The cognitive theory of language learning is a key aspect of this research as the study focuses on different types of explicit instruction (inductive and deductive) which involves a variety of cognitive and mental processes. Before investigating further, the role of cognitive theory in language acquisition, a number of key definitions need to be explained. Richards and Schmidt (2010) defined cognitive theory as “a theory that describes phenomena in terms of mental constructs in the mind of individuals” (p.93). With regard to cognitive theory in linguistics, Richards and Schmidt (2010) define it as “the interaction between language and cognition” (p.91). It can be said that cognition in SLA is about using the language through interaction to understand ideas, experiences and feelings, convey meaning to others and organise ideas. So, learners use their current knowledge to understand new knowledge. This view is supported by Lashri et al (2013) who noted that cognitive engagement involves a connection between the current new knowledge and the previous knowledge
The focus of cognitive theory is on “the conceptualization of students’ learning processes and address[es] the issues of how information is received, organised, stored and retrieved by the mind” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 51). Furthermore, there are a number of cognitive strategies which may enhance learning, such as repeating words or phrases (rehearsal) and organizing (Richards and Schmidt, 2010). The cognitive theory of learning focuses on encouraging learners to use suitable learning strategies (Ertmer & Newby: 2013). In the current study, learners are involved in a number of cognitive strategies, such as discussing the topic, organizing ideas, writing, rehearsing and
presenting their presentation, which may have an effect on their learning of the target DMs.
Sharwood Smith (1981) claimed that explicit instruction could help EFL adult learners as they have “increased cognitive maturity” (p.165). In line with this claim and as the main focus of this study is on explicit instruction, adult learners could use their existing old knowledge as a strategy to learn the new knowledge and, ultimately, promote learning and acquisition of the new items. N. Ellis (2005) for example, argued that there is a correlation between effective explicit learning and the depth and the elaboration of the cognitive processes. Kalpper (2003) pointed out “in cognitive theory, acquiring a second language is the same as learning any complex skill: a range of sub-skills must be practiced in ‘controlled’ processing until they can be integrated into automatic or fluent performance” (p. 39).
With respect to how cognitive theory is applied to different teaching approaches. PPP is considered as a skill-building approach which also involves cognitive processes (Long, 2015). Furthermore, the cognitive phase in Anderson’s skill-building theory (Anderson, 1982) which informed the PPP approach is linked to cognitive learning theory because learners try to learn the target language (DMs), their meanings, and how to use them, which in effect turns their declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge. TBLT is considered as a cognitive-interactionist approach as it involves both cognitive processes as well as interaction, Furthermore, TBLT involves completing tasks in which learners communicate with each other, exchange ideas and experiences – all cognitive processes. According to Ellis (2003), “[a] task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes” (p. 16). In the same vein, Prabhu
information through some process of thought” (p. 24). It can be said that, in using TBLT learners engage in a number of cognitive activities, such as problem solving, listing and decision making.
So, the activities in TBLT involve a number of cognitive procedures which ultimately promote learners’ learning and acquisition. Doughty (2001), for example, claimed that “progress in SLA is thought often to depend crucially upon cognitive processes such as paying attention to features of target input” (p. 206), and noted that progress in adult SLA depends on cognitive processes such as differences between input and output. For instance, in the TBLT task in this study, learners need to carry out cognitive comparisons between their presentation and the good model in order to find the differences between them which ultimately enhances their learning of the target SDMs.
However, as mentioned previously, the main focus of this study is on explicit instruction by using two different teaching techniques (deductive and inductive) rather than comparing explicit and implicit instruction (a number of definitions have been explained in section 2.2). Nevertheless, some concepts related to explicit learning within cognitive theory will be emphasized. Dorneyi (2009) described explicit learning as an “unambiguous process characterized by the learners’ conscious and deliberate attempt to master some material or solve a problem” (p. 136). With regard to cognitive involvement in the learning process, learners attempt to give conscious attention to identify concepts and rules in order to find out some regularities (Hulstijn, 2005). In addition, Lashri et al (2013) pointed out that students’ participation is considered as part of the learning process which refers to a learner’s cognitive involvement, emotional engagement and active participation. In brief, all the implemented teaching approaches in the current study
encourage learners to work in groups, discuss the topic, organise ideas and prepare for the presentation.
Dekeyser (2003) distinguished between explicit deductive and explicit inductive learning and stated, “via traditional rule teaching, learning is both deductive and explicit” (p.314). However, when students are encouraged to search for rules from the given examples “learning is inductive and explicit” (Dekeyser, 2003, p.314). Taking the same line, Dorneyi (2009) defined deductive explicit teaching as “presenting learners with concepts and rules upfront” whereas inductive explicit teaching involves “encouraging them to derive and test hypotheses themselves” (p.136).