The Learner and Learning in a Digital Age

Add your instructor's name here to match the format used on the ED 501 page, and confirm the unit list against your syllabus before publishing.

Module 3 turns from the structure of the program to the person at the center of it — how learners develop, why they differ, and what those differences ask of a teacher. For an ESL candidate the module carries extra weight, because the learner in my classroom is acquiring the language and the content at the same time.

Core topics covered in this module:

• Theories of learning and cognitive development
• Learning in a Digital Age (Unit 2)
• Second language acquisition theory
• Language as a linguistic system and its developmental course

Activity window: 21–27 August 2026.

Second Language Acquisition Theory — Innatism

The activity asked me to select at least one SLA theory in my certification area, summarize the developmental process of language as a system, interpret that development through the theory, compare first and second language acquisition, and identify instructional practice aligned to the theory with research support. I chose innatism.

Language as a system. Language is layered, and each layer has its own units and rules — phonology for the sound inventory and permissible combinations, morphology for the smallest meaning-bearing units, syntax for the hierarchical rules that build phrases and clauses, semantics for meaning, and pragmatics for use in context. A learner can control one subsystem while another lags, which is why an English learner with strong conversational fluency can still struggle with academic writing.

The developmental process. First-language development follows a uniform course: cooing and babbling, holophrastic single words near twelve months, two-word combinations around eighteen months, telegraphic speech, then rapid expansion. The most revealing evidence is in the errors. Children who have said went correctly begin producing goed and foots — forms no adult modeled for them. Overregularization is proof that the child has extracted a rule and is applying it productively.

The theory. Chomsky (1959) argued that behaviorist accounts of imitation and reinforcement cannot explain productive novel utterances, and formalized the alternative as Universal Grammar (Chomsky, 1965) — an innate architecture of principles common to all languages, with parameters set by exposure. The central argument is the poverty of the stimulus: input is finite, degenerate, and offers almost no negative evidence, yet every typically developing child converges on a complex grammar on roughly the same timetable. Development is therefore triggering rather than teaching.

First versus second language acquisition. Both show developmental sequences that resist reordering by instruction, and both produce rule-governed rather than random errors. The decisive difference is outcome: L1 acquisition is uniformly successful, L2 acquisition is not, and it degrades with age. Johnson and Newport (1989) found grammaticality judgment performance declined systematically with age of arrival. Innatists disagree about why — Schwartz and Sprouse (1996) argue learners retain access to Universal Grammar and can restructure toward the target, while Bley-Vroman (1990) holds that adults have lost direct access and fall back on general problem-solving alongside the first language.

Aligned instructional practice. Two activities follow directly from the theory:

• Extensive reading — students self-select graded readers and read widely with minimal comprehension accountability, supplying the volume of primary linguistic data the acquisition mechanism works on. Nakanishi (2015) meta-analyzed 34 studies and 3,942 participants, reporting d = 0.46 for between-group contrasts and d = 0.71 pre-post.
• Total Physical Response with a silent period — students respond physically to spoken commands of increasing complexity before production is required (Asher, 1969), consistent with the claim that comprehension drives acquisition and that forcing early output does not accelerate the underlying system.

A tension I chose not to hide. If grammar is triggered rather than taught, explicit instruction should matter little — yet Norris and Ortega (2000), synthesizing 49 studies, found explicit treatments substantially outperformed implicit ones. My position is that rich comprehensible input remains the engine of acquisition while explicit attention to form accelerates the noticing that feeds it. The theory tells me what to build a course around; it does not license me to ignore evidence that focused instruction helps.