assumes that children have no innate abilities to learn the language

language is learned from the environment and through conditioning and reinforcements

there are (+) and (-) reinforcements

(+): students receives a reward

(-): students alter their use of language to match the corrections

This theory is limited. It can't account for the critical period, comparative developmental milestones regardless of language background and the complexities of language.

Children were born with the ability to acquire language 

It is the innate factor that causes their language development process. 

The conclusion of Dulay and Burt (1974) research had explained the innatist perspective in second language acquisition. They called second language learners innate ability with so-called creative construction theory. The process of acquiring a first and second language was a similar process. Thus, having an innatist approach towards second language acquisition learning would still be effective to help the students to acquire their second language. 

Gardner (1995) mentioned that Chomsky’s innatist theory did not regard the role of parents and caregivers towards the children’s language development. It was unacceptable because adults were needed to make the language function adequately. Thus, an innatist would not complete without an interactionist perspective. 

Interactionist believed the importance of nature and nurture in the children’s language acquisition process (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). The social environment is the key to process their language acquisition. With the help of caregivers, the children acquire more vocabulary. 

Discussion on the innatist and interactionist learning approach for elementary school students’ language acquisition has to lead us to the conclusion that both should be used within the context of completing each other. 

The teacher can take the benefits and make use of innatist, and interactionist learning approaches towards the success of students’ language acquisition.