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-5b777bbd6c-7sgmh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T20:04:08.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conclusion: The future 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

Agreed-on goals in language teaching

The goals of language learning and teaching in general and of practice in particular are manifold. In fact, they are characterized by such a complex array of partially overlapping distinctions that few people ever reflect on this whole array, focusing instead on the distinctions that are most relevant to their own interests or experiences. If practice is to be a set of means to reach a set of goals, however, it is important that we stop and reflect on those goals before continuing.

Even the layperson who has barely set foot in a second language classroom will recognize the distinctions between oral and written language and between the ability to produce and to comprehend. Combining these two distinctions, we get the traditional division among the four skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. It is clear for all to see that even in one's native language, and a fortiori in a second language, different people have different levels of need for and proficiency in these four skills. Many people do not aspire to be good writers, even in their L1, and some, even in these days of instant global communication, care more about their ability to understand written text in a second language than about their ability to speak that language because their careers as students or professionals require massive L2 reading but hardly any spoken interaction.

Applied linguists typically make at least three more important distinctions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Practice in a Second Language
Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
 , pp. 287 - 304
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

Allen, S. W., & Brooks, L. R. (1991). Specializing the operation of an explicit rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (1999). Putting “input” in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2002). Induction in a modular learner. Second Language Research, 18(3), 224–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–51). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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
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, N. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–339.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), 473–92.CrossRefGoogle 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
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
Jenkins, J. (2004). Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 109–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.CrossRefGoogle 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. (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
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Egi, T., Fujii, A., Philp, J., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the competition model. In Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113–42). Mahwah, 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
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1999). Second language classroom research in Japan: Issues, studies, and prospects. In Fujimura, T., Kato, Y., & Smith, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th IUJ conference on second language research (pp. 93–116). Tokyo: International University of Japan.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothkopf, E. Z., & Dashen, M. L. (1995). Particularization: Inductive speeding of rule-governed decisions by narrow application experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 469–89.Google Scholar
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
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
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49(4), 627–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52(3), 597–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle 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. (Ed.). (2004a). Processing instruction. Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004b). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), 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
Wong, W. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. Theory, research, and commentary. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction. Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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
×