Conclusion: The future of practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2010
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 LanguagePerspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology, pp. 287 - 304Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
, & (1991). Specializing the operation of an explicit rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , & (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Putting “input” in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Induction in a modular learner. Second Language Research, 18(3), 224–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(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 & (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(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 (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 & (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–48). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (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 & (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 & (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–339.Google Scholar
(2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
, , & (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
, & (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), 473–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, acquisition, and automatization of second-language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18(3), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(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
(2004). Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 109–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
(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 & (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 , , & (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 141–62). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (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 (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 & (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
, , & (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (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 , , & (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 (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(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
, & (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 & (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–64). Philadelphia / Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (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 & (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49(4), 627–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52(3), 597–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In (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 & (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
, & (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002a). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(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
(Ed.). (2004a). Processing instruction. Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004b). Input processing in second language acquisition. In (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
, & (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 (Ed.), Processing instruction. Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 26
- Cited by