Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T12:52:15.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction: Situating the concept of practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2010

Robert DeKeyser
By
Robert M. DeKeyser
Robert DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Robert M. DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, USA
Get access

Summary

Practice gets a raw deal in the field of applied linguistics. Most lay-people simply assume that practice is a necessary condition for language learning without giving the concept much further thought, but many applied linguists eschew the term practice. For some, the word conjures up images of mind-numbing drills in the sweatshops of foreign language learning, while for others it means fun and games to appease students on Friday afternoons. Practice is by no means a dirty word in other domains of human endeavor, however. Parents dutifully take their kids to soccer practice, and professional athletes dutifully show up for team practice, sometimes even with recent injuries. Parents make their kids practice their piano skills at home, and the world's most famous performers of classical music often practice for many hours a day, even if it makes their fingers hurt. If even idolized, spoiled, and highly paid celebrities are willing to put up with practice, why not language learners, teachers, or researchers? The concept of second language practice remains remarkably unexamined from a theoretical point of view. Misgivings and misunderstandings about practice abound and are often rooted in even deeper misunderstandings about what it is that language learners are supposed to learn. In this introductory chapter, I will try to provide some conceptual and terminological clarification in preparation for the rest of the book.

Type
Chapter
Information
Practice in a Second Language
Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
 , pp. 1 - 18
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory. An integrated approach (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–60.CrossRef
Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(6), 1322–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1997). The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23(4), 932–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., & Ginsberg, R. B. (1995). Predictors of foreign language gain during study abroad. In Freed, B. (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 37–66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecht, R. D., & Robinson, J. L. (1993). Qualitative analysis of second language acquisition in study abroad: The ACTR/NFLC project. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (Ed.). (1986). Teaching oral English (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. A. (1997). Experienced cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. A. (2003). Skill learning. In Nadel, L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 4, pp. 36–42). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–48). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's “Processing instruction: An update.” Language Learning, 52(4), 805–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46(4), 613–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaney, P. F., Reder, L. M., Staszewski, J. J., & Ritter, F. E. (1998). The strategy-specific nature of improvement: The power law applies by strategy within task. Psychological Science, 9(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.). (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (2003). Exceptional memorizers: made, not born. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(6), 233–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (2002). Why aggregated learning follows the power law of practice when individual learning does not: Comment on Rickard (1997, 1999), Delaney et al. (1998), and Palmeri (1999). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory and cognition, 28(2), 392–406.Google Scholar
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of Learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, A. F., King, C. L., Clawson, D. M., Sinclair, G. P., Rickard, T. C., Crutcher, R. J. et al. (1995). Optimizing the long-term retention of skills. In Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (Eds.), Learning and memory of knowledge and skills. Durability and specificity (pp. 1–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, A. F., Barshi, I., Crutcher, R. J., Tao, L., Rickard, T. C., Marmie, W. R. et al. (1998). Toward the improvement of training in foreign languages. In Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. J. (Eds.), Foreign language learning. Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 3–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, acquisition, and automatization of second-language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18(3), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 developments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32(2), 245–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle.Google Scholar
Leaver, B. L., Rifkin, B., & Shekhtman, B. (2004). Apples and oranges are both fruit, but they don't taste the same: A response to Wynne Wong and Bill VanPatten. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, F. J., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Does learning a complex task have to be complex? A study in learning decomposition. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 267–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legge, D. (1986). Skills. In Harré, R. & Lamb, R. (Eds.), The dictionary of developmental and educational psychology (pp. 225–8). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1992). Shapes of reaction-time distributions and shapes of learning curves: A test of the instance theory of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18(5), 883–914.Google ScholarPubMed
Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109(2), 376–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–41). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Norris, J. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In Byram, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). “A case of exercising”: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners' performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 141–62). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Maguire, E. A., Valentine, E. R., Wilding, J. M., & Kapur, N. (2003). Routes to remembering: the brains behind superior memory. Nature Neuroscience, 6(1), 90–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Müller, B. (1999). Use specificity of cognitive skills: Evidence for production rules? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 191–207.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmeri, T. J. (1997). Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23(2), 324–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Palmeri, T. J. (1999). Theories of automaticity and the power law of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 543–51.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., Johnston, J. C., & Ruthruff, E. (2001). Attention and performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 629–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulston, C. B. (1970). Structural pattern drills: A classification. Foreign Language Annals, 4(2), 187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulston, C. B. (1972). The sequencing of structural pattern drills. TESOL Quarterly, 6, 197–208.Google Scholar
Paulston, C. B., & Bruder, M. N. (1976). Teaching English as a second language: Techniques and procedures. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Pica, T., & Washburn, G. (2002). Negative evidence in language classroom activities: A study of its availability and accessibility to language learners. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 18(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., DiGirolamo, G. J., & Fernandez-Duque, D. (1997). Brain mechanisms of cognitive skills. Consciousness and Cognition, 6, 267–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reingold, E. M., & Ray, C. A. (2003). Implicit cognition. In Nadel, L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 2, pp. 481–5). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rickard, T. C. (1997). Bending the power law: A CMPL theory of strategy shifts and the automatization of cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(3), 288–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickard, T. C. (1999). A CMPL alternative account of practice effects in numerosity judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 532–42.Google Scholar
Rickard, T. C. (2004). Strategy execution in cognitive skill learning: An item-level test of candidate models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 65–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–64). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schooler, L. J., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). The disruptive potential of immediate feedback. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 702–8). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Starkes, J. L., & Ericsson, K. A. (Eds.). (2003). Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sports expertise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners' output. Language Learning, 47(4), 589–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanLehn, K. (1989). Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In Posner, M. I. (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 527–79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002a). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002b). Processing the content of input-processing and processing instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, 52(4), 825–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: a role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesche, M. B., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language instruction. In Kaplan, R. B. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 207–28). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Dorken, M. D. (1993). Incidentally, things in general are particularly determined: An episodic-processing account of implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilding, J. M., & Valentine, E. R. (1997). Superior memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 403–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2004). Beyond experience and belief (or, waiting for the evidence): A reply to Leaver et al.'s “Apples and Oranges.” Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulf, G., Schmidt, R. A., & Deubel, H. (1993). Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but no parameterization learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 1134–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×