The question of learning in English raises a number of fundamental issues, of which perhaps the two most basic are:
“Learning what?” and
“Learning how?”

1. WHAT DO WE LEARN IN ENGLISH?

In order to this issue, one needs to first address the question of what just what it is that constitutes subject “English”. Hence, this section of this position paper is best read in conjunction with the ETA position paper on “Literacy and English”, in which an attempt is made to define the parameters of the subject.

Developing language

During the 1970s and 1980s, it was not unusual to talk of English in terms of “language development”. The then revolutionary 1971 NSW Syllabus in English for Forms I-IV (Years 7-10), heavily influenced by the work of James Moffett (1968), conceptualised the aim of English as “develop(ing) in pupils the utmost personal competence in using the language” (NSW Secondary Schools Board, 1971: 4) and the content of the subjects as a triad consisting of:

• language (knowledge and manipulation of usage, vocabulary, structure, style)
• in use (skill in reading, writing, listening, speaking)
• in context (of literature, media, personal expression and everyday communication).
   

Slightly later, “language development” came to be thought of in terms of another triad, this time popularised by Halliday (1980) as:

• learning language
• learning through language and
• learning about language
   

In Australia, this triad was well represented in, for example, the national Language Development Project, which began as a purely “English” project at a time when “English” and “language” were synonymous terms (Christie, 1981).

In these conceptualisations of the subject, then, “learning” in English ought to be thought of as at least:

• developing knowledge about aspects of language such as items of usage
• developing knowledge about the ways creators of texts manipulate aspects of structure and style
• developing knowledge about specific literary and media texts
• developing knowledge about specific techniques used in literary and media texts
• developing knowledge about specific techniques in items of everyday communication
• widening one’s vocabulary
• developing one’s own skills in the usage and the manipulation of aspects of structure and style
• developing one’s own macro-skills as a reader, writer, listener and speaker
• developing one’s own ability to make sense of one’s world through using reading, writing, listening and speaking
• using reading, writing, listening and speaking as tools for developing one’s understanding of subject content.
   

This list would be considered ambitious even today, let alone 20-30 years ago, but the subject has moved into more complex realms since. The current Syllabus for Years 7-10 in NSW revolves around a set of outcomes which:

• extend the earlier sets of skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing by adding the visual language skills of viewing and representing
• extend the objective of language appropriateness into language effectiveness
• extend the areas of thinking encompassed by previous Syllabuses from the imaginative and interpretive into the critical (in the sense encompassed by the term “critical literacy”)
• extend the notion of self-expression into an expression of relationships with others and the world and
• add a significant element of reflection and meta-cognition (Board of Studies, NSW, 2003: 13)
   

Models of English

Another way of conceptualising learning in English is to view it through the lens of the various models of the subject. One set of such models is that put forward by Cox:

• the “personal growth” model, which emphasises the relationship between language and learning in the individual child and the role of literature in developing imaginative and aesthetic lives
• a “cross-curricular” view which emphasises the role of all teachers in teaching subject language (in NSW, we would tend to see this not as “English”, but as “literacy”)
• an “adult needs” view, which emphasises communicative skills
• a “cultural heritage” view which stresses appreciation of the great works of the language
• a “cultural analysis” view – which by Cox’s definition combines what in Australia we would probably disaggregate into “cultural studies” as content (stressing an eclectic view of texts and an eclectic mix of disciplinary approaches to analysis) and “critical literacy” as a method (Cox, 1991: 21-22).
   

In these conceptualisations of the subject, “learning” in English would probably be thought of as at least:
 

• developing one’s imaginative capabilities
• developing one’s ability to use language to shape one’s understandings of the world (“personal growth”)
• developing one’s ability to manipulate the language structures and forms of various subject disciplines (“cross curricular”)
• developing one’s own skills in the usage and the manipulation of aspects of structure and style
• developing one’s own macro-skills as a reader, writer, listener and speaker (“adult needs”)
• developing knowledge in the broadest sense about specific literary texts (“cultural heritage”)
• developing knowledge in the broadest sense about a broad range of texts
• bringing to bear on textual analysis the techniques of a range of disciplines
• developing one’s ability to critique the ideology(ies) of a broad range of texts (“cultural analysis”)
   

2. HOW DO WE LEARN IN ENGLISH?

One of the most extensive discussions of learning theory in terms of language – and which therefore has a bearing on learning theory in English – is that contained in Douglas Barnes’ 1976 publication, From Communication to Curriculum, Barnes' classroom research showed the problems that resulted for children's learning when the style of language that was regarded by teachers as "appropriate" for a subject was in fact given more weight than the learner's attempts to formulate meaning. Barnes drew on Esland's distinction between "world-receivers" and "world-makers" to describe the difference between those who had "transmitted" to them the language forms of the subject and those given the opportunity to "interpret". "World-makers" grasp underlying principles and structures (p.115) because of this opportunity. "World-receivers" memorise knowledge and master standard skills (p.157). Teachers who emphasised the "appropriate" language of the subject were seen as often preventing learners from constructing knowledge and becoming “world-makers”.

Barnes' research with Shemilt led to their postulating the well-known Transmission/ Interpretation model of teaching and learning styles. Transmission teachers value "the learners' performances insofar as they conform to the criteria of the discipline"(Barnes,1976:144). In terms of writing pedagogy, for example, Transmission teachers were those who saw writing "as a means of recording or memorizing... at the expense of writing as a means of learning." (Barnes,1976:145).

Language, according to Barnes, should not be seen simply as a means of earning social approval but a means by which students make sense out of what they are learning – hence the importance of patterns of classroom communication that gave pupils the time and encouragement to explore the relationship between new and already existing knowledge. Barnes’ view, then, is essentially a learning theory - a view of the use of language in classrooms that goes beyond simply seeing language as a tool for communicating the ideas of the subject. Barnes makes problematic the traditional language of the subject itself as a vehicle for learning and, at the same time, argues that students may use language to "talk or write themselves into understanding" by connecting new knowledge to current experience.

Green argues that the key opposition in defining the "new English" of the 70s was not to be found in "English-as-literature"/ "English-as-language", or even "initiation"/creativity"but rather in "transmission" / "interpretation" (Green, 1995: 397). The "new English" was as much about pedagogy as about curriculum. Green is, in effect, arguing for Barnes as a central theoriser of the "new English", despite the "transmission"/"interpretation" model being created in the context of the whole curriculum.

Other important theories of learning relevant to language development are those of Halliday (1975), who stresses the role of social interaction, and of Cambourne (1988), who stresses the interplay of immersion, employment, approximation, demonstration, feedback, expectations and learner responsibility. In teaching English to second-language learners, approaches which approximate the conditions of first-language learning by stressing “acquisition” also stress the importance of meaning and purpose, social interaction, learner-centredness and movement from whole to part (Krashen, 1982, Freeman and Freeman, 1992). As will be obvious from this discussion, however, there has been little recent discussion of learning in English. This is partly because the various aspects of English skills – reading, writing etc – each have their own discrete literatures around learning: debates around the place of phonics in reading being a ubiquitous example. It is also partly because since the 1970s, much of what we previously encompassed under the heading of “language” has moved into the domain of “literacy”, from which English often distinguishes itself. Moreover, even recent discussions of learning in the context of language tends to traverse the ground already covered by theorists such as Bruner, Vygotsky, Britton, Barnes etc (Crowhurst, 1994: 7-10).

As Crowhurst outlines, earlier views of learning emphasised direct instruction, strong teacher control, basic skills preceding understanding and an emphais on subskills. “Newer” views of learning emphasise active meaning construction by the learner and learner understanding. – mastering factual detail being at best a means to more important higher order understandings. The aim of teaching post- Bruner, Vygotsky, Britton, Barnes being to create independent, self-directed learners capable of reflecting upon their understanding and their learning processes. Key concepts are:

• the importance of prior knowledge to learning
• the importance of metacognitive awareness and
• the interactive, social nature of learning (Crowhurst, 1994: 8)
   

Pedagogical practices which follow from this include:

• active learning: predicting, observing, discussing, solving problems, transforming and applying knowledge
• self reflection
• collaborative learning – which includes both reciprocal teaching and expert scaffolding (Crowhurst, 1994: 13)
   

Constructivism

These views of learning – going back as far as Barnes and even earlier – have gathered together under the general heading of “constructivism”. Like many terms in education, this one has come to mean very different things to different people, but, as Snowman and Biehler (2000), Borich and Tombari (1997) and Abbott and Ryan (1999) argue, to count as “constructivist”, a view of learning must at least contain a belief that meaningful learning is the active creation of knowledge structures by the learner – thus Barnes’ notion that through language is a way in which we attach new knowledge to what we already know (a child says, “It’s like…”). Constructivism is not simply a theoretical position with no empirical basis, since research into memory and brain processes show that the mind creates categories for processing information…(and) it is a feature of learning that memory processes make relational links to other information” (Bransford et al, 2000: 124). Under this view of learning the passivity represented by rote learning is not learning in any sense that entails deep understanding.
 

Taxonomies of learning

Outside of English specifically, a number of taxonomies have been developed to describe learning. The best known of these, of course, is Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy. More recently, Anderson and Krathwol (2001) have developed a “taxonomic grid” which cross- references cognitive against different types of knowledge, thus:

Insert Table1

If we were to map the outcomes of the current 7-10 Syllabus in English in NSW on such a grid, by trying to avoid repeating an outcome as much as possible and still remaining true to the spirit of the Syllabus, something like the following might result for Stage 4:
 

Insert Table2

Stage 5 outcomes would map similar results. The key point here is that arguments about the centrality of repetition and drill in media debates about education are effectively arguing for confining the curriculum to those areas of the curriculum represented by the highlighted cell. The richness of the curriculum hence becomes reduced and effectively “dumbed down”.

Conclusion

The ETA supports a position on learning which is inclusive of the richest possible understandings that a learner can access. In terms of “learning what?”, English is essentially about higher order skills and knowledge of complex issues. In the 21st century, any position on learning which seeks to confine the learner to low order retrieval skills and simple knowledge is to be rejected.

In terms of “learning how?”, we favour a constructivist position since this appears to best reflect what is known about learning processes and especially about processes of language learning. In the 21st century, any position on learning which seeks to confine the learner to drill and repetition is similarly to be rejected.

References

Abbott, J. and Ryan, T. (1999). Constructing knowledge, reconstructing schooling. Available at: http://www.21learn.org/publ/edleadership1999.html. Accessed 26 April 2006.

Anderson, L. and Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Longman.

Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Bloom, B.S. (ed) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. NY: David McKay Co.

Board of Studies, NSW (2003). English Years 7-10 Syllabus. Board of Studies, NSW.

Borich, G.D. and Tombari, M.L. (1997). Educational psychology: A contemporary approach. NY: Longman.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. and Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn. Washington: National Academy Press.

Cambourne, B. (1988). “Liberating learners”. In J.Hancock and B.Comber (eds) Independent learners. Melbourne: Thomas Nelson.

Christie, F. (1981).”The Language Development Project”. English in Australia, 58: Dec, pp. 3-9.

Cox, B. (1991). Cox on Cox: An English curriculum for the 1990’s. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Crowhurst, M. (1994). Language and learning across the curriculum. Scarborough, Ont: Allyn and Bacon.

Freeman, Y.S. and Freeman, D. E. (1992). Whole language for second language learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Green, Bill (1995). "Post-curriculum possibilities: English teaching, cultural politics, and the postmodern turn". Journal of curriculum studies, 27: 4, pp. 392-409.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1975) Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1980) “Three aspects of children’s language development: Learning language, learning through language, learning about language”. In Y.A. Goodman, M.M.Haussler and D.S. Strickland (eds) Oral and written language development: Impact on schools. International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. NY: Pergamon.

Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

NSW Secondary Schools Board (1971). Syllabus in English for Forms I-IV. Sydney: NSW Dept of Education.

Snowman, J and Biehler, R. (2000). Psychology applied to teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.