Book contents
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives
- 1 Now You’re Talking! Practising Conversation in Second Language Learning
- 2 The Role of Practice within Second Language Acquisition
- Part II Receptive Practice
- Part III Productive Practice
- Index
- References
2 - The Role of Practice within Second Language Acquisition
from Part I - Theoretical Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives
- 1 Now You’re Talking! Practising Conversation in Second Language Learning
- 2 The Role of Practice within Second Language Acquisition
- Part II Receptive Practice
- Part III Productive Practice
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter explores theoretical cognitive research that explains the effects of practice within second language acquisition (SLA). It begins by defining the term then traces its history and moves on to examine skill acquisition theories of language learning that promote the role of practice for developing L2 knowledge. It then reviews VanPatten’s input processing theory which emphasizes the use of input-based practice as a means for acquiring L2 grammatical features. The following section then looks at how these theories have informed modern pedagogy in terms of output-based and input-based instruction. The chapter then reviews empirical studies that have compared the effectiveness of both types of practice in terms of productive and receptive L2 knowledge. Finally, implications for teaching and areas for future research are discussed. Overall, this chapter demonstrates that research to date has produced differing views regarding the effects of practice within SLA, and as such, a single unifying view does not exist, just as there is no single unified theory of SLA. Despite this, it is helpful for teachers and researchers to be aware of some of the research evidence in order to inform their own teaching and research.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Practice in Second Language Learning , pp. 30 - 52Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Anderson, J. R. 1995. Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. 2015. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. 8th edn. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. and Schunn, C. D. 2000. ‘Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets’, in Glaser, R. (eds.), Advances in Instructional Psychology, Vol. V. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1–27.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. and Fincham, J. M. 1994. ‘Acquisition of procedural skills from examples’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20(6): 1322–1340.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C. and Qin, Y. 2004. ‘An integrated theory of the mind’, Psychological Review 111(4): 1036–1060.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R. and Robinson, P. 2014. Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. 2001. ‘Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language’, in Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning and Testing. Harlow: Longman, 23–49.Google Scholar
Carol, J. B. 1965. ‘The contributions of psychological theory and educational research to the teaching of foreign languages’, The Modern Language Journal 5: 273–281.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 1995. ‘Grammar and the spoken language’, Applied Linguistics 16(2): 141–158.Google Scholar
Chastain, K. D. and Woerdehoff, F. J. 1968. ‘A methodological study comparing the audio-lingual habit theory and the cognitive code-learning theory’, The Modern Language Journal 52(5): 268–279.Google Scholar
Chein, J. M. and Schneider, W. 2005. ‘Neuroimaging studies of practice-related change: fMRI and meta-analytic evidence of a domain-general control network for learning’, Cognitive Brain Research 25: 607–623.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. 1998. ‘Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar’, in Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. 2007. ‘Introduction: Situating the concept of practice’, in DeKeyser, R. M. (eds.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–18.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. 2010. ‘Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater’, International Journal of English Studies 10(1): 155–165.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. 2015. ‘Skill acquisition theory’, in VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge, 94–112.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. and Sokalski, K. 1996. ‘The differential role of comprehension and production practice’, Language Learning 46: 613–642.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. and Botana, G. P. 2015. ‘The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review’, Applied Linguistics 36(3): 290–305.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1993. ‘The structural syllabus and second language acquisition’, TESOL Quarterly 27(1): 91–113.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1994. ‘A theory of instructed second language acquisition’, in Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Strategies. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 79–114.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2005. ‘Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research’, in Ellis, R. (eds.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–37.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2009. ‘Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings’, International Journal of Applied Lingustics 19(3): 221–246.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. 2014. Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. 2006. ‘The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance’, in Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J. and Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 685–706.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T. and Tesch-Romer, C. 1993. ‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance’, Psychological Review 100: 363–406.Google Scholar
Farley, A. and Aslan, E. 2012. ‘The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning based output instruction on L2 acquisition of the English subjunctive’, ELT Research Journal 1(2): 120–141.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. 1985. ‘Three problems in teaching general skills’, in Segal, J., Chipman, S. and Glaser, R. (eds.), Thinking and Learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 391–405.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. P. R. with Widdowson, H. G. 2004. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. ‘On communicative competence’, in Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–293.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. 2014. ‘Eye-tracking with text’, in Jegerski, J. and VanPatten, B. (eds.), Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York and London. Routledge, 69–92.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. 1988. ‘Toward an instance theory of automatization’, Psychological Review 95: 492–527.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. and Bley-Vroman, R. 1993. ‘Grammar and task-based methodology’, in Crookes, G. and Gass, S. M. (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 123–167.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Rosenbloom, P. 1981. ‘Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice’, in Anderson, J. R. (ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1–56.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. 1994. ‘Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism’, in Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Second Languages. London: Academic Press, 393–419.Google Scholar
Rivers, W. M. 1964. The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2010. ‘Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing’, in Putz, M. and Sicola, L. (eds.), Inside the Learner’s Mind: Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–268.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2011. Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’, Applied Linguistics 11(2): 129–158.Google Scholar
Serrano, R. 2011. ‘The time factor in EFL classroom practice’, Language Learning 61(1): 117–145.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Li, S. and Ellis, R. 2013. ‘Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies’, Language Learning 63(2): 296–329.Google Scholar
Simon, H. and Gilmartin, K. 1973. ‘A simulation of memory for chess positions’, Cognitive Psychology 5: 29–46.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. 2014. ‘The effects of guided planning, task complexity and task sequencing on L2 oral production’, in Baralt, M., Gilabert, R. and Robinson, P. (eds.), Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury, 123–148.Google Scholar
Toth, P. 2006. ‘Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition’, Language Learning 56(2): 319–385.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 1996. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 2004. ‘Input processing in second language acquisition’, in VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 5–32.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 2015. ‘Input processing in adult SLA’, in VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge, 113–137.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. and Cadierno, T. 1993. ‘Explicit instruction and input processing’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 225–243.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by