel here between Geary’s division and the conscious/unconscious or explicit/implicit division discussed in second language acquisition (SLA). The following quotes of Geary:

“I focus on primary abilities because these are the foundation for the construction of secondary abilities through formal education.” Geary, 2007:3
“Academic learning involves the modification of primary abilities…” Geary, 2007:5
“I assume that primary knowledge and abilities provide the foundation for academic learning.” Geary, 2007:6

seem to indicate when applied to language that there is some sort of interface between conscious learning of language and its unconscious acquisition.

So does such an interface exist? If so how does it work? Absent answers to such questions we should accept the default position that there is no interface, that explicit conscious language knowledge is separate from implicit unconscious knowledge (John Truscott, 2015).

Discontinuities and the nature of language

Cognitive scientists such as Susan Carey (2009) class language as a core cognitive activity (core cognition differs from sensory-perceptual systems and theoretical conceptual knowledge) along with object, number, and agent cognition. And there is (largely) a continuity of such core cognitions from childhood to adulthood. Discontinuities happen with say object knowledge and physics knowledge – infants know that objects are solid yet when older the theory of physics tells them that objects are not really solid. Here the physics is “incommensurate” with object cognition and this contributes to the difficulty for students of studying physics at school. Physics is at the same time more expressively powerful than object cognition.

It is unclear from Geary what kind of discontinuity is being described or even if there is one (as the labels primary and secondary seem to point to). From what I can gather Geary seems to think that primary knowledge can help with secondary knowledge (seen as the interface position in SLA) and so the two may not be so conflictual after all. I may of course be mistaken in my reading here of Geary.

The unclarity from Geary of what kind of discontinuity he means may explain the logical leap that Sweller seems to have made, namely, adult second language acquisition is secondary knowledge and incommensurate with the child’s first language acquisition. Let’s look at the passage where he indicates this:

“Learning a second language as an adult provides an example of secondary knowledge acquisition as do most of the topics covered in educational institutions. We invented education to deal with biologically secondary information. Learning to listen to and speak a second language as an adult requires conscious effort on the part of the learner and explicit instruction on the part of instructors. Little will be learned solely by immersion. Furthermore, since learning to read and write are biologically secondary because we have not evolved to acquire these skills, they also require conscious effort by learners and explicit teaching by instructors, irrespective of whether we are dealing with a native or second language.”

Sweller seems to be mixing up literacy skills with (adult) language acquisition. And further seems to switch between the two – compare “learning to listen to and speak a second language as an adult requires conscious effort” and “learning to read and write are biologically secondary”. Also he assumes that because languages are taught in schools that means they are like other school subjects i.e. language is like developing conceptual knowledge in physics, maths, chemistry etc.

This assumption that language is like conceptual knowledge is very evident in this 1998 article by Graham Cooper and his use of a “foreign language” example to explain an aspect of cognitive load theory:

Graham Cooper “foreign language” and element interactivity

Most language teachers will find this view of language very peculiar. For example, the assumption that because a vocab item may be a single word it can be classed as a low element interaction. This ignores the semantics of single words for a start. More generally, as seen in the screenshot, there is an assumption that language is an object that can be transmitted to learners from the environment much like concepts in a subject like maths.

Ignoring SLA

I want to now comment on some more paragraphs in the Tesol Ontario article. Let’s start with the first paragraph:

“Most second language teaching recommendations place a considerable emphasis on “naturalistic” procedures such as immersion within a second language environment. Immersion means exposing learners to the second language in many of their daily activities, including other educational activities ostensibly unrelated to learning the second language.”

I guess by “naturalistic” procedures Sweller may be alluding to the Natural approach by Krashen? If so he has badly understood what that means and is badly out of date with the debate. Badly understood since the natural approach does not entail immersion and badly out of date by ignoring developments such as task based learning which arguably “includes other educational activities ostensibly unrelated to the second language”.

“Information-store principle. In order to function, we must store immeasurably large amounts of information in long-term memory. The difference between people who are more as opposed to less competent in any area including competence in a second language is heavily determined by the amount of knowledge held in long-term memory (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012).”

This may, with caveats, apply to vocabulary learning or pragmatics, but how applicable is it to other language systems such as syntax or phonology. Further the studies quoted are based on novice and experts in non-language domains like chess.

“In second language learning, this means teachers should explicitly present the grammar and vocabulary of the second language rather than expecting learners to induce the information themselves (see Kirschner et al., 2006, for alternative formulations that emphasise implicit learning) as occurs when dealing with a biologically primary task such as learning a native language as a child.”

Sweller is characterizing child acquisition as “expecting learners to induce the information”. What is meant by induction here? Does he mean usage based notions of induction where statistical information in the environment is used by the child to learn a language? If so then usage folks say the same process also happens in adult language learning and further that process is not explicit in the sense used by Sweller.

“Requiring learners to go to a separate dictionary imposes an additional cognitive load. Learners should not be required to search for needed information.”

How does this claim compare with say the involvement load hypothesis of Batia Laufer and Jan Hulstijn from 2001, where “search” is one of the cognitive components and more “search” e.g. consulting a dictionary is said to lead to better vocabulary retention? (as an aside – involvement load hypothesis was influenced by the levels of processing theory, a general critique of cognitive load theory is why should more load lead to learning problems? Contrast this to levels of processing which implies deeper (more load?) processing would lead to better performance).

“Another recommendation is to avoid redundancy. Unnecessary information frequently is processed with learners only finding after the event that they did not need to process the additional information in order to learn.”

Considering the reported benefits for novice language learners of elaborated input (not translations but “redundancy and clearer signaling of thematic structure in the form of examples, paraphrases and repetition of original information, and synonyms and definitions of low-frequency words” – Sun-Young Oh, 2001), what evidence is there that such elaborated input is not as beneficial for more expert language learners?

To conclude, note that the summary report from the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2017) which ELT Research Bites covered, describes several criticisms of cognitive load theory in general. My discussion attempted to critique the application of this theory to language acquisition. This critique is only very cursory but it is I think enough to raise serious doubts about the extent of Sweller’s awareness of SLA research and hence to take any applications very critically. This does not preclude future applications of cognitive load theory in language teaching and certainly, notwithstanding the general critiques, it is applicable in the domain of instructional design where it originated.

Thanks for reading.

References:

Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (August, 2017). Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand. Downloaded from https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-filter/cognitive-load-theory-research-that-teachers-really-need-to-understand.

Cooper, G. (December 1998). Research into Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design at UNSW. Retrieved from http://dwb4.unl.edu/Diss/Cooper/UNSW.htm

Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology (pp. 1–99). Greenwich: Information Age. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242124970_Conceptual_Foundations_for_an_Evolutionary_Educational_Psychology

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.

OH, S. Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. Tesol Quarterly, 35(1), 69-96.

Sweller, J. (August 2017). Cognitive load theory and teaching English as a second language to adult learners. Contact Magazine, 43(2), 5-9. Retrieved from http://contact.teslontario.org/cognitive-load-theory-esl/.

Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness and second language learning. Multilingual Matters.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Overloading on cognitive load theory in SLA

  1. “Learning a second language as an adult provides an example of secondary knowledge acquisition as do most of the topics covered in educational institutions. We invented education to deal with biologically secondary information. Learning to listen to and speak a second language as an adult requires conscious effort on the part of the learner and explicit instruction on the part of instructors. Little will be learned solely by immersion. Furthermore, since learning to read and write are biologically secondary because we have not evolved to acquire these skills, they also require conscious effort by learners and explicit teaching by instructors, irrespective of whether we are dealing with a native or second language.”

    I’m not sure it’s fair to say Sweller is mixing up literacy skills and adult LA, or that he is switching between them (in the sense of considering them one and the same). I think the “they also” in the final sentence of the paragraph above shows Sweller is comparing them, but not identifying them as the same thing. I mean, I read it as “[they also] require…” and not as “they [also require …]”.

    But I’ve been wrong before lol

  2. hi Michael

    i say he is mixing them up as he mentions them both in that paragraph about secondary skills, and i don’t see how he is not switching between literacy and (L2) acquisition when he says both “Learning to listen to and speak a second language as an adult requires conscious effort on the part of the learner and explicit instruction on the part of instructors.” and “Furthermore, since learning to read and write are biologically secondary because we have not evolved to acquire these skills, they also require conscious effort by learners and explicit teaching by instructors, irrespective of whether we are dealing with a native or second language”.

    I don’t see how parsing “they also require” either way makes a difference?

    note that Geary is very careful not to do this in his writing i.e. mix literacy (reading) with L1 acquisition and further he says nothing about L2 acquisition from what i have read, that is entirely Sweller’s logical leap from what i understand?

    ta
    mura

    1. Thanks Mura

      Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “mixing up” and “switching”. I *think* you mean that Sweller is treating adult L2A (I’ll call this ‘A’) as interchangeable with literacy skills (which I’ll call ‘B’). So A=B (although we know they aren’t the same thing).

      The way I’ve parsed “they also” makes a difference because with this parsing Sweller doesn’t make the A=B mistake, but rather is saying that A and B share some kind of similar qualities.

      “Learning to listen to and speak a second language as an adult requires conscious effort on the part of the learner and explicit instruction on the part of the instructors”

      “they also require conscious effort by learners and explicit teaching by instructors”

      These are two separate things, A and B, which *both* require conscious attention from learners and explicit instruction, according to Sweller (in this paragraph).

      I’d say Sweller’s final line that B’s characteristics apply in L1 and L2 contexts also supports the ‘comparison’, not the ‘mix-up’, view.

      Otherwise, in addition to the A=B error, the two quoted lines above are the exact same idea, repeated within a couple of sentences. A much graver sin of bad writing??? 😉

      ——-

      Note that I’m strictly limiting myself to a close reading of this single paragraph. Sweller may very well confuse the concepts elsewhere. I just don’t think this paragraph is a good basis for the criticism. Nor is this meant as a broader defense of Sweller. Just a super limited point lol

  3. Hi Michael sorry i am really scratching my head here.
    Do you agree that the « topic » of the passage in question is about what are called secondary skills?
    If so then I think my reading is fair no?
    If not then what is « topic » of this passage?

    1. Hi Mura

      I think ‘examples of secondary knowledge acquisition’ is the topic, and two examples (in Sweller’s view) are presented/described in the passage. I think the initial description of adult L2A as an example of secondary skill acquisition central to my reading, and perhaps where we are diverging in our reading of this specific passage.

      I would agree that Sweller’s treatment is clumsy (and arguably misleading), but I just don’t see conflation of adult L2A and literacy skills happening here.

      Really, tho, it’s a minor point in the overall thrust of your post 🙂
      I don’t want to eat up your comment space! lol

      1. When I say “minor point”, I mean that my *concern* was relatively minor, not that your point was unimportant.

  4. Actually, I’ve just reread it in quick succession a few times…. and I’m beginning to see more how you see the conflation happening — initially I saw (in Sweller’s formulation) adult L2A as meaning how to listen to and speak L2, and then reading/writing was an additional example of (related) secondary skill acquisition.

    However, I can now see how one could (perhaps/probably correctly 🙂 ) interpret Sweller’s position as adult L2A is made up of *both* learning to listen to/speak L2 AND literacy skills.

  5. that’s a nice mindmap;
    i did email Sweller, the response was “Ultimately, the issue is empirical.” and he sent me his co-authored study on CLIL/EMI

    i had already read this quickly before so had an other look.

    it does not address points in this blog post but it does underline that he thinks that L1A is very different to L2A

    in particular he states that working memory plays a large role in L2A but “unlikely to apply to learning a native language” this contrasts with studies which have found that for example phonological working memory does play a significant role in L1A

    another point is that while he argues that working memory limits the combinatorial explosion inherent in the input he ignores the same principle that says universal grammar is doing exactly this (limiting the space of language possibilities)

    anyway i asked if there are any empirical studies which do address any of the points in the blog post, will keep you posted

    ta
    mura

Penny for your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s