In an earlier post, ‘Analysis or experience?’ I listed some differences between these two approaches to learning. I’d like to go a bit deeper into one of the items on that list, as it has come up in conversation since - The objective/subjective dimension.

Traditionally, language lessons were presented in a (necessarily) linear way. This form of presentation was objective in the sense that it was the same for each individual “First learn this, then learn this.” It assumed there was a progression that moved from (objectively) easy items to difficult ones. It did not, therefore, change on the basis of individual needs. In the types of English textbooks that I used for years, one common early sequence was from present tense, then past tense, then the progressive aspects, etc. The upside of this approach was that it allowed teachers to identify the more ‘teachable’ items and present them in an orderly way.

 Over the years, this order of presentation gave rise to the idea that of a natural order of acquisition (at the level of specific items) on the part of the learners. In other words, it suggested that there was an objectively identifiable sequence that every learner went through, and that that sequence was the same for everyone. All you had to do is look at the table of contents in your average textbook and you could see the natural order. Most people still think of language learning in these terms.

There are, however, problems with this scenario. There may well be an order of acquisition, but we only have a vague understanding of it. What we do know is that it appears to be rather more complex than a textbook table of contents might suggest. Nor is there a way to identify items that are objectively ‘easy’, ‘hard’, etc. In addition, acquisition varies from one person to the next, on the basis of individual experience.

Let me give you an example. In all the old English textbooks a common early lesson usually concerns the third person singular: I have, you have, he has. Ironically, this particular morpheme is rarely acquired by Chinese learners of English until they’ve reached a fairly advanced stage of fluency. Notice that I say ‘fairly advanced’. The fact is that we can only talk about these things in general terms. Acquisition, I would argue, is (a) subjective, and (b) different from what the common perception suggests.

 Note, however, the word ‘dimesnion’ above. The classroom invovles a combination of what the teacher does and what the student does (just as it does with ChinesePod). Sometimes, without a doubt, objective analysis helps. But it’s not the whole story and guess what, there needs to be a balance between the objective and the subjective, the analytical and the experiential.

I haven’t drawn my major conclusion here yet because I don’t want the post to run too long. I also want to raise awareness, and hear your ideas at this point. Don’t hold back (as if).

Ken Carroll