Practice and Automatization in Second Language Res... - (3 Skill Learning Theories and Language Teaching Different Strokes For ... )

3
SKILL LEARNING THEORIES AND

LANGUAGE TEACHING
Different Strokes for Different Folks
Masatoshi Sato
Introduction
Communicative competence is the desired skill for many second language (L2)
learners. In explaining the process of acquiring the skill as well as devising
pedagogical approaches that target the skill, L2 researchers have used skill
acquisition theory (SAT: DeKeyser, 2017). SAT is a variation of skill learning
theories that emphasize the importance of practice and feedback, and SAT has
become one of the most invoked theories in L2 research (Ortega, 2015). SAT
is often used in a rather simplistic way. Learners develop declarative knowledge
first via explicit teaching (e.g., grammar explanations and vocabulary
memorization); then, meaningful practice and corrective feedback facilitate
the acquisition of procedural knowledge. Hence, examples of learning how
to play a musical instrument or how to drive a stick-shift car. However, this
understanding of SAT does not seem to account for communicative skill
Copyright © 2023. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
development in certain contexts such as immersion education where learners

are not taught language rules at the outset of L2 learning (Lyster & Sato, 2013).
In order to demystify this contradiction, I discuss the wider skill learning
literature from cognitive psychology and neurology because L2 learning: (a) is
susceptible to teaching and learning contexts in which individual learners are
situated; (b) may be affected by learners’ learning backgrounds; (c) may share
certain aspects with other types of skill learning; but (d) may differ in other
aspects of cognitive development in motor skills of sports (Macnamara et al.,
2016), music skills (Hallam et al., 2018), or problem-solving skills in STEM
research (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2017).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003414643-4
Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research : Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive
Psychology, edited by Yuichi Suzuki, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lancaster/detail.action?doc
Created from lancaster on 2023-08-28 11:59:44.
64 Masatoshi Sato
To illustrate how skill learning theories could account for L2 learning in

different contexts, I will draw on two scenarios that I believe are useful in
understanding the skill learning of an L2. The two scenarios represent sharply
contrasting contexts for current L2 education in the world in terms of (a) types
of practice that learners typically engage in, and (b) types of skills that learners
typically end up acquiring. These scenarios, of course, do not represent all
L2 programs in their respective context. For instance, there are immersion
programs in a foreign language context (e.g., English immersion in Japan) that
tend to produce better learning outcomes.
Skill learning scenario A: Primary-level immersion context. In this

context, learners develop L2 skills while being immersed in the L2. Learners
are constantly exposed to and use the L2 inside and often outside the
classroom. The instructional goal usually includes the development of
subject knowledge (e.g., mathematics and science). Learners may acquire
communicative skills, including using the language fluently. However,
they may not reach native-like levels in linguistic accuracy (often called
fossilization). French immersion in Quebec, Canada, is an example. This
learning scenario shares some instructional elements with other content-
based instruction such as content-and-language-integrated instruction (CLIL)
or English-medium instruction (EMI). Similar learning environments such as
study abroad may also share some characteristics of the aforementioned
environments.
Skill learning scenario B: Secondary- and university-level foreign

language context. In this context, learners take L2 classes and the classroom
is the primary location where they are exposed to and use the L2. The
instructional goal is supposedly to acquire communicative skills. However,
teachers and learners tend to focus on developing metalinguistic skills,
partly due to the washback effect of testing (e.g., university entrance exams
focusing on reading and writing skills). Learners may acquire skills that are
useful for decontextualized L2 use where spontaneous L2 production is not
required, such as answering questions in written tests, reading a text, and
writing in the L2. However, the development of communicative skills lags
behind. Japanese EFL education, English education in Quebec, or foreign
language (e.g., Spanish) education in the United States are good examples.
This learning scenario shares key sociolinguistic and instructional elements
with other contexts where learners do not have adequate opportunities to
use the language outside the classroom, regardless of learners’ age.
Skill Learning Theories and Language Teaching 65
Throughout the current chapter, these two scenarios are referred to with
particular attention to communicative practice, that is, L2 use for meaningful
purposes. L2 uses involving meaningful interaction and output are pillars of
communicative teaching. Output practice is important for any skill learning
(Bransford et al., 1979; Muranoi, 2007; Renshaw et al., 2019): you will not
be able to learn how to play the piano by only listening to it. However, the
nature and outcome of output practice may not result in the same learning
outcomes, depending on the goal presupposed by the context. L2 learners
situated in contexts like Scenario B do engage in output practice yet do not
achieve the desired level of communicative competence. The same can be
said for communicative practice. If learners interact with the teacher and their
peers in the classroom via communicative tasks, then why don’t they develop
communicative competence?
In exploring this fundamental question, I draw on research of memory
retrieval routines, that is, habits that can be defined as “a highly entrenched
behavioral pattern that resists change through retraining” (Popp et al., 2020,
p. 1456). The human brain develops certain patterns of memory retrieval from
either declarative or procedural memories, or both (Schreiweis et al., 2014). The
established routines underlie human behaviors, and in order to unlearn behaviors
that are detrimental to task performance, an amount of training is required.
Such a phenomenon has been demonstrated by numerous experiments in
neuroscience research (see Elsey et al., 2018). Take the skill learning of playing
the guitar, for example. If a person learned to hold the guitar in the wrong way
and kept practicing like this for a long time, the behavior will become habitual.
In order to unlearn this behavior, it will take (a) instruction to learn how to
hold it correctly and (b) a significant amount of practice of the correct way to
hold it. Put in the L2 context, learners who have established a memory retrieval
routine that triggers analysis of language via traditional language teaching may
tend to focus on language forms even when the context of L2 use requires focus
on meaning, that is, spontaneous language use. In order to develop procedural
memory of communicative language use, they may have to engage in a new

type of practice to establish a new memory retrieval routine.
In other words, practice may activate different retrieval routines depending
on learners’ learning experiences prior to engaging in a practice activity in
the classroom or participating in a research study. If a learner had established
a memory trace of declarative knowledge, then an experimental intervention,
even a communicative one, may trigger the same routine, limiting the
development of procedural knowledge. The same could be said for feedback.
When a learner had been trained to draw on declarative knowledge when using
an L2, feedback during a communicative activity may not tap into declarative
knowledge in a way that supports development of procedural knowledge.
Although each learner brings different learning experiences into an experiment,
66 Masatoshi Sato
it is not difficult to infer the participants’ prior practice routines that had been
shaped by the learning context in which they had been situated (cf. Scenario
A vs. Scenario B). While readers are directed to the introduction to the current
volume (Suzuki, this volume) for general discussion, I will explore the following
points in the current chapter:
• Skill learning theories can partially account for L2 development in different

contexts but in different ways.
• Learners may develop procedural knowledge of decontextualized L2 use.
• Interactive and output practice are necessary for acquiring communicative
skills regardless of learning context.
• Practice and feedback may trigger different memory traces—declarative
or procedural—depending on the learner’s learning background and the
context in which they are situated.
• Declarative knowledge can be useless or useful depending on how
practice and feedback are processed by individual learners.
Communicative Practice and Empirical Evidence
Declarative and Procedural Memory Systems

I set up some parameters of this chapter. First, I will primarily focus on
actual performance—speed and accuracy of L2 production—rather than
the knowledge source of the performance, because accurate and smooth L2
speech is a major goal for any learner. The underlying knowledge for L2 use
during communication is still under debate. Accurate and fast L2 production
may represent either rapid access to declarative knowledge or direct access to
procedural or automatized knowledge, or a combination of both (see Morgan-
Short et al., 2014).
Second, while I will focus on L2 grammatical knowledge, discussions
are relevant to other types of L2 knowledge such as lexical and pragmatic

knowledge. I will exclude phonological knowledge, however. Although
there is evidence attesting to the practice effect on proceduralization of
phonological knowledge when learners engage in repeated practice, such
as shadowing (e.g., Foote & McDonough, 2017), automatized phonological
knowledge may encounter physical constraints when it is put into use (see
Ben-David & Icht, 2018). That is, automatized phonological knowledge may
not be observable when it is interfered with by muscle movements related to
speech production.
Third, I do not argue that cognitive theories explain all skill learning
outcomes. Social and affective variables do mediate the impact of practice (see
Larsen-Freeman, 2013). However, social and affective mediators of practice

effects are beyond the scope of the current chapter.
Different Types of Skills

Communicative skills are typically conceptualized as a behavioral outcome
of procedural knowledge (Ellis et al., 2009; Segalowitz, 2010). However, this
conceptualization may be misleading. It is true that communicative skills are
most likely based on procedural knowledge because spontaneous L2 use requires
ballistic, fast, and sometimes automatic processing of L2 knowledge (DeKeyser,
2017). It is also true that declarative knowledge is necessary to get a good score
on a grammar quiz because one needs factual knowledge of how L2 systems
work (Spada et al., 2014). However, those facts do not necessarily mean that
one cannot develop procedural knowledge used to perform mechanical skills
(e.g., fill-in-the-gap tasks and conjugation tasks). After engaging in repeated
practice of mechanical drills, one could develop procedural knowledge of
mechanical skills as well. Take problem-solving for mathematical skill learning,
for example. In mathematics education research, researchers operationalize
procedural knowledge as represented in the speed and accuracy of solving
mathematical problems (see, for example, Ziegler et al., 2018). This skill is
just like a skill used for a verb conjugation task. L2 learners can become fast,
accurate, and potentially automatic, allowing them to achieve a high score on
a written test.
To this end, the concept of skill specificity may be useful to re-conceptualize
procedural knowledge. Skill specificity can be defined as “the specialized nature
of procedural knowledge, which causes it not to be directly transferable to other
skills” (DeKeyser, 2017, p. 17). In other words, use of a skill is dependent on
“cues, responses, context, or procedures” (Healy et al., 2019, p. 1607). If we
conceptualize skilled performance for translating L1 sentences to L2 sentences
rapidly and accurately as representing procedural knowledge of that specific
skill, learners simply need to respond (i.e., production of L2 sentences) to a cue

(i.e., L1 sentences) in a specific context (i.e., a learning task). It is understandable
that this skill is not usable in a communicative context. The kind of procedural
knowledge required for communicative L2 use should be acquired and adopted
to different cues (e.g., needs for communication) and response (e.g., spontaneous
oral production).
L2 research supports this position. In DeKeyser’s (1997) study, learners were
first taught morphosyntactic rules and vocabulary of an artificial language. This
was followed by eight weeks of computer-based comprehension and production
practice. Results showed that the processing of the grammar rules subjected to
production-based practice was found to become faster and more accurate in the
production test, while those subjected to comprehension-based practice were
68 Masatoshi Sato
proceduralized more as comprehension skills. Similar results were obtained with

a real language in De Jong’s (2005) study that asked one of the most important
questions in the field of L2 research: Can learners develop explicit grammatical
knowledge only by listening? In this study, two experimental groups received
either receptive or receptive + productive practice of L2-Spanish grammar
(gender agreement). The receptive group engaged in sentence-picture matching
tasks, while the receptive + productive group was given picture-description
tasks. Analysis showed that while both groups improved comprehension skills,
the receptive + productive group outperformed the receptive group on the
measure of productive skills. Evidence of comprehension-production skill
specificity has been corroborated in laboratory (e.g., Morgan-Short & Bowden,
2006; Suzuki & Sunada, 2020) and classroom settings (e.g., Keating & Farley,
2008; Mostafa & Kim, 2021) with different L2 domains such as pragmatic
knowledge (e.g., Li & Taguchi, 2014).
For the remainder of this chapter, unless specified, procedural knowledge
refers to the type of knowledge responsible for communicative use of an L2.
The Goal of Practice and Its Measurement

Empirical studies of motor and cognitive skill learning usually include
performance tests of the desired skill, ranging from golf putting and laparoscopy
surgery, to arithmetic problem-solving. Schmidt and Bjork (1992) summarized
that “in most educational, military, and industrial settings, the effectiveness of
a training program can be evaluated by several criteria, depending on what we
would like our learners to be able to do” (p. 209: emphasis added). L2 research
too uses a variety of tests to measure procedural knowledge, assuming that this
knowledge underlies communicative skills (see Suzuki & Elgort, this volume).
I explore here whether a test used in a practice study measures the construct
purported to be the goal of practice.
The first global type of test is the receptive test, designed to measure
memory retrieval and recall. These tests include, for instance, meaning–form
matching tests in which participants match a word and its meaning (e.g., Nakata
& Elgort, 2021); grammaticality judgment tests in which participants judge
whether a given sentence is correct or incorrect (e.g., Kasprowicz et al., 2019);
error correction tests in which learners are given incorrect sentences to be
corrected (e.g., Bird, 2010; Rogers, 2015); sentence-picture matching tests in
which participants are given a sentence and multiple pictures to match with it
(Kasprowicz et al., 2019); or word-matching tests in which participants match
words in their L1 and L2 (Serrano & Huang, 2018).
The issue here is a scarcity of evidence showing that procedural knowledge
measured by these tests is usable for the communicative use of the language.
The issue is not the validity of the tests in measuring procedural knowledge;
rather, the question is whether the measured procedural knowledge is the

specific type of knowledge that will be retrieved in real-world communication.
After all, any skilled performance is based on procedural knowledge, and
there is little evidence, for instance, of scores of a meaning–form matching test
positively correlating with scores of a spontaneous oral production test (but
see Suzuki & Kormos, 2022). This argument is analogous to the learning of
sport skills (see Renshaw et al., 2019). When athletes receive perceptual and
cognitive training (e.g., how to co-position during a basketball game), their
newly developed procedural knowledge can be tested by having them place
magnets on a white board. However, whether they have developed procedural
knowledge of actual performance is not shown by this kind of test. The same
methodological issue may exist in certain types of productive tests as well,
such as picture-naming tests in which participants see a picture and name the
object (Li & DeKeyser, 2019) or translation tests (Miles, 2014; Nakata, 2015).
Those tests may measure procedural knowledge of connecting meaning and
form; however, it is unknown whether the developed procedural knowledge is
transferrable to communicative language use.
A type of a test that may tap into procedural knowledge usable in com-
municative contexts is a spontaneous oral production test, such as picture-
description tests in which participants orally describe a set of pictures (e.g.,
Kim & Tracy-Ventura, 2013; Suzuki & Hanzawa, 2021); or a monologue
speech test, in which participants are given a prompt to talk about (e.g., de
Jong & Perfetti, 2011; Thai & Boers, 2016). Although rare, spontaneous oral
production data during actual communication have been collected as well (e.g.,
Sato & McDonough, 2019). The obtained data are usually analyzed in light of
accuracy (e.g., the rate of grammatical errors) and fluency (e.g., speech rate,
disfluency markers, and pause phenomena). Recent studies have explored more
linguistic correlates such as complexity–accuracy–lexis–fluency, or CALF (e.g.,
Bui et al., 2019; de Jong & Vercellotti, 2016).
In fact, accuracy and fluency of oral production have been considered as
related to proceduralization and automatization of L2 knowledge. Segalowitz

(2010) distinguished between utterance and cognitive fluency. He argued
that utterance fluency observed in temporal aspects of L2 production can
be a manifestation of cognitive fluency. Some studies have revealed such a
relationship. For instance, in Segalowitz and Freed’s (2004) study, cognitive
processing measured via lexical access speed (animacy judgment tests) was found
to be related to the learners’ utterance fluency during oral interviews (filled
pauses). In de Jong et al. (2013), speech rate (mean syllable duration) predicted
cognitive fluency gauged by lexical retrieval speed. However, given that the
findings of the relationship between utterance and cognitive fluency have been
mixed at this point (see Suzuki & Révész, this volume), measuring utterance
fluency seems to be the first prioritized choice as the test of practice effects if the
70 Masatoshi Sato
researcher is interested in communicative competence as the goal of practice.

Measures of cognitive processing (e.g., lexical access speed) can be considered
as a supplementary tool to better understand the cognitive underpinnings that
may allow for fluent production.
The Nature of Practice

Researchers have argued for the importance of meaningful and contextualized
practice. Lightbown (2000) defined practice as “opportunities for meaningful
language use” (p. 443). Lyster and Sato (2013) argued that “contextualized
practice are more effective catalysts for L2 development” (p. 83) than practice
focusing on discrete linguistic items. So, what does meaning ful or contextualized
practice mean in relation to the development of procedural knowledge
supporting communicative skills?
An intuitive answer to this question, and an answer that researchers generally
agree upon, is that meaningful practice occurs during communicative activities.
During communicative activities, learners may establish memory routines that
would be used during the desired skill performance; hence, practice needs to
involve interaction and output in the L2 (see Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005;
DeKeyser, 2010; Suzuki, this volume). Despite this common understanding,
L2 learning patterns in different contexts suggest a more complex picture.
Referring back to the opening scenarios, those who are situated in a context
similar to Scenario A may say that learners engage in meaningful practice all
the time in the classroom and probably outside the classroom as well. However,
the accuracy of learners’ communicative skills often does not reach a native-like
level (see Day & Shapson, 1991). On the other hand, those who are situated in a
context similar to Scenario B may view communicative practice as insufficient
because learners do engage in communicative activities in the classroom yet
their communicative skills, in light of both accuracy and fluency, do not
develop after years of practice (see Muranoi, 2000). Those differential practice
effects point to two possible interpretations. First, communicative activities

may mean different types of activities depending on teaching contexts. Second,
the same communicative activity may have different impacts on different
learners in different contexts. Although the first interpretation is indeed valid
(i.e., communicative activities are de-contextualized and rather mechanical,
although they are considered to be meaningful activities), I will focus on the
second interpretation because it seems to be the source of competing empirical
evidence deriving from different teaching and learning contexts.
People establish specific memory retrieval routines after engaging in
repeated practice, but the routines can be changed. Changes in memory
retrieval routines may be best evidenced in brain research. Using neuroimaging
and neurocognitive data (ERP), Faretta-Stutenberg and Morgan-Short (2018)
examined the impact of learning contexts on L2 development measured by

grammaticality judgment tests. The first experiment was conducted in an
at-home context with university-level L2-Spanish learners in the United States
(cf. Scenario B of the current chapter). After a semester, learners’ L2 knowledge
gains were not predicted by either declarative or procedural memory (in
a regression model). In the second experiment, the same types of data were
collected from L2-Spanish learners in study abroad contexts (cf. Scenario
A). Those learners had lived in Spanish-speaking countries and completed
content courses taught in Spanish. Despite the comparable gains between the
at-home and study abroad groups, the learning gains by the study abroad group
were accounted for by procedural memory but not by declarative memory.
In other words, the ways in which learners processed communicative practice
changed due to the experience during study abroad, leading Faretta-Stutenberg
and Morgan-Short to conclude that “the role of procedural memory may be
enhanced under less explicit, more exposure-based contexts” (p. 90).
During study abroad, learners engage in communicative practice in their
regular lives (see McManus, this volume). McManus et al. (2021) longitudinally
observed study abroad learners of L2-French and L2-Spanish. Over 21 months,
oral interview and picture-description data were collected six times before,
during (one academic year), and after the study abroad programs. The data
were analyzed in terms of complexity, accuracy, lexis, and fluency. The learners
had received traditional L2 instruction (cf. Scenario B) prior to study abroad.
Results showed that fluency was the index that benefited most from study
abroad, although there was some improvement in accuracy. Interestingly,
accuracy development was prominent between the last data collection during
study abroad and the one after returning home when learners received additional
L2 instruction (i.e., moving back to Scenario B from Scenario A). Those
results may suggest that the impact of practice—how learners process a given
communicative activity—had been altered due to study abroad experience. It
is possible that prior to study abroad, communicative activities were processed
primarily in the declarative memory circuit; however, after study abroad,

learners engaged in the same activities by relying on the procedural system
to a comparatively larger degree. Consequently, the ways in which practice
impacted procedural vs. declarative memory might have changed. Note,
however, that without evidence of how learners process L2 information during
a communitive activity, which is methodologically difficult to obtain, this
interpretation of the study remains tentative.
The above evidence may suggest that, first, learners interacting with someone
and producing an L2 in the classroom may not be sufficient for accuracy
or fluency development, at least when the amount of practice is limited. In
addition, it suggests that memory retrieval routines associated with meaning ful
practice of an L2 may differ depending on learners’ background and learning
72 Masatoshi Sato
environments. When a learner has formed declarative memory retrieval

routines due to the instructional context (e.g., repeated mechanical practice
in an input-poor context), communicative practice may result in declarative
memory anyway and exert a lesser effect on proceduralization of the knowledge
for communication. Developing procedural memory routines and incurring
them may often require a substantial change in learning contexts. This does not
mean that the development of procedural knowledge is impossible in a foreign
language context, however. I will discuss this issue in the following section in
relation to transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) and feedback.
Principles of Effective Practice

In this section, I discuss principles of effective practice, in response to the
five principles proposed in the introduction of the current volume (Suzuki,
this volume). I argue that while some of the proposed principles (TAP and
feedback) may apply to any L2 learning context, some (deliberate, systematic,
and challenging) can be usefully considered in some specific contexts. I also add
variability of practice as another principle.
Deliberate, Systematic, and Challenging Practice

Deliberate and systematic practice, which was originally proposed as the
definition of practice by DeKeyser (2007), can have a positive impact regardless
of the goal of practice. In order to become skillful, one needs to repeat the
same action again and again. Practice should be systematic rather than random
so that a firm retrieval routine from procedural memory can be established.
Another principle put forth by Suzuki (this volume) is that practice should be
challenging. Indeed, practice effectiveness may be enhanced when its content
is challenging; doing an easy thing over and over may not contribute to the
development of procedural memory. Hence, the proposed principles by Suzuki
(this volume) do provide a useful framework for designing practice activities
for many L2 learning contexts. In addition, the principles have been shown
to enhance practice effectiveness, and evidence is abundant in skill learning
research of music, sports, or games. L2 skills, however, may differ from those
skills. No one would engage in deliberate, systematic, or challenging practice
of piano or basketball skills unintentionally and accidentally outside specific time
and space reserved for practice. However, L2 skills can be acquired implicitly
(cf. Scenario A).
Take the principle of deliberate practice, for example. The issue here is
that deliberate practice does not account for the development of procedural
knowledge in input- and output-rich learning environments. For instance,
young learners in an immersion setting are unlikely to be deliberate when using
the L2, although they may be aware that they are learning the L2. Simply, they
use the language for playing and communicating with others. This learning
pattern shows that intentionality is not a necessary condition for practice for
procedural system development either. Whether “intentionality” facilitates
L2 skill learning processes is a separate question, however. For contexts like
Scenario B (foreign language learning), intentionality may be measured via a
questionnaire as a co-variate because each learner must possess different degrees
of intentionality. For contexts like Scenario A (immersion), intentionality
may be better conceptualized as a motivational variable because learning the
L2 may not be their own decision but rather one imposed by other factors
(e.g., governmental regulations, school curriculum, immigration, and parents’
desire).
Transfer-Appropriate Processing
The idea of TAP is that a skill developed in a certain context is best transferred
to another context that shares as many elements as possible with the original
context. Lee (1988) argued that “one task will facilitate transfer to a second
task only to the degree that the two share common ‘elements’ ” (p. 202).
Indeed, the oft-cited Morris et al. (1977) article was based on a series of word
learning experiments showing that when the learning condition approximated
the testing condition, the test scores were higher than when the learning and
testing conditions differed. Applying this framework to L2 learning, researchers
have advocated for classroom activities that closely resemble real-life L2 use
situations. As DeKeyser (2017) said: “We should strive to identify practice
conditions that have enough elements in common with the context of transfer
for this context to activate the memory traces from the practice” (p. 24). Simply
put, TAP explains the degree of environmental element-matching between the
contexts of practice and desired skill uses.
What, then, are the elements? As we discussed in relation to the nature of
practice, communicative activities should involve multiple people exchanging

information interactively so that procedural knowledge is fine-tuned for L2
communication (see Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005). Using communicative
activities is not a new idea, though. Over the past 50 years, curriculum
designers and instructors have strived to facilitate the use of communicative
activities. Researchers have advocated communicative language teaching as
a pedagogical framework that has been implemented in various classrooms,
albeit to different degrees (e.g., PPP and TBLT) (see Bui & Newton, 2021).
After 50 years, however, the original developmental problem still seems to
persist; learners in foreign language contexts (cf. Scenario B) fail to develop
communicative skills. There are two possible ways of understanding this
issue. First, there may be some shared elements missing that trigger procedural
74 Masatoshi Sato
memory retrieval. Second, matching elements may be insufficient to establish

the memory routines required for the desired context.
As for the first possibility, surveys of communicative activities included in
L2 textbooks show that the nature of activities and the topic of communicative
activities are often detached from real-world communication. For instance,
Vold (2020) analyzed four L2-French textbooks used in Norway. Among
the oral production activities, which were found to range from 7% to 28%
of the entire textbooks, communicative activities (e.g., role-play, interviews,
discussion, etc.) were found to be only 6–15%, the rest being drills (e.g., fill-
in-the-gap). Even when an activity is communicative, its topic may be an
issue. Siegel (2014) compared conversation topics found in textbooks and topics
that appeared during actual conversations between Japanese EFL learners and
L1-English speakers at university dorms. Results showed that some topics were
found in common (e.g., travel and culture), but many topics appearing in the
textbooks (e.g., relationships, animals, entertainment) were much less discussed
in the real-life conversations. Those studies attest that the context of practice
may miss some elements that exist in the context of performance.
Based on the concern related to mismatches of practice activities, Sato and
McDonough (2019) aimed at aligning the practice activities to a real-world
communicative context. They explored the impact of contextualized practice,
defined as “a type of practice that occurs in an intact classroom where learners
engage in production that is transfer-appropriate to authentic, communicative
language use” (p. 1004). In the Chilean EFL context, learners who had
possessed some declarative knowledge of the target structure at the beginning
of the study (i.e., wh-questions) engaged in multiple communicative activities in
which they asked the teacher personal questions. Over the course of five weeks,
the learners’ fluency (speech rate) during spontaneous oral production tasks
steadily improved; however, their development of accuracy was not observed
as much, except for those who produced more grammatically correct sentences
during practice. This study suggests adding a missing element (meaning fulness,
in this case) to be shared between the practice and performance contexts may
help develop procedural retrieval routines.
The second possibility is that matching elements is insufficient for TAP to
happen. To this end, Larsen-Freeman (2013) distinguished near and far transfer.
For instance, near transfer includes a case in which students develop an L2 skill
in an L2 class and they use the skill in another L2 class. Far transfer is more
complex. When far transfer occurs, learners “solve novel problems that are
isomorphs of one another, that is, those that share the same logical structure
with the knowledge initially acquired, but which are presented or described in
different terms” (p. 109). To incur far transfer, Larsen-Freeman proposed that
“psychological authenticity” needs to be present in communicative activities
(p. 120). Psychological authenticity is mediated by social and affective variables
during the activity. This argument is similar to Segalowitz and Lightbown’s

(1999) claim that the best practice is done “in a cue dependent or context
sensitive manner” (p. 50). In other words, what may be more important than
the degree of element-matching is establishing cues that trigger procedural
memory traces in the brain.
In this regard, for learners in contexts like Scenario B (foreign language
learning), teacher–student interactions may be prone to trigger declarative
memory no matter how communicative an activity is (although Sato &
McDonough, 2019, showed it is possible to devise teacher-centered activities
that tap into procedural system). This is because the teacher is supposed to
teach linguistic knowledge and, consequently, learners may mainly engage in
the retrieval of declarative knowledge, thinking about linguistic rules all the
time. One way to increase psychological authenticity may be to implement
communicative activities between learners. For instance, Sato and Lyster (2012)
examined practice effects based on peer interaction. In this study, university-
level Japanese EFL learners engaged in a series of communicative peer interaction
activities over ten weeks. The three experimental groups included a peer-
interaction-only group and two groups that received feedback training. Results
showed that the peer-interaction-only group improved oral fluency over time,
while the feedback groups improved both accuracy and fluency. The study
shows that peer interaction might have helped to establish procedural memory,
as shown by the finding that the accuracy development did not interfere with
the fluency development. Indeed, in discussing TAP, Ortega (2007) advocated
peer interaction as an ideal context for foreign language learners to engage in
transfer-appropriate practice.
Feedback and Output Practice

I argue that there may be two distinct effects that feedback has on L2 skill
development—effects that previous feedback research has often conflated.
Direct feedback effect: Feedback alone affects the development or

restructuring of declarative knowledge, and the new declarative knowledge
supports the development of procedural knowledge.
Indirect feedback effect: Output practice elicited by feedback affects

the development of procedural knowledge, potentially supported by the
declarative knowledge tapped into by feedback.
For the direct feedback effect, the mere reception of feedback may contribute
to the restructuring of inaccurate declarative, and potentially procedural,
76 Masatoshi Sato
knowledge representations. Supportive evidence of this feedback effect can be

found in recast studies. Recasts are a type of feedback that provides learners
with the correct version of the error. For instance, an L2 learner may say
“She has funny hair. His* hair is always … messy” with an error related to
possessive determiners (his/her). In response, the teacher may give feedback
and say “Oh yeah? Her hair is messy, huh?” (taken from Sato & Loewen,
2018). The correct version is embedded in this feedback and the learner is not
given an opportunity to produce the correct version. Without output practice
opportunities, recasts have shown to contribute to restructuring of procedural
knowledge (more commonly referred to as implicit knowledge in feedback
research) by triggering the noticing of inaccurate declarative knowledge
representations (see Goo & Mackey, 2013). Importantly, this feedback effect
could be triggered by output-prompting feedback as well. When a learner
is given metalinguistic feedback (e.g., “You made a past tense mistake”),
they may not produce the correct version and yet notice that their original
production was erroneous.
For the indirect feedback effect, practice alone may contribute to the
consolidation or restructuring of procedural knowledge. This is because
feedback may prompt output practice during meaningful communication, that
is, a transfer-appropriate context for developing communicative skills. When a
learner makes an L2 error and the interlocutor gives output-prompting types of
feedback (e.g., “Can you say that again?”), they may modify the original error
and produce the correct version (Lyster et al., 2013). This oral production is
considered to impact L2 development because learners engage in practice of
target-like behavior (i.e., accurate and fluent production of L2). Recasts may
elicit a similar type of output when a learner repeats the feedback. However,
in this case, the impact of the two types of feedback effects is more difficult to
tease apart.
Although these differential impacts of feedback are not generally teased
apart in experimental studies, I illustrate how these distinct effects can be
understood by delineating contrasting patterns reported in Li et al. (2016) and

Spada et al. (2014). Li et al. (2016) compared immediate and delayed feedback.
As classroom activities, participants listened to a story and retold the story to
the class (dictogloss tasks). In the immediate condition, participants were given
feedback when they made an error related to the passive voice in English.
The teacher gave output-prompting feedback (prompts) to encourage learners
to correct the error on their own. When they failed to produce the correct
version, the teacher gave the correct version of the error (recasts). In the delayed
condition, the teacher gave feedback after the communicative activities on the
errors that occurred during the activities. In a sense, this operationalization of
immediate and delayed feedback methodologically teases apart the two types of
feedback effects. In the immediate condition, learners are afforded to engage in
practice of target-like behavior during communicative interaction, while in the

delayed condition, feedback alone may contribute to restructuring of inaccurate
declarative knowledge. The findings of Li et al.’s (2016) study indicated that the
immediate feedback group outperformed the delayed feedback group on the
measurement of declarative knowledge (i.e., a grammaticality judgment test),
although both groups significantly improved over time. However, neither of the
groups showed development of procedural knowledge (measured via an elicited
imitation test). The authors concluded that feedback resulted in contextualized
output practice for the immediate condition, but the development of procedural
knowledge may require more output practice.
In Spada et al. (2014), the effects of form-focused instruction including
corrective feedback were examined in two different conditions. In the integrated
condition, participants were given grammar explanations and feedback during
communicative activities, while in the isolated condition, feedback was withheld
until after the communicative activities. Results showed that the isolated group
increased declarative knowledge more than the integrated group did (measured
via a written grammar test). While the isolated group also improved the scores
of procedural knowledge (measured via a storytelling test), the score gain was
larger in the integrated group than the isolated group. The study first shows
that feedback best functions when it is provided in an environment close to the
desired context of the skill use, that is, transfer-appropriate contexts. Second, it
shows that output practice can help restructure representations in the procedural
memory system.
Note that Li et al.’s (2016) participants were middle school EFL learners in
China where learners tend to develop declarative memory routines (cf. Scenario
B). Not only was the quantity of output practice insufficient for developing
procedural knowledge, but in their context, the feedback might have been
more conducive to the development of declarative knowledge even though
it was provided during communicative activities. The context of Spada et al.
(2014) was Canadian ESL where the instruction was overall communicative (cf.
Scenario A) and feedback served primarily as a device to develop procedural

knowledge and occasionally tap into learners’ declarative knowledge. This
comparison suggests that the two functions of feedback (i.e., feedback alone
vs. elicited output practice) for the development of procedural knowledge
may be mediated by the ways in which feedback is processed by individual
learners (Sato, 2011). On the one hand, when learners process feedback in
decontextualized, non-communicative context (cf. Scenario B), it may not
contribute to the development of procedural knowledge that is transferable to
actual communication. The subsequent elicited output practice too may be less
likely to result in procedural knowledge. On the other hand, when learners are
used to retrieving L2 knowledge from procedural memory (cf. Scenario A),
practice alone may impact procedural and declarative knowledge, and feedback
78 Masatoshi Sato
may serve as a reminder to “unlearn” (Lyster, 1994, p. 281) specific inaccurate

procedural representations.
Variability of Practice
Although Suzuki (this volume) highlighted the benefits and drawbacks of
increasing practice variability through changing and sequencing communicative
task activities, I focus more on the beneficial roles of practice variability,
drawing on different skill learning contexts. For instance, in relation to the
learning of surgical skills, Grierson (2014, p. 286) summarized that
those who need to operate a bone drill, which requires learning the
appropriate forces for penetrating the bone without overextending the
plunge, will benefit if they have the opportunity to apply a variety of forces
on a variety of bones.
In L2 research, Lightbown (2008) recommended that practice be varied

because variability promotes the establishment of “richer, more contextualized
representations” (p. 39). Variability is pedagogically important as well because
learners in any classroom bring in different personal interests and cognitive
individual differences. In such an environment, variability would increase the
chance that all students, not just a few, would benefit from practice activities
(DeKeyser, 2010; Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2018).
In a way, inserting variability in practice contradicts TAP, in that there
would be more mismatches between the contexts of practice and performance.
However, in real-world situations, learners are expected to use the learned skills
in a variety of social contexts. For example, if the specific target of practice
activities is to ask wh-questions, activities can include different contexts, such as
asking the teachers questions as well as classmates. Activities should be varied
in topic as well (e.g., decision-making tasks or information-gap tasks). This
way, the human brain would be ready to react to more cues when the time of
real performance comes. Adding variability would also help learners counter
variables that tend not to exist in the classroom. In the real world, learners
encounter a variety of processing demands, such as anxiety during speaking,
social relationship with the interlocutor, and environmental factors (e.g., noise).
Replicating every variable that may exist in the real world in a classroom
activity is practically impossible, however. Therefore, practice should include
variability. Naturally, additional variables would increase the level of difficulty
for learners to perform a task (see Bjork, 1994, for desirable difficulty). This means
that variability may impede learners’ performance during practice because they
need to react in different situations. However, as Schmidt and Bjork (1992)
argued, adding variability may “degrade performance during practice, but can
at the same time have the effect of generating greater performance capabilities
in retention or transfer tests” (p. 215).
Insights Into Automatization: The Role of Declarative

Knowledge
The role declarative, or explicit knowledge, plays for developing communicative
skills is not something we know very much, nor what is pedagogically relevant.
Research is scarce in terms of which memory circuits are activated when a
learner produces the L2 in a communicative context, probably because of
methodological constraints. Still, this is an important question; on the one
hand, in many foreign language contexts (cf. Scenario B), explicit rule teaching
has been the norm and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future in many
parts of the world. On the other hand, in the pure version of communicative
language teaching (cf. Scenario A), explicit rule teaching is not favored, yet
empirical research suggests the importance of declarative knowledge developed
via explicit teaching (e.g., form-focused instruction and corrective feedback)
(Spada, 2011). Given this reality, the role of declarative knowledge may be
investigated in different ways. For contexts like Scenario A, a pedagogical
question would be: How can instruction help learners restructure their procedural
knowledge by developing declarative knowledge as a cognitive support? For contexts like
Scenario B, a question may be: How can instruction help learners develop procedural
knowledge by using declarative knowledge that they already possess? I will explore
several related questions regarding the roles of declarative knowledge. To
reiterate, procedural knowledge in this chapter refers to the type of knowledge
substantiating communicative performance, although one can develop
procedural knowledge useful for drills.
The first question is: Is declarative knowledge useless? The answer to this
question may depend on the goal of practice. Anecdotal evidence is sufficient
to say that decontextualized practice is effective on the development of
declarative knowledge. Readers know by experience that memorization of
grammatical rules and vocabulary is helpful for obtaining a good score on

a language test but not for using the language for communicative purposes.
Readers must have encountered an L2 learner who gets a high score on a
language test yet is not accurate or fluent during communicative interaction.
If the goal of practice is to use the L2 in decontextualized ways, declarative
knowledge is useful.
So, is declarative knowledge useful for developing communicative skills?
This seems to be the case only when declarative knowledge is used for the
development of procedural knowledge. In other words, when practice and
feedback are processed primarily via the procedural memory circuit, declarative
knowledge may be useful. When this happens, declarative knowledge can
80 Masatoshi Sato
help engage in practice of target-like behaviors (i.e., production of accurate

language). For learning contexts like Scenario A (immersion), evidence is
abundant from research on corrective feedback (e.g., Spada et al., 2014). As
I discussed in the previous section, when learners receive output-prompting
feedback, they may access their inaccurate procedural knowledge and engage in
output practice. When learners have zero knowledge of a linguistic structure,
input-providing feedback could establish declarative and procedural knowledge
of the structure.
For contexts like Scenario B (foreign language learning), the story is
different. Learners use declarative knowledge to produce a target-like structure
over and over so that procedural knowledge of a linguistic structure can be
developed. In Sato and McDonough’s (2019) study, declarative knowledge
that participants possessed before the communicative practice did not predict
accuracy or fluency development; however, declarative knowledge assisted the
learners to engage in target-like behaviors at the initial stage of practice. This
might mean that learners started to rely on procedural memory to produce a
linguistic structure for which they had initially established declarative memory.
Such an interpretation can be supported by brain-scanning research as well. For
instance, Faretta-Stutenberg and Morgan-Short (2018) showed that learners’
access to declarative knowledge decreased after they engaged in practice during
study abroad.
This conceptualization of declarative knowledge is analogous to the concept
of focus-on-form and form-focused instruction. In this framework, the learner’s
primary attention should be on meaning, and temporary attentional shifts to
language forms support effective form-meaning mapping (see Loewen & Sato,
2018). This means that declarative knowledge could be activated via other types
of stimuli than feedback. Stimuli can be instruction in learners’ first language
or instruction that raises cross-linguistic awareness (e.g., McManus & Marsden,
2019). Stimuli could take a form of explicit grammar teaching while learners
repeat the same communicative task as well (e.g., Khezrlou, 2021). From a
skill learning perspective, those stimuli may activate declarative memory

retrieval while learners primarily rely on procedural memory when practicing
or performing a task.
The final question pertaining to the role of declarative knowledge
is: Is it a detour? To answer this question, the elephant in the room needs to
be addressed first: For developing fluent communicative skills, immersion or
study abroad settings are better than foreign language settings. With this reality
in the background, declarative knowledge may be considered as a detour in a
positive or negative way depending on, again, how learners process practice
and feedback. For contexts like Scenario A (immersion), it is a positive detour
because declarative knowledge is useful for restructuring the procedural
memory circuit. For contexts like Scenario B, learning tends to start with
declarative knowledge. When this step is unavoidable, what instruction can do

is to get the best out of the input- and output-poor context. To take advantage
of this detour toward procedural memory, instruction should strive to create
meaningful, transfer-appropriate, and varied practice conditions even in foreign
language contexts like Scenario B.
Conclusion
Throughout this chapter, I argued that practice and feedback may be processed
differently depending on learners’ learning background and contexts, where
they may be afforded for communicative practice outside the classroom. If such a
perspective stands, future skill learning studies may benefit from conceptualizing
and operationalizing practice types and feedback types in context-specific
manners. For instance, form-focused activities (e.g., consciousness-raising
tasks) as a meaningful activity may not help the development of procedural
knowledge in contexts like Scenario B, but they may help in contexts like
Scenario A. Similarly, explicit feedback in Scenario A may help learners use
declarative knowledge to support the development of procedural knowledge,
but the same feedback may primarily support the development of declarative
knowledge in Scenario B. In other words, in order for practice and feedback to
have the desired impact on communicative skills, researchers and practitioners
should focus on learners’ memory retrieval routines that practice and feedback
are likely to trigger.
References
Ben-David, B. M., & Icht, M. (2018). The effect of practice and visual feedback on oral-
diadochokinetic rates for younger and older adults. Language and Speech, 61, 113–134.
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language
English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of
human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about

Knowing (pp. 185–205). The MIT Press.
Bransford, J., Franks, J., Morris, C., & Stein, B. (1979). Some general constraints on
learning and memory research. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of
Processing in Human Memory (pp. 331–354). Psychology Press.
Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A.-M. (2019). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task
performance. System, 81, 1–13.
Bui, T. L. D., & Newton, J. (2021). PPP in action: Insights from primary EFL lessons in
Vietnam. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3, 93–116.
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language
teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.
de Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An
experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–234.
82 Masatoshi Sato
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An
experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning,
61, 533–568.
de Jong, N., & Vercellotti, M. L. (2016). Similar prompts may not be similar in the
performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in
narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research, 20, 387–404.
de Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2013).
Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics,
34, 893–916.
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language
morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 97–113). Lawrence
Erlbaum.
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby
with the bathwater. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 155–165.
DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15–32). Routledge.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2009).
Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching.
Multilingual Matters.
Elsey, J. W., Van Ast, V. A., & Kindt, M. (2018). Human memory reconsolidation: A
guiding framework and critical review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144,
797–848.
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual
differences and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second
language development. Second Language Research, 34, 67–101.
Foote, J. A., & McDonough, K. (2017). Using shadowing with mobile technology to
improve L2 pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3, 34–56.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language
teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61,
325–353.
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
Grierson, L. E. M. (2014). Information processing, specificity of practice, and the

transfer of learning: Considerations for reconsidering fidelity. Advances in Health
Sciences Education, 19, 281–289.
Hallam, S., Bautista, A., McPherson, G., & Welch, G. (2018). Processes of instrumental
learning: The development of musical expertise. In G. McPherson & G. F. Welch
(Eds.), Vocal, Instrumental, and Ensemble Learning: An Oxford Handbook of Music
Education (pp. 108–125). Oxford University Press.
Healy, A. F., Kole, J. A., Schneider, V. I., & Barshi, I. (2019). Training, retention, and
transfer of data entry perceptual and motor processes over short and long retention
intervals. Memory & Cognition, 47, 1606–1618.
Kasprowicz, R., Marsden, E., & Sephton, N. (2019). Investigating distribution of
practice effects for the learning of foreign language verb morphology in the young
learner classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 580–606.
Keating, G. D., & Farley, A. P. (2008). Processing instruction, meaning-based output

instruction, and meaning-based drills: Impacts on classroom L2 acquisition of
Spanish object pronouns. Hispania, 91, 639–650.
Khezrlou, S. (2021). Explicit instruction through task repetition: Effects on explicit and
implicit knowledge development. Language Awareness, 30, 62–83.
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance
development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41,
829–840.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63,
107–129.
Lee, T. D. (1988). Transfer-appropriate processing: A framework for conceptualizing
practice effects in motor learning. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Advances in
Psychology (pp. 201–215). North-Holland.
Li, M., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Distribution of practice effects in the acquisition and
retention of L2 Mandarin tonal word production. The Modern Language Journal, 103,
607–628.
Li, S., & Taguchi, N. (2014). The effects of practice modality on pragmatic development
in L2 Chinese. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 794–812
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback
on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100,
276–295.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied
Linguistics, 21, 431–462.
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for class second
language acquisition. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding Second Language Process (pp. 27–
44). Multilingual Matters.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed
second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French
immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2
development. In M. P. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián
(Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 71–92). John
Benjamins.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). State-of-the-art article: Oral corrective
feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
Macnamara, B. N., Moreau, D., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2016). The relationship between
deliberate practice and performance in sports: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 11, 333–350.
McManus, K. (this volume). Practice in study abroad contexts. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.),
Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition
Theory and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 160–178). Routledge.
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit
instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 205–234.
McManus, K., Mitchell, R., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2021). A longitudinal study of
advanced learners’ linguistic development before, during, and after study abroad.
Applied Linguistics, 42, 136–163.
84 Masatoshi Sato
Miles, S. W. (2014). Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning.
System, 42, 412–428.
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful
output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65.
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K., Carpenter, H., & Wong,
P. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second
language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 56–72.
Morris, C., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer
appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.
Mostafa, T., & Kim, Y. (2021). The effects of input and output based instruction on the
development of L2 explicit and automatised explicit knowledge: A classroom based
study. Language Awareness, 30, 17–41.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating
formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning,
50, 617–673.
Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice
in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
(pp. 51–84). Cambridge University Press.
Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary
learning: Does gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning? Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 37, 677–711.
Nakata, T., & Elgort, I. (2021). Effects of spacing on contextual vocabulary
learning: Spacing facilitates the acquisition of explicit, but not tacit, vocabulary
knowledge. Second Language Research, 37, 233–260.
Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A
cognitive-interactionist SLA perspective. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a Second
Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 180–207).
Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2015). Second language learning explained? SLA across 10 contemporary
theories. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language
Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 245–272). Routledge.
Popp, N. J., Yokoi, A., Gribble, P. L., & Diedrichsen, J. (2020). The effect of instruction
on motor skill learning. Journal of Neurophysiology, 124, 1449–1457.
Renshaw, I., Davids, K., Araújo, D., Lucas, A., Roberts, W. M., Newcombe, D. J., &
Franks, B. (2019). Evaluating weaknesses of “perceptual-cognitive training” and
“brain training” methods in sport: An ecological dynamics critique. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 2468.
Rogers, J. (2015). Learning second language syntax under massed and distributed
conditions. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 857–866.
Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit
knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–28.
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness
of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets.
Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and
fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second
Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its
quality?: Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 41, 999–1026.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common
principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science,
3, 207–218.
Schreiweis, C., Bornschein, U., Burguière, E., Kerimoglu, C., Schreiter, S.,
Dannemann, M., Goyal, S., Rea, E., French, C. A., Puliyadi, R., Groszer, M.,
Fisher, S. E., Mundry, R., Winter, C., Hevers, W., Pääbo, S., Enard, W., & Graybiel,
A. M. (2014). Humanized Foxp2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitions from
declarative to procedural performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
111, 14253–14258.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. Routledge.
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency
acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second
Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63.
Serrano, R., & Huang, H.-Y. (2018). Learning vocabulary through assisted repeated
reading: How much time should there be between repetitions of the same text?
TESOL Quarterly, 52, 971–994.
Siegel, A. (2014). What should we talk about? The authenticity of textbook topics. ELT
Journal, 68, 363–375.
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and
future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and
integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge.
Language Teaching Research, 18, 453–473.
Suzuki, S., & Kormos, J. (2022). The multidimensionality of second language oral
fluency: Interfacing cognitive fluency and utterance fluency. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 1–27.
Suzuki, S., & Révész, A. (this volume). Measuring speaking and writing fluency: A
methodological synthesis focusing on automaticity. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and
Automatization in Second Language Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and
Cognitive Psychology (pp. 235–264). Routledge.

Suzuki, Y. (this volume). Introduction: Practice and automatization in a second language.
In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research: Perspectives
from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 1–36). Routledge.
Suzuki, Y., & Elgort, I. (this volume). Measuring automaticity in a second language: A
methodological synthesis of experimental tasks over three decades (1990–2021). In
Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research: Perspectives
from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 206–234). Routledge.
Suzuki, Y., & Hanzawa, K. (2021). Massed task repetition is a double-edged sword for
fluency development: An EFL classroom study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
1–26.
Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2020). Dynamic interplay between practice type and practice
schedule in a second language: The potential and limits of skill transfer and practice
schedule. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 169–197.
86 Masatoshi Sato
Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time
pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50,
369–393.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A
Systematic Approach to Four-Component Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Vold, E. T. (2020). Meaningful and contextualised grammar instruction: What can
foreign language textbooks offer? The Language Learning Journal, 48, 133–147.
Ziegler, E., Edelsbrunner, P. A., & Stern, E. (2018). The relative merits of explicit and
implicit learning of contrasted algebra principles. Educational Psychology Review, 30,
531–558.

Practice and Automatization in Second Language Res... - (3 Skill Learning Theories and Language Teaching Different Strokes For ... )

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practice and Automatization in Second Language Res... - (3 Skill Learning Theories and Language Teaching Different Strokes For ... )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

SKILL LEARNING THEORIES AND

development in certain contexts such as immersion education where learners

To illustrate how skill learning theories could account for L2 learning in

Skill learning scenario A: Primary-level immersion context. In this

Skill learning scenario B: Secondary- and university-level foreign

memory of communicative language use, they may have to engage in a new

• Skill learning theories can partially account for L2 development in different

Communicative Practice and Empirical Evidence

Declarative and Procedural Memory Systems

are relevant to other types of L2 knowledge such as lexical and pragmatic

Larsen-Freeman, 2013). However, social and affective mediators of practice

Different Types of Skills

skill, learners simply need to respond (i.e., production of L2 sentences) to a cue

proceduralized more as comprehension skills. Similar results were obtained with

The Goal of Practice and Its Measurement

rather, the question is whether the measured procedural knowledge is the

related to proceduralization and automatization of L2 knowledge. Segalowitz

researcher is interested in communicative competence as the goal of practice.

The Nature of Practice

effects point to two possible interpretations. First, communicative activities

examined the impact of learning contexts on L2 development measured by

primarily in the declarative memory circuit; however, after study abroad,

environments. When a learner has formed declarative memory retrieval

Principles of Effective Practice

Deliberate, Systematic, and Challenging Practice

practice, communicative activities should involve multiple people exchanging

memory retrieval. Second, matching elements may be insufficient to establish

during the activity. This argument is similar to Segalowitz and Lightbown’s

Feedback and Output Practice

Direct feedback effect: Feedback alone affects the development or

Indirect feedback effect: Output practice elicited by feedback affects

knowledge representations. Supportive evidence of this feedback effect can be

understood by delineating contrasting patterns reported in Li et al. (2016) and

practice of target-like behavior during communicative interaction, while in the

Scenario A) and feedback served primarily as a device to develop procedural

may serve as a reminder to “unlearn” (Lyster, 1994, p. 281) specific inaccurate

In L2 research, Lightbown (2008) recommended that practice be varied

Insights Into Automatization: The Role of Declarative

grammatical rules and vocabulary is helpful for obtaining a good score on

help engage in practice of target-like behaviors (i.e., production of accurate

skill learning perspective, those stimuli may activate declarative memory

declarative knowledge. When this step is unavoidable, what instruction can do

human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about

Grierson, L. E. M. (2014). Information processing, specificity of practice, and the

Keating, G. D., & Farley, A. P. (2008). Processing instruction, meaning-based output

Cognitive Psychology (pp. 235–264). Routledge.

You might also like