Learning Styles: Proficiency and Brain Mechanisms

Immersion vs. the Classroom

Learning foreign languages can often be difficult, especially when dealing with irregularities as common in the German language (Marcus 39-40). Some teachers often maintain that adults may achieve proficiency in a foreign language, but can never truly speak exactly the same as a native speaker. Earlier this year, Science Daily reported on brain studies from late 2011 that investigated the mechanisms involved when adults learn foreign languages, compared to native speakers. According to Michael Ullman, ”adults learning a foreign language can come to rely on the same brain mechanisms as native speakers of a language, and that this might be true even for those parts of a foreign language that are particularly difficult to learn, such as its grammar”.

As Gary Marcus discusses in his book “Guitar Zero”, there are many methods that one may draw on when learning something new. Marcus addresses the benefits and shortcomings of several approaches utilized by various teachers including Michele Horner’s emphasis on perfect form through the Suzuki method, Ruth Alperson’s focus of rhythm via the Dalcroze method, Jamie Andreas’s variation of the Alexander technique, and Terre Roche’s unique flashcards (71-80).  

The study conducted at the University of Illinois first addresses similar issues, as researchers focused on early stages of learning utilizing a novel language consisting of only thirteen words in reference to a computer game. While both styles led to high-proficiency after a few days, they involved different mechanisms in the brain. The language was constructed with a grammar different from English, in order to control for similarities between languages.

Although previous studies have found that a classroom style approach often results in improved learning over an immersion in the language, this study revealed that only an immersion style approach resulted in identical brain mechanisms as seen in native speakers. The study even went as far as to examine retention after a period of five months in which the participants were not exposed to the language. Findings demonstrated that brain mechanisms actually became more native, yet not loss or gain of proficiency was noticeable.

Considerations of this study call for questions as to the brain mechanisms of the renowned musicians that Marcus incorporates in his analysis of the quest for musicality. While this study seems to indicate that different learning styles may achieve similar proficiency utilizing varying mechanisms, when contemplating musical aptitude, Marcus reminds us that “musicians like Lenny Kaye make it clear that technical prowess is just one route among many” (182). According to Danny Goldberg, “the ability to improvise and create new music…is a separate skill” (183). Thus, while immersion and classroom style learning may both result in equivalent levels of competency in language; it is possible that distinct approaches to the instruction of music may also produce the same proficiency. With music, however, the capacity to play music is not enough. The key is creativity and talent, as one must ultimately be gifted with the ability to use their minds to create; a skill Marcus realizes is not everyone’s forte.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120328172212.htm